Car dealer sues customer and message board?

The BBQ Pit
41

Scarlett67, I’m using the New Pocket Edition, ©1996. It’s shorter than normal, but I thought they only cut out what words went in, not their definitions. It’s weird that there’s a discrepency. I didn’t quote the entire def. but the rest does not say what yours does.

Shayna, any court decision can be used in any court. But ONLY decisions within that particular court or its superiors are binding.
For example, the rulings from the supreme court of a state are binding on every level within that state, including their own court. The supreme court of another state is not binding, but it is very persuasive.
On federal questions, there are 11 federal court jurisdictions and each one interprets laws that are binding within that jurisdiction for federal questions of law.
My god…how confusing is that last sentence?

Anyway, to answer your specific question: I don’t know. I believe, but cannot be certain, that the district court’s decision is not binding on the county court judge. But it will be very persuasive precedent.

42

I’m on about page 8, mostly skimming now and just looking for posts from the plaintiff. He should set up a website giving the short version, with a link to the forum. It’s not necessary to wade through all of it to get what’s going on, yet that would give a quick-and-dirty way to spread the word.

It sure sound like the dealership in question has some serious customer service problems.

I feel for this guy–I’m gonna give something to his legal fund. If it more than covers his legal fees, more power to him. He should get something for the angst!

43

He’s already said that any extra money he gets over his legal fees is going to be donated to the Red Cross.

44

if you go here: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=160799 you’ll see that the suit has ENDED!(and been substantiated)

WooHoo, the power of the internet prevails. Over 62,000 page views, and 18 pages of posts!

Rock on.

Sam

45

Thank you for answering my question, Ender.

FYI, it’s now moot. Jim Ellis posted the following on page 17 of that thread:

Lending credence to the truth of that posting was this comment by poster FastShow:

And Chris, I wouldn’t be so fast to condemn the owners/operators of this site with regard to how they’d handle a possible outside lawsuit against them based on something posted by one of our members. First of all, that’s never happened, so you really have no way of speculating on how they’d deal with it if it did. Secondly, the previous threat of suit was waged by a member of this community, and for an entirely different reason than free speech issues. I firmly believe that The Reader would stand behind its members on issues of free speech, if they agreed that no laws, such as copyright violation, etc. were violated.

46

got bored after the first page.

i think the guy sounds like a nit-picky dweeb and would be nearly impossible to to please in any case. having worked at new vehicle dealers, i know the type. im not saying he wasn’t reamed, but i think he suffers from Felix Unger Syndrome…

on the other hand, screw the rotton dealer! greedy bastards all! i hope Mr. Nit-pick cleans thier collective clocks. you go, VW boy!

47

Ha! “long” indeed!

48

First things first: I didn’t “condemn” this board.

I distinctly said I understand their stance (And it’s their stance, regardless of the previous incidents details. A number of threads on the topic back up my comments-- the Reader would rather fold this MB that fight a lawsuit based on happenings here. I’ll dig some up if you’d like.).

My whole point was, and is, that while I read that thread, I was pleasantly surprised, and impressed, that their message board not only continued to keep the thread open, but that they didn’t even seem frightened by the lawsuit.

I think that’s cool.

And all the others that replied with similar complaints and problems?

You don’t get that many, and that similar, a story from that many people if there isn’t some shred of truth to it (IMHO).

49

The car dealership dropped the lawsuit.

Thus ends the story, the stars are in alignment once again.

50

Darn - and I had just sent it to michaelmoore.com…

51

That thread is amazing… it’s up to 84,123.

If you click refresh twice in a row the views jump up 5-10! It is amazing that all these forums from the online message board community have united like this.

52

88830!

53

It’s official! G-Man posted on page 22 that “JE contacted my attorney stating their desire to settle this matter amicably. I can’t discuss any details, as they remain to be ironed-out at a meeting in the near future. But so far, so good.”

I know it was posted earlier that they dropped the lawsuit, but we’ve all heard of trolls so I wasn’t going to believe it until the OP came back and verified it. And, now he has.

54

g-man_ae, the one who was sued, posted this on Page 32 of the thread.

He makes other comments following, including "Thank You"s to vortex and even Jim Ellis.

55

Wow, I had no idea this story could have a happy ending. I mean, I figured even after the guy got the lawsuit dropped, it would be with some bad feelings on both sides.

I’m surprised (it’s so nice to be pleasantly surprised) that it ended like that. There is hope for that dealership after all.

56

Successful conclusion? Phooey! We have here a car dealership that tried to quash Constitutionally-protected free speech, posted on a message board, by using its perceived financial muscle to overwhelm the poster (and message board!) with a nuisance lawsuit, hoping to eliminate negative comments and seriously financially harm the poster. I can’t even think of a more abhorrent business practice than that.

Now in this “successful conclusion,” the dealership basically says, “Whoops, we’re sorry. Here’s 75 bucks.” I suppose that if g-man_ae is happy with that, that’s all that matters, but Jesus, that’s an incredibly paltry restitution from a company that was basically trying to shut down free speech. If I were he, after having had to go through the hassle he was forced to go through, I’d want a lot more than an “I’m sorry.” I don’t mean money, necessarily, but I’d want the dealership to do something that showed they were really serious. Major retraining, maybe? Pay cuts? A substantial donation to the BBB? Seven-page essays from all senior management on “Why suing the customer is a bad idea”? At least the dealership got some bad publicity; there’s nothing else in this “successful conclusion” that would stop them from pulling a stunt like this again.

And am I the only one that’s suspicious of Mr. Ellis “[setting] the tone for the meeting by asking the attorneys to step out”? Boy. “Now, son, we don’t need those high-priced lawyers to settle our differences, do we? Let’s just discuss this between ourselves, man-to-man. 'Cause I’m a fair-dealing car salesman, just like my grandpappy.” Yeah, pretty slick. Too bad you didn’t think of that before you sued him, Mr. Ellis.

57

Zut said:

Please reread the post above where he lays out that the dealer did the following:

“…I offered in exchange to include this in setting up the new dealer-customer web site…”

"…Jimmy Ellis has agreed to:

  • Apologize to me and my fiancée (done, at meeting/in person)
  • Publicly state the successful resolution of this situation, and with it, the renewed commitment to customer care
  • Dismiss the temporary restraining order against me
  • Reimburse the $75 I paid for my CD player installation
  • Pay Mitch’s bill (which Mitch can simply send to Mr. Ellis)"
    So they paid the repair bills, the lawyer’s fees, and made a legitimate apology to him and his fiancee, and asked for his input so that events like this won’t happen in the future. I’m not sure what more he can ask for. And I don’t know why you’re suspicious that he asked the lawyers to step outside- that’s about as good as it gets for gestures of a good-faith effort to work things out, IMHO.
58

Mojo

…I offered in exchange to include this in setting up the new dealer-customer web site…, the way I read it, reflects an offer that g-man_ae made to help Ellis, not anything Ellis did.

*** Apologize to me and my fiancée (done, at meeting/in person)** = “Whoops, we’re sorry”
*** Publicly state the successful resolution of this situation, and with it, the renewed commitment to customer care** = Ellis promises to advertise that they care about the customer, not to actually do anything. Advertisement they would do anyway. So what?
*** Dismiss the temporary restraining order against me** which was bogus anyway. No skin off Ellis’ nose. Again, so what?
*** Reimburse the $75 I paid for my CD player installation** = “Here’s 75 bucks”
*** Pay Mitch’s bill (which Mitch can simply send to Mr. Ellis)** which I did misinterpret; Mitch is g-man_ae’s lawyer, I gather. A lawyer g-man_ae would not have needed if he wasn’t sued to begin with, I might add.

So I should have said: "…the dealership basically says, “Whoops, we’re sorry. Here’s 75 bucks plus legal expenses.” That’s it. Nothing else. Oh, sure, vague promises about “commitment to customer service” and “straight-to-the-top feedback,” but vague statements are really really cheap to make. This response would have been more than adequate had it been given when g-man_ae first complained. But now, after Ellis tried to harrass g-man_ae with a lawsuit, potentially snowing him under with large legal bills, in order to squash free speech, it’s totally inadequate.

And you know why I’m suspicious that Ellis asked the lawyers to step outside? Because it looks like g-man_ae had a pretty good SLAPP case, and just maybe his lawyer would have advised him to pursue it. Or maybe his lawyer would have suggested that Ellis actually do something concrete, rather than offer vague promises. Can’t do that with the lawyer out of the room, eh? I’m all for gestures of a good-faith effort to work things out, but maybe those gestures should come before you start a harrassing lawsuit.

59

I agree, even though it appears that everyone is all good with this, there are definitely hard feelings from the dealer, and a minimum of compensation made to the customer.

He should SLAPP Ellis.

Sam

60

I think that what Jim Ellis was trying to do is set things right- giving hima bunch of other stuff would’ve smacked of bribery/hush money. It sounds to me like Farmer was the one out of line- he was the one directly responsible for the crappy service, he failed to address an unhappy customer (which caused the escalation of the whole situation), and then banished his GF. And Farmer is now receiving “additional training”. Jim Ellis himself may not of know about the situation til later on when he got the letter (unless he was Henwen on page 4). Yeah, Ellis could be using Farmer as a scapegoat, but I didn’t get that vibe from his last post.

Basically he got all of his money back, an apology for him and his girlfriend and promises to do better from the top guy (we’ll see if they come through…), and the jagoff directly responsible for all his problems is forced to take additional training. He also has the knowledge that he started a thread that got 180,000+ views and got the moral and financial support of people from all over the 'net- he even got both the Ford and Chevy owners to agree on something. And he knows that Jim Ellis will think twice before crossing him again:). You really can’t ask for a much better ending than that.