DealersEdge Professional Forums

I hope GM is still trolling this site, as I can now establish absolute proof that they are out of their minds!!!
www(dot)msn(dot)com/en-us/autos/news/gearheads-push-to-preserve-rights-to-work-on-their-own-cars/ar-BBjqs5S

Just imagine them walking into your place and telling you "you do not OWN your car"

The Bozone Layer is getting thicker by the minute !!!!!

As per the article referenced above..."In arguing against an exemption, John Deere and General Motors have argued that motorists don't necessarily buy a car; they merely buy a license to use the car for the duration of its life."


Does that just means if GM or JOHN DEERE want " THEIR" car back since you only have the rights to "use it" can they just give you your money back when they want the car back?

CTSVOWNER wrote:As per the article referenced above..."In arguing against an exemption, John Deere and General Motors have argued that motorists don't necessarily buy a car; they merely buy a license to use the car for the duration of its life."


Does that just means if GM or JOHN DEERE want " THEIR" car back since you only have the rights to "use it" can they just give you your money back when they want the car back?

GM logic makes about as much sense as.
1. Jumbo Shrimp
2. Happily Married
3. Army intellegence (no offense to all veterns).

Problem is these morons accually believe what they are saying.

where do I send my property tax bill for their vehicle that they are letting me drive.

X476 wrote:

CTSVOWNER wrote:As per the article referenced above..."In arguing against an exemption, John Deere and General Motors have argued that motorists don't necessarily buy a car; they merely buy a license to use the car for the duration of its life."


Does that just means if GM or JOHN DEERE want " THEIR" car back since you only have the rights to "use it" can they just give you your money back when they want the car back?

GM logic makes about as much sense as.
1. Jumbo Shrimp
2. Happily Married
3. Army intellegence (no offense to all veterns).

Problem is these morons accually believe what they are saying.

GM Logic= RIM Logic....Just an illusion

"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[7] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions,[8] and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives."

It is called "The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act" which includes the statement; "In addition, the warrantor may not impose any duty, other than notification, upon any consumer, as a condition of securing the repair of any consumer product that malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty. However, the warrantor may require consumers to return a defective item to its place of purchase for repair."

If these MORONS want to take it in front of the courts again they must be making toooo much money to spend on lawyers!
Ford lost big time back in 1972 pulling similar crap on spark plugs. I found it "interesting" in the comments that Ford was paying 6 cents each back then for plugs!
FORD MOTOR CO. v. UNITED STATES, 405 U.S. 562 (1972)
405 U.S. 562
FORD MOTOR CO. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.