From a true story in California in 1958, Don Higgin is our customer. The subject is his broken Volkswagen bus. The situation is the engine is now taken out of the car, the problem is found that there is a leak in the number 3 cylinder's exhaust manifold, causing loss of power. But Don is charged really high $400 and he is now upset.
Q1. From Don't POV, maybe the shop found the problem and they can fix it with a price. But what they did wrong was pulling out the whole engine without Don' agreement. In other words, Don didn't sign any authorization for carrying out such a complicate service which charged expensively, Infact it was the first day and he said he only need a tune up, which means a regular inspecting on wirings, oil changing, spark plugs change...NOT pulling the engine apart, which leads to the consequence that now the only way to get Don's car up and running is to pay the expensive repair and it takes 3-4 days more, clearly this will affect Don't business.
Q2. From the shop POV, Don's upset was not totally right. Because he said it needed fixing, which gives the shop a clue that do what ever it takes to fix the car, thus he only said maybe a little tune up. So in specialist POV, they know the problem didn't come from lack of tuning up, it's because something is leaking, so they have to take the engine out to find it. What they did right here is that they found the problem, but what they did wrong probably also Don did wrong is they didn't agree on what service is going to be carried out on his car. The shop was unsure about Don's decision and also Don's didn't get the full situation report from the shop.
Q3. If I were Don, I'd like a specialist quote after he fully inspects my car, so we both get the technical situation and hence decide my next move accordingly. If it is bad, I might have to go with the solution, or if possible, I can tell them to ease up the trouble so the car can temporary run for a little while.
Q4. If Don take the van and didn't pay for the whole repair cost, then the shop still don't have the right to hold Don's car, because this is a service carried out that:
- was not agreed by both parties, the shop did not meet Don's demand.
- a repair job that could not finished by a reasonable time, in prior to Don's affected business.
- The shop does not have any authority plus this is not a Lay-by Sale situation.
Q5. Given that Don said he wants his car fixed, maybe a tuneup, but both the shop and Don acknowledged that Don would be showing up the next day to pickup his car. So what ever serviced carried out by the shop should be possible to finish within the day. But the shop follows the problem not Don's demand for a one-day service, which lead to a tight situation for Don. Not only they make Don pay the expensive fee, now they cause Don's his loss of business. Don has more right points than the shop, infact the shop ignored Don's demand to take advantage of him, so Don deserves not to pay the whole repair cost, plus a replacement retal car as a form of refund. Anyway, the law was unclear.
Q6, Related New Zealand laws about this matter:
-Consumer Guarantees Act 1993
-Lay-by Sales Act 1971
Shop doesn't have to pay Don for lost of businesses. However the service was misleading, and could not be finished by a reasonable time(according to Don)
The shop doesn't have the right to hold Don's vehicle until he pays the whole fee because Lay-by Sales does not cover automobile.
No comments:
Post a Comment