MB of Littleton Colorado - beware McDonald's
I find it unlikely that you merely leaving your car at the dealership allows them to use it for whatever purpose they want, provided they don't commit a crime. I am not calling you out at all by the way, I am just not sure I see it this way unless there is some verbiage that says otherwise.
If I bring my car in for say "condensation in the blinker on the side view mirror", is there any reason at all why they would drive that car off the lot, let alone to McDonalds? Or a faulty seat motor, broken latch on my glove box?
Again, not trying to give you a hard time at all, I just think there are degrees of justification for leaving the lot in a customer car. It should be a legitimate reason.
The next is if the car was "stolen". I have no real knowledge of this area, but personal (about worthless) opinion is no, this car driven under normal circumstances, even to McDonalds, was not stolen. I did read an instance where a dealer employee went back to the dealership after hours, and used access to keys to drive (and I believe wreck) a customer's car. This probably could be consider stolen, since this was not done during the operations of the business, and without knowledge of the dealership, customer, or anyone else involved. Outside of a case like that, your car isn't stolen if someone had permission to drive it.
The final is what the dealer is authorized to do to your car. Which is to take reasonable actions to fix your car in a professional manner. Contract and Contract and Civil law is full of these "reasonable" and "professional standards" tests. Unfortunately, they are a bit vague and won't give a hard line to not cross.
To the most extreme, I think we can agree that you didn't authorize for the dealer to keep your car for a week and drive cross country a few times and put 10,000 miles on it? Or take it to the local track for some (legal) racing? You don't give them blanket authorization to do whatever they want, even if you sign something that says dealer may need to drive the car.
So, the grey area is how many miles, or to where would they drive your car while in their care, and more importantly, what are the damages? Even if someone would think going to McDonalds does not constitute reasonable standards (which would be tough to argue), the damages are pretty much zero, so in this case, all the discussion is pretty meaningless.
Full disclaimer: I'm sure it is obvious, I am not a lawyer, although I work with one on professional contracts weekly, and I'm sure our resident lawyers can find some cases that go the other way, or fault in the actually wording I use.
All of that said, the OP SMa2c specifically said they were not looking for anything, but were disappointed and had his(/her) trust broken. I might feel the same way, nobody wants their car used by other people to run errands. I don't eat in my car, so I don't want the tech doing the same either (and yes, I know we don't really know if they actually ate in the car). It is disappointing that your car is not treated how you would treat it.
This McDonalds situation is more just an unfortunate intrusion of the real world into the normal, professional relationship between dealer and owner. It's mildly disrespectful. Like when you're at Applebee's and you realize your urologist is drunk at the bar making dick jokes. Poor form. No real harm done.
The dealership is less likely to perform certain warranty work if the manufacturer reimburses less than it takes to correct the issue. So if it usually takes 4.0 hrs labor to perform a repair that Mercedes reimburses only 2.0 hrs of labor for...well you do the math...the dealership loses money on that job.
Let me count the ways I came to this "assumption"...
1. The car was at the dealership at the time on the receipt.
2. The car was picked up 6.5 hours after the time on the receipt.
2. I was not in town at that time.
3. The McDonald's is on Broadway, the dealer is on Broadway.
4. I do not eat McDonald's.
5. I do not eat in my car.
6. My wife and kids do not eat at McDonald's.
7. My wife and kids do not eat in my car.
8. My wife does not drive this car (kids too young to drive).
9. I only commute in this car.
10. There is never any trash or other artifacts in my car.
I am not an attorney but...
The bad news is your tech did not go to McDonalds. Your tech's crack dealer, however, is another story.
Last edited by Mike5215; Aug 8, 2016 at 09:28 PM.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Have you ever stepped foot in a non-luxury car dealership service department? It's horrendous. It's like walking into the stone age.
Trust me. My MB SA for the past ten years is also a close family friend. Get a few beers in him and you wouldn't believe the crazy stuff that goes on. It's universal. Doesn't matter whose logo is on the side of the building.
Believe me, the only training that tech got was a reminder not to leave behind the wrapper if he takes a customer's car thru McDonalds.
Last edited by Mike5215; Aug 9, 2016 at 12:49 AM.
The next is if the car was "stolen". I have no real knowledge of this area, but personal (about worthless) opinion is no, this car driven under normal circumstances, even to McDonalds, was not stolen. I did read an instance where a dealer employee went back to the dealership after hours, and used access to keys to drive (and I believe wreck) a customer's car. This probably could be consider stolen, since this was not done during the operations of the business, and without knowledge of the dealership, customer, or anyone else involved. Outside of a case like that, your car isn't stolen if someone had permission to drive it.
The final is what the dealer is authorized to do to your car. Which is to take reasonable actions to fix your car in a professional manner. Contract and Contract and Civil law is full of these "reasonable" and "professional standards" tests. Unfortunately, they are a bit vague and won't give a hard line to not cross.
To the most extreme, I think we can agree that you didn't authorize for the dealer to keep your car for a week and drive cross country a few times and put 10,000 miles on it? Or take it to the local track for some (legal) racing? You don't give them blanket authorization to do whatever they want, even if you sign something that says dealer may need to drive the car.
So, the grey area is how many miles, or to where would they drive your car while in their care, and more importantly, what are the damages? Even if someone would think going to McDonalds does not constitute reasonable standards (which would be tough to argue), the damages are pretty much zero, so in this case, all the discussion is pretty meaningless.
Full disclaimer: I'm sure it is obvious, I am not a lawyer, although I work with one on professional contracts weekly, and I'm sure our resident lawyers can find some cases that go the other way, or fault in the actually wording I use.
All of that said, the OP SMa2c specifically said they were not looking for anything, but were disappointed and had his(/her) trust broken. I might feel the same way, nobody wants their car used by other people to run errands. I don't eat in my car, so I don't want the tech doing the same either (and yes, I know we don't really know if they actually ate in the car). It is disappointing that your car is not treated how you would treat it.
The text you quoted was directed at Mike5215, asking him where he got the information he did, which is a kind of a side convo on what constitutes right and wrong and reasonable. Maybe I am missing something?

Of course there was no crime committed and no harm done and I do not think that was ever the question.
The text you quoted was directed at Mike5215, asking him where he got the information he did, which is a kind of a side convo on what constitutes right and wrong and reasonable. Maybe I am missing something?

Of course there was no crime committed and no harm done and I do not think that was ever the question.
. My original intent was to try to bring some clarity around the "what are they really authorized to do", but I just kept on typing. Then I added the last bit, just trying to bring the thing full circle, answer some questions, and tie it back to the OP, who didn't mention unauthorized, stolen etc., but it was still a valid discussion. If you prefer I didn't quote you, that's ok, let me know and I can edit my post.
I can give you another example of how this worked at a dealership. A client took his C63 in for service. While he was there, a customer in the waiting room who was interested in how a C63 performed convinced the service manager to allow the customer to accompany the service tech on a "check" ride. That check ride included accelerating to well over 100 miles per hour. The check ride also resulted in the driver being ticketed for excessive speed. The client not only had his personal property abused but had to reconcile the issue with his insurance company who intended to add cost to his policy because he had allowed the car to be operated in an improper manner. The Mercedes dealership settled out of court.
Regardless of the wording on the service agreement, the car is there for the purpose of being serviced and any other use is not authorized.
The OP should advise the dealership that he intends to seek legal counsel. They are responsible, period.
Maybe some mental anguish that his fine, German, Luxury Automobile had to bear the torture of the McD's drive through lane.

EDIT: Should add that like the OP, I personally would be mad, and dissapointed though, just don't see anything to do about it.
Last edited by z28lt1; Aug 9, 2016 at 06:25 PM.

[/QUOTE]No of course not, not all. Just all my years in forums it's mostly been when you quote someone you're either agreeing, refuting or asking a question. Just seemed ambiguous which threw me.
Absolutely all good. 😁
I can give you another example of how this worked at a dealership. A client took his C63 in for service. While he was there, a customer in the waiting room who was interested in how a C63 performed convinced the service manager to allow the customer to accompany the service tech on a "check" ride. That check ride included accelerating to well over 100 miles per hour. The check ride also resulted in the driver being ticketed for excessive speed. The client not only had his personal property abused but had to reconcile the issue with his insurance company who intended to add cost to his policy because he had allowed the car to be operated in an improper manner. The Mercedes dealership settled out of court.
Regardless of the wording on the service agreement, the car is there for the purpose of being serviced and any other use is not authorized.
The OP should advise the dealership that he intends to seek legal counsel. They are responsible, period.
Forget the "what ifs". Hypotheticals have no foundation in law. What if he pulled out of McDonalds and killed a pedestrian?! What if the tech saw a customer choking on a McNugget and saved their life with the Heimlich?! All irrelevant. Nothing happened. No crime was committed, no tort was committed, no contract was breached. Nada. No damages.
Regardless of the wording of the repair authorization? The wording is the basis for the agreement.
The OP is owed an apology, and I think a free detail would square things up fine. The rest I'm afraid he'll just need to get over.
Let me give some personal background here. Last year, during an outpatient back surgery, the doc lost control of a drill. The net result was a permanent loss of bladder control and the total loss of sensation on one side of my trunk, from midline of my junk out to my hip.
I have the largest law firm in Florida, and one of the largest in the country. They're still not certain we have a medical malpractice case. For real.
I'm pretty sure nobody is going to be suing Mercedes Benz Of Littleton over Burgergate.




I can give you another example of how this worked at a dealership. A client took his C63 in for service. While he was there, a customer in the waiting room who was interested in how a C63 performed convinced the service manager to allow the customer to accompany the service tech on a "check" ride. That check ride included accelerating to well over 100 miles per hour. The check ride also resulted in the driver being ticketed for excessive speed. The client not only had his personal property abused but had to reconcile the issue with his insurance company who intended to add cost to his policy because he had allowed the car to be operated in an improper manner. The Mercedes dealership settled out of court.
Regardless of the wording on the service agreement, the car is there for the purpose of being serviced and any other use is not authorized.
The OP should advise the dealership that he intends to seek legal counsel. They are responsible, period.
I'd complain like hell and add that trash was left in my car.......simply unacceptable.......
sorry it happened to you OP, I'd raise hell even if it didn't seem like a big deal......it's the principle........
Last edited by Mike5215; Aug 10, 2016 at 12:20 PM.
haha, I know it's not kennedy, but OP was upset and I read a lot of comments saying it wasn't a big deal......but it is to OP





.

