Dealership fooled me/not sure what to do.
01-12-2016, 04:16 PM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Johnathanswift
You have provided nothing but a stream of misnomers and misconceptions of law, coupled with copious insults to those who don't share your bizarre views. I don't have one, I have two, though you, as we know, have none.
You exceeded any first amendment right long ago.
You exceeded any first amendment right long ago.
01-12-2016, 04:19 PM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Actually, he claims to have 2 attorneys in the family and was planning to discuss his situation with them. Far different than claiming to have retained a lawyer.
01-12-2016, 04:21 PM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Pam C
I like you Mike, I think you and I know I was using sarcasm in reference to 'JS'. We do that a lot with people like "JS", it amuses us and confuses them.
01-12-2016, 04:24 PM
#56
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Johnathanswift
You see, you always resort to straw arguments.
Again, you long ago exceeded any qualified privilege, even in Florida.
Again, you long ago exceeded any qualified privilege, even in Florida.
01-12-2016, 04:31 PM
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
Term of Art
A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context.
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses two risks. In the law, Double Jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial.
The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art can have legal consequences. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband's estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband's injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Court, punitive damages is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit.
01-12-2016, 04:34 PM
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by rbrylaw
I guess I have. I'll bow out of the conversation as it's gotten ridiculous anyway. The OP has only posted about 6 times since the OP anyway. But since I am not an attorney, I was at least curious enough to look up "terms of art," and this is what I found:
Term of Art
A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context.
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses two risks. In the law, Double Jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial.
The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art can have legal consequences. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband's estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband's injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Court, punitive damages is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit.
Term of Art
A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context.
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses two risks. In the law, Double Jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial.
The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art can have legal consequences. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband's estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband's injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Court, punitive damages is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit.
01-12-2016, 05:14 PM
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by rbrylaw
You'd be five cents richer! 
Good sir, you are a scoundrel and scaly wag of the highest and most virulent order! I besmearch you and rebuke your tomfoolery in the strictest sense! The OP should challenge the salesmen to a duel with pistols at dawn! Should he prevail, he should impose upon the estate of his rival for full and immediate redress! I am a complete a-hole who last practiced law in eighteenth century Europe!
How'd I do? I wasn't really trying, but as a first effort, pretty good, right?
01-12-2016, 05:24 PM
#63
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by RTX
Mike & Jonathan, you guys have to start a proper Youtube channel!
01-12-2016, 06:50 PM
#64
Senior Member
@OP I still say consult a lawyer first even if you want just have a discussion with the GM at the dealership. Nothing makes your position weaker than arguing points or making 'soft threats' that have to no legal merit. If you keep your points only to the ones that have merit with no come back, then the dealership is arguing from a losing position. If you make any foolish statements (like labeling something as a fraud when no lawyer said it actually is provable) then you bolster their confidence in telling you to take a hike.
01-12-2016, 08:22 PM
#65
MBWorld Fanatic!
Jonathan is getting his scheduled sponge bath and does not have access to a computer, so I will fill in for him:
Good sir, you are a scoundrel and scaly wag of the highest and most virulent order! I besmearch you and rebuke your tomfoolery in the strictest sense! The OP should challenge the salesmen to a duel with pistols at dawn! Should he prevail, he should impose upon the estate of his rival for full and immediate redress! I am a complete a-hole who last practiced law in eighteenth century Europe!
How'd I do? I wasn't really trying, but as a first effort, pretty good, right?
Good sir, you are a scoundrel and scaly wag of the highest and most virulent order! I besmearch you and rebuke your tomfoolery in the strictest sense! The OP should challenge the salesmen to a duel with pistols at dawn! Should he prevail, he should impose upon the estate of his rival for full and immediate redress! I am a complete a-hole who last practiced law in eighteenth century Europe!
How'd I do? I wasn't really trying, but as a first effort, pretty good, right?
I'd tune into that channel. Yes I would!
