In the words of Dilly Dally Dan Viera --
I would like to think it goes without saying, but am compelled to say it anyways, this inspection is being conducted at facilities provided by Route 44 Toyota as a courtesy to NHTSA and the parties. As you know, this vehicle belongs to your client, not Route 44 Toyota. This is not an opportunity to interact with other customers of the dealership or interfere with their day to day operations…nor does it need to be. That would include your client covering her car upon arrival with large disparaging signs about the defendants in this matter. That would be particularly inappropriate given that my client’s participation in making facilities available is, again, as a courtesy.
Fully ignoring that MY car is sitting on the property of Route 44 Toyota because they refused to repair or replace it. It had NO BRAKES!
Can Toyota offer a magical solution to driving a vehicle with NO BRAKES.....
My attorney's response --
In response to your
email, please be advised that although I am legal counsel to [my client], she
has freedom and rights to express her position (and of her dissatisfaction) and
has protection under the US Constitution to do so.
I suggest your client
re-consider their decision to litigate this matter, and focus on improving
customer satisfaction by settling this case and reimbursing my client for her
purchase and expenses. It would be so much better for your client if [my client]
were to broadcast how great Route 44 Toyota has handled her dissatisfaction with
her purchase rather than her position at this time.
This is about bullies and businesses that think irrational conduct is justified.
This is about Route 44 Toyota that illegally accessed credit reports and violated privacy laws and much else.
Route 44 Toyota could have fixed or replaced my new car and chose not to do so.
Toyota could have stepped forward instead of indicating 'our dealerships are independent.'
This is about arrogance.
The jury is gonna love it!
No comments:
Post a Comment