I need a lawyer's help!

Remove all ads!

Ok, so I have a problem.

My g/f's car has a broken transmission. We took it to a local transmission specialty chain to get it fixed. Before anything else, that had to completely tear it apart to find out what exactly was wrong with it. That "test" cost $400. Well, it turns out there was so much damage done, the car need a new transmission, which would cost about $2500 to $3000 (The car is worth about $2000). So we told them just to put it back together and we'd pay the $400 to get the car back.

Well, today they called back and told my g/f that the person(s) who took the transmission apart "broke" it more. So now that can't put it back together. But they still want $400 to get our car back...just without an assembled transmission.

Is this legal? I mean, *they* made the problem worse, and now they want $400, even though they aren't going to fix anything or assemble/install it!

Please help!

 

Gee thats shocking - do you have anything like the department of consumer affairs in the States where you could this to? Getting a lawer would probably incur more costs. In Austrlalia it is definetly illegal.

 

Unless there are some bizarre laws where you live, they have the right to the money for tearing the car apart and putting it back together, but you have the right to compensation for the damage they have done by breaking the transmission.

However, if the transmission was already broken and unworkable and they only added more mechanical damage to it, then they can't have decreased the monetary value of the car, therefore there's no damage to compensate. I don't know a damn about cars, but it seems to me that your car sort of worked before you took it to the workshop and now it isn't going to work, so it's in a worse state than it was.

However again, it looks like they told you you needed a new transmission after tearing it apart. During or after that process, it was further broken. It's quite probable that they have actually caused some damage which can be translated to a monetary value. Next, if they assigned an incompetent person to deal with your car and charged you for it like for the service of a specialist (it was a freaking transmission specialist, not a backwater village self-taught car mechanic), they are clearly at fault and it looks like a classic tort. Normally, the employer answers for the employees, so the owner of that workshop can't tell you to talk to the guy who broke it. That's his own problem after he pays you back.

At least this is what the theory looks like, in general. In practice, you may have some non-standard laws in place making it easier for car mechanics. Plus, a lawyer would cost you too much and you won't go too far without one, I think. Well, you could just file a claim that they damaged your car during repairs, charged your for incompetent service etc and you want full compensation, but I can't tell you how to do that because I haven't had to do much with American law. if you have something like Stu says -- consumer affairs, ombudsman, consummer federation, whatever, go there. Usually one visit or even phone call or letter from such a person/office is enough to make business owners eager to cooperate.

BTW, my last English teacher went to the ombudsman after having to wait 20 minutes for a cold dish in a restaurant. The result was free meals forever after.

Damn, is there any plaintiff's lawyer from the States around here? It looks like we have some lawyers on SP, but dmc deals with big corporations, Beren with criminal cases and Ragusa with international law (plus he's contintental, as I am ).

 

Well, I know that many car repair services come with a flat fee just to figure out what the problem is. Since the practice is so wide spread, it's safe to assume that it is legal for them to charge you a fee. It takes quite a long time to disassemble a transmission, so the $400 charge could be a labor cost. What I'm saying is that there's probably nothing you can do to avoid having to pay the $400.

As for not being able to reassemble the transmission, that seems to be something totally different. If the car was functional when you brought it to them, but just wasn't performing well, it is a reasonable expectation that if you decide to not get the transmission replaced, that the service center is obligated to at least return the car to you in the same condition in which they received it.

I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm not the best person to ask, but it seems like they should be responsible for the damage they caused, but they are not responsible for fixing any existing damage that the car had when you gave it to them.

The problem is that you say they broke it more. I'm not exactly sure how if you can claim they are responsible for damage if the transmission was already non-functional. They can claim they are returning the car in the same condition. Before you had a non-functional transmission that needed to be replaced, and you still have a non-functional transmission that needs to be replaced. It would be different if, for example, you brought your car in to get the transmission fixed, and they said they broke your radio.

 

Do you people behind the big lake have any free consumer counceling? If yes then contact your local offcial and he should be able to offer you all sort of legal advice about the issus. If not then you should really contact your congressman since that's a great way of preventing corporations from screwing around with people who have little knowledge in consumer laws.

 

Hmmm...I am willing to pay the $400 in full, but if I do, that car better be in the same (or very similar) shape it was in when I first dropped it off.

So far, I have been told about the 'Better Business Buero' or the 'BBB' which might be able to help. I'll be giving them a call tomorrow.

As for my congressman...that would be Chris Cannon, he's new and I have no info on the guy. My Senator is Orin Hatch, who is a f***ing idiot. So I don't think that contacting government officials will do much help.

I'll post again tomorrow once I find out what the BBB has to say.