I'm So Mad I Could Spit!
#26
[
Yes, we are all human and accidents do happen. However, this sounds as if you're willing to knowingly let a customer's vehicle go out the door with dealer-caused damage and not inform the customer. If this is really true, then it should be of little wonder why some folks have a hard time trusting their servicing dealers and might, therefore, come on a little strong when they later notice the damage. I'm not implying that all dealer/servicers behave this way, but apparently, some do [sigh].
1.3L
Originally Posted by otherside
I do. I am the service manager. And if someone started using the attorney word right off the bat, I would suddenly have no recolection of the damage being done at my dealership. My point is, if they did it, they will fix it. We are all human beings and accidents happen.
1.3L
#27
I'm going to guess that you're reading it too literally - and that it's more of a 'if you're going to threaten litigation this conversation is over' type thing. Or maybe otherside should have wrote a book length, indepth post . . .
It's something that goes case by case. In rx8it's case it sounds like he (?) was rightfully pissed off and the manager gave him the "extra room" to vent and then he was on his way w/a 'we'll talk tomorrow'. It's when someone gets belligerent and unreasonable that it becomes a case of 'ok - our respective lawyers can handle it - get the F off my property.' And in those cases the less you say (ie Oh, we did cause that scratch) the better.
It's something that goes case by case. In rx8it's case it sounds like he (?) was rightfully pissed off and the manager gave him the "extra room" to vent and then he was on his way w/a 'we'll talk tomorrow'. It's when someone gets belligerent and unreasonable that it becomes a case of 'ok - our respective lawyers can handle it - get the F off my property.' And in those cases the less you say (ie Oh, we did cause that scratch) the better.
#29
Originally Posted by dmc27
I'm going to guess that you're reading it too literally - and that it's more of a 'if you're going to threaten litigation this conversation is over' type thing. Or maybe otherside should have wrote a book length, indepth post . . .
It's something that goes case by case. In rx8it's case it sounds like he (?) was rightfully pissed off and the manager gave him the "extra room" to vent and then he was on his way w/a 'we'll talk tomorrow'. It's when someone gets belligerent and unreasonable that it becomes a case of 'ok - our respective lawyers can handle it - get the F off my property.' And in those cases the less you say (ie Oh, we did cause that scratch) the better.
It's something that goes case by case. In rx8it's case it sounds like he (?) was rightfully pissed off and the manager gave him the "extra room" to vent and then he was on his way w/a 'we'll talk tomorrow'. It's when someone gets belligerent and unreasonable that it becomes a case of 'ok - our respective lawyers can handle it - get the F off my property.' And in those cases the less you say (ie Oh, we did cause that scratch) the better.
#30
Originally Posted by pdxhak
Based on the information provided, I completely agree it was not in his best interest to threaten legal action. But I'm referring to the someone of authority playing dumb (read lying) which only makes the issue much bigger than it actually is. The kill them with kindness goes both ways. IMO that is what the manager should do and frankly what they are paid to do. The customer is rightfully upset and is venting.
If anyone ever tells you he's gonna lawyer-up, the best thing you, the respondent, can do is shut up and remember nothing until a judge orders you to, under oath.
And that's the way it really works. A lawyer should be the absolute, last resort, used only when all else fails.
Pilgrim
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post