Even if we grant everything that the dealership has alleged (that there was damage to the car, etc), how does that make their letter reasonable? None of the tweets is anything other than opinion (dealership sucks) or obvious hyperbole (worst dealership on the planet). By extremely established law, neither of those are libelous. So what other half of the story could make the dealership’s actions appropriate?
I’m not disputing which side is correct about whether the car was “damaged”. It was however neither stated nor is it reasonably implied that the alleged “damage” was in the particular form of a car that was dirty, which is (unless I’m mistaken) the objection raised by Munch.
The allegation is rather simple: Alascio claims it wasn’t damaged at all - a claim, it is said, born out by the service evaluation. The dealership claims the car was “damaged” but we have no idea what this alleged “damage” is supposed to have consisted of.
Exactly. Malthus, imagine this is a Rule 56 hearing. What issues of material fact could Route 60 raise to dodge summary judgement?
Here’s where we get into the territory of reasonable inference. Alacsio admits that the car’s condition “…was consistent with that of a vehicle that had driven on a long dirt road…” And according to Alascio, the dealership admitted to him that the car was “in good repair” when returned. What, then, other than “the car was extremely dirty” are we left with as an inference?
None. Clearly the libel claim is totally bogus.
However, what we don’t know is whether the various bad acts alleged in the letter (the things that make it so amusing) are also bogus or not.
Mrs. Alascio contended at the time of receipt that the car they were initially given “would not be appropriate for use on that kind of terrain”. What sort of vehicle WOULD be appropriate for the damage you contend it sustained (i.e. excessive dirt) - does Hyundai make a car that doesn’t get dirty?
If you read my previous posts, you will see I’m very strongly of the opinion that this the libel claim is wholly bogus.
Personally, I’d like to see the police report of the altercation between Alascio and the employee. Obviously that can’t cover what happened before the officer arrived, but it’s an independently verifiable piece of data.
Obviously, the dealership would contend that, despite the inspection, the car was in fact damaged in some way. How, we do not know.
Minor paint chips around the grille, not immediately noticed because they were covered with dirt. Plausible, fits the repair bill, and the appropriate vehicle (truck with grille guard, car with bra of some sort, etc) wouldn’t have suffered said damage.
Honestly, the only thing I can think of would be that they destroyed the shocks - it wouldn’t be all that apparent at check-in. Maybe some sort of damage to the under-carriage. On the other hand, I believe that “extremely dirty” *would *be noticeable when you check it in.
But also not “damage.”
Which make it a wholly inappropriate use of the legal system, and one whose backfiring in a publicly humiliating way is a positive social good. Which was my point. 
Even if Alascio was a complete asshole about the initial incident, and the dealership had indeed gone above and beyond the requirements of good customer service, and Alascio’s tweets were utterly unjustified, use of the legal system to try to intimidate him into silence deserves to backfire in this way as a lesson to others.
:rolleyes:
You haven’t answered my question, Dio. What car would have been appropriate, as Mrs. Alascio contended? What car doesn’t get dirty, if that’s the only “damage” that would have been sustained?
I don’t disagree that issuing a bogus claim in the hope of intimidating the legally unsophisticated is bad practice, which ought to be discouraged.
However, assuming your scenario - that the dealership was actually a paragon of service and Mr. Alascio the asshole here - a lawyer writing a letter full of self-serving lies in the hopes that this will be well-publicised and ruin the dealership’s reputation … is also bad practice.
I can see a definite downside in encouraging that sort of thing. Though once again, of course in this case it could be wholly justified: if I was betting, I’d bet that the letter sticks reasonably to the facts.
How should I know? You’d have to ask him that.
I think we now see why you aren’t an attorney.
Poorly paraphrasing a letter representing one side of the debate, while at the same time totally dismissing anything presented by the other side, is not the same as presenting an accurate, factual record.
That’s the point - you don’t know. One of the reasons you don’t know is because there is an extremely high chance that “dirt” is not the damage that the dealership is referring to (because it would have been immediately noticed on check-in), nor was “dirt” the issue that Mrs. Alascio was concerned about when receiving the loaner car (because there aren’t other cars that are “more appropriate” to get dirty).
However, there ARE cars more appropriate for rough, rural dirt roads. Cars that are less susceptible to damages typical with dirt roads. Damages that are, in fact, NOT “getting dirty”. Like body damage, shock damage, etc. It is not hard to see this. You coming to the conclusion that “dirt” was the likely culprit the dealership got up in arms about (to the extent of filing an insurance claim) is absurd.
For reference, here’s the Alascio residence in Vero Beach, per White Pages:
Is that an off-road track to the SW of the house? “Drive it like a rental” indeed…
Now, now. You kids are getting far too serious.
Anyway, thisis the best lawyer-letter ever. I still have the original faxes of them that someone sent me in 1999 or so.
Becky still practices law in Wyoming to this day.