Can I sue Midas for 2 instances of negligence/fraud upsell? Have had two nightmare experiences with a local Midas Autoshop (independently operated) in Southern California. A bit of a story, thanks for reading. I have had this noise occurring before and after braking, groaning type noise, but it varies slightly. I've had this for almost a year now. I first visit the shop for this concern recommended by a friend 'yeah ef him', about 9 months ago. To which case, the mechanic, brings me into the garage with the back wheels off. Aggressively says 'your back pads are low', as if that's the solve. I say 'ok' and agree. I pay $300+, pull out and immediately still notice the noise in the parking lot. At this point, I have already waited a few hours and need to get back home. I'm shocked, confused, but head home like 'wtf'. I'm extremely swamped with work the next 2 months, I work from home, so took a break on that issue momentarily. Several months later I take it to another Autobody shop for the concern, as it seemed to get a bit louder/worst, they tried a few things, and didn't charge me, but essentially 'don't know'. Their brake inspection passed everything for me. So, I live with it a few more months - then eventually take it back to these guys, they say 'we can't solve this, we have already tried a few things last time and this time - we suggest taking it back where you got your last brake job as it should be in warranty, and it's maybe a brake hardware installation issue'. Reluctant, I call back that Midas. 'Yeah, yeah, you have warranty, let's get you back in here ASAP!'. I go back last week, explicitly explain my concern, noise with braking, I am not a mechanic, it is occurring coinciding with braking, so this is the only way I know to describe it, the front desk sales guy seemed nice and emphatic. 'We'll diagnosis that for you'. I get a call 2 hours later... !!!! 'We found your issue, your brake hardware is loose, because your caliper isn't providing pressure - you need a new caliper for $400'... Side note: One week prior, my calipers and brake pads had 'passed' that part of the previous Autobody's brake inspection. I have the documentation of this report. I say &quot;OK, thanks, let me come back next week, I have been having a hard time tracking down this solve, let me consider that&quot;. He is very pushy, &quot;this is 100% of that cause of that noise your hearing, we don't want to honor your brake warranty, without doing this caliper update at the same time, because there is no point, he basically already starting resurfacing your rotors, and this need to be done at the same time&quot;. I have some relief, that finally, someone has confidentially addressed my issue... I say &quot;Are you sure this is the cause of my noise, I have really been struggling finding a fix for this, do I have any type of recourse if this doesn't work? No one has been able to fix this for a year&quot;. Very pushy and fast he states &quot;It is 100% obvious this is your issue, this is where your getting that noise, we'll have it done in 1.5 hours, and you'll have no noise&quot;. &quot;You have a 12 month, or 12,000 miles warranty on the update&quot;. Desperate for this fix I say &quot;OK&quot;. (Later, I realize how stupid it was to consider yet another 'warranty' and believe that, it's only on their erroneous fix, not my concern). Two hours later I come back to pick up my car. The mechanic is doing a test drive with it. Eventually, the Mechanic hands him the key, concerned I sit there &quot;Everything good?&quot;. &quot;Yep, all good&quot;. He makes me pay. I pay about $380, for the new caliper, labor, and brake fluid flush. Allegedly, my rotors resurfaced for 'Free', although I had its warranty. And allegedly, I got a $20 discount! Relieved, to finally have this noise alleviated I walk to my car, head out of the parking lot. EXACT SAME NOISE, NO NOISE ALLEVIATED. I am completely stunned. This time, I'm like 'NO WAY', and turn right around to the shop. It's 5:20pm at this point and they are both outside, without uniforms, seemingly getting ready to head home... I say to the sales-guy/front desk guy. &quot;I am still hearing the noise, what happened? Look at this&quot;. I replicate the noise in front of him. He spastically, runs to the front tires with a flash light 'Sounds like it's coming from the front, we didn't even check the front'. Funny, his Siri from his phone, hanging out of his back pocket shouts &quot;Of course you didn't&quot;. Gold. Anyway. I say, &quot;Am I loosing it, here try it&quot;. Spastically, he jumps in the car and replicates it loudly. &quot;It sounds like it's coming from the front&quot;. The Mechanic, then runs over, hardly speaks any English, &quot;It different&quot;, &quot;It suspension&quot;, &quot;no issue&quot;. I am still replicating the issue for both driving slowly in front of them, he's following my care continuously shouting the above. I'm gassed and at a loss for words. I leave. The way this was handled was despicable and unbelievable. So, I came in this shop twice, with one noise, one noise only. Each time it is 100% obvious that my noise was not even looked into or replicated. How could the guy on the phone sell me for a 'sure fix', that he has clearly not replicated? What was this mechanic's 'test' at the end? The one noise only wasn't brake related, so his 'new caliper' would have the exact same noise outcome? It's completely unbelievable. I call corporate a few days later to try and complain. It's some young girl on the phone, and basically just 'forwarded my concern' to the store manager. &quot;He has 72 hours, to reply, if you don't like the reply, call me back&quot;. She sounded emphatic. He calls 2 days later, Friday at 11am. Store Manager: He is nonchalant and condescending. I am calm, polite, and very reasonable. &quot;Thats a different issue, unfortunately, that is suspension&quot;. A 15 minute conversation, where he essentially put all the blame on me, arguing semantics. &quot;You said it was a brake noise, you mentioned the last shop said it was a hardware installation issue, so we fixed that for you with a new caliper&quot;. &quot;Thats unfortunate, that's what you were trying to go for&quot;. I try to convey my main concern, where the one and only noise was not replicated or inspected, twice, nor was alleviated, but I was sold the service on the phone as if it was&quot;. No direct responses, to that, again more semantics, &quot;When you called, you said previous shop said brake hardware issue, we fixed that&quot;. Then his voice raises, and his point is essentially I got a great deal on everything as &quot;we basically reinstalled and resurfaced your ROTORS FOR FREE&quot;. Manager, then says 'NOW, if you want to come in for that suspension noise, we can make a new appointment'. His only offer, which was offensive (not for free). Again, only ever been one noise. He begins trailing off 'well, thats unfortunate' - I then just hang up, more time wasted. My invoice even states: 'Service Comments: Check brake noise in rear, check and advise&quot;. They should have said &quot;We don't hear any noise coming from the rear, but we'd suggest X,Y,Z&quot;. I called corporate again, this time a new girl, impossible to get old girl, this time she is basically 'hands in air' - well, we can request a different manager to call. We can't do anything for you here. I wrote a bad review on google, and filed a complaint with BBB (though, in my experience anything with BBB goes nowhere). This is a-lot to read, and apologies for the rant here, I am just completely stunned with this shop and how they treated me, twice.
Let me simplify the question for you, because there is TMI in your question. Can I sue the repair shop for fraud, because they told me that the framistan need replacing to fix the noise, and they did that, but actually as proven by 3 other experts, the framistan was perfectly fine, the noise came from a broken veblitzer The crucial legal question is whether they lied to you in making the claim about the framistan. If they had a good-faith belief that the framistan was the problem, it was technically bad advice but not fraud. Incompetence is not the same as actually lying. A shop might (imaginably) offer a warranty to the effect that they guarantee that framistan-replacement will eliminate the noise, so that is a different potential cause of action for a lawsuit (breach of contract). Once you monkey around with the work they did, or hire someone else to do some monkeying around, you provide them with an avenue to avoid legal responsibility – it wasn't us who caused the problem, it was the other guy. Actually suing over this would be expensive, hard to win, and not likely to yield substantial financial benefit. It is a sad customer service tale, but not reasonably addressed through legal channels.
I don't have enough to comment but I know where I live it's the landlords responsibility to take care of mold. That being said, if it is mold caused by negligence of the tenant e.g. always leaving the window open in the rain or something, then the landlord can claim compensation. Where I live the landlord keeps some of the damage deposit he must prove to the tenant why he did so within a months time of when he was supposed to return the damage deposit. For example if it cost him $200 to repair damage done by the mold, he must return the rest of the damage deposit and a letter explaining why $200 was kept, and the receipts. Where do you live? The laws really do very greatly from region to region. It has been my observation that it's not that uncommon for landlords to try and sneak something into the lease that isn't really allowed by law.
Main Question: Most likely not under Magnuson-Moss or U.C.C.. Question 1: If a charge payable before hand was not set forth in any written warranty, it is most likely not legal to deny remedy to the consumer. However, even if it was, it is possible that it would not meet the federal minimum standards for warranties as, per paragraph (d) a warranty has to provide for remedy without a charge. If there is absolutely no way for you to obtain the information to prove that a remedy is due — for e.g. no third party has legal or technical capacity to diagnose the vehicle — that is likely also a term to be found unconscionable and void, and may be found fraudulent, malicious and/or oppressive which may entitle one to collect punitive damages. (It is worth obtaining written confirmation of whether this decision is made in accord with their policies or on a line that they announce to be recorded) Question 2: Most likely same as Question 1. Question 3: Most likely same as Question 2. According to 15 U.S.C., subsection (a) of Section 2302 entitled &quot;Full and conspicuous disclosure of terms and conditions; additional requirements for contents: &quot;In order to improve the adequacy of information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products, any warrantor warranting a consumer product to a consumer by means of a written warranty shall, to the extent required by rules of the Commission, fully and conspicuously disclose in simple and readily understood language the terms and conditions of such warranty. (4) A statement of what the warrantor will do in the event of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with such written warranty—at whose expense—and for what period of time.&quot; (5) A statement of what the consumer must do and expenses he must bear. (6) Exceptions and exclusions from the terms of the warranty. (7) The step-by-step procedure which the consumer should take in order to obtain performance of any obligation under the warranty, including the identification of any person or class of persons authorized to perform the obligations set forth in the warranty. (12) The characteristics or properties of the products, or parts thereof, that are not covered by the warranty. (13) The elements of the warranty in words or phrases which would not mislead a reasonable, average consumer as to the nature or scope of the warranty. It may, in addition to any or all of the above, be a violation of paragraph (8), (9), (10) and/or (11) based on specific fact patterns. To the 2nd point added: If the manufacturer stated that the vehicle would run at least a certain number of miles on a full charge for a certain number of miles driven or number of years, and did not stipulate it otherwise, they would have to remedy this. It is highly likely that they tried to evade making such written statement (if not written, it's not a warranty under Magnuson-Moss). If they did, and they did not define the scope of what they would have to do in the case of a defect or malfunction, they would have to remedy it by repairs within a reasonable time; if they fail, they would have to refund or replace. This does not mean that it is likely worth pursuing the matter in court other than maybe in small claims (See: ohwilleke's reply to this question for a general explanation). Moreover, most auto manufacturers put arbitration provisions in their sale contracts and/or their warranties and generally it may be required of one to opt out of it within 30 days of entering into the agreement. If that took place, first the dispute would likely need to be disputed through a qualified dispute resolution mechanism of the manufacturer, dealer, distributor and/or sellers choice depending on who gave the warranty. The specific State's lemon laws may provide for civil penalties for willful violations which may or may not be a very high bar to meet depending on the State's case law, and which is more likely to make it worth for &quot;lemon&quot; lawyers to take the case, but generally they are not a great deal more like hyenas of this segment of the law. It may still be worth considering for one depending on the specific facts, including State jurisdiction and the impeding nature of the nonconformity. (Please specify a State for the State's lemon laws applicable in this hypo)
If he is a professional engineer, then he is almost certainly (supposed to be) licensed and insured. You could probably recover damages simply by reporting them to his insurer. Also, some states have insurance pools that provide for claims against professionals that they license.
You are describing a liability suit. My sense is that based on the facts you describe you will face two serious challenges to making a successful case. Damages and liability. In order to win a liability case, you must first establish that you have been damaged in some way. According to your facts, your damages are at best, the replacement value of a used controller. I'm guessing that's what, $20 or so? That doesn't cover the cost of an attorney's time to even begin to hear your version of the facts, much less give you advice or pursue a case for you. After you establish damages, you must prove the company is responsible or has some share of liability for causing your damages. Again, I think this is going to be an obstacle for you. Not placing a warning that the game will affect you by causing you to throw your controller and be mean to your mom would be unprecedented if you were to prevail. AFAIK.
So I found information from a law firm in Florida about Hit and Run Cases. You definitely want a lawyer as it is a $500 fine and/or 60 days in jail for your case (property damage, no injury or loss of life). The good news is that if you can argue the case correctly, it's very easy to get a Not Guilty verdict. Under Florida Law, a Hit and Run must meet the following criteria to legally find someone guilty: Disputes as to the identity of the driver; Lack of knowledge that a crash occurred; Lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property; The failure to stop was not willful, but was dictated by circumstances; The defendant stopped as close as possible to the site of the accident; The other driver refused to receive identifying information The other driver became belligerent, necessitating that the defendant leave the scene to call police; The assistance rendered was ‘reasonable’ within the meaning of the statute. Given that you had no lack of knowledge that a crash occurred (2) AND lack of knowledge that an impact occurred with persons or property (3.) AND you would have stopped but for the circumstances of the event prevented you from recieiving knowledge of that the crash had occured (4) you already fail to meet 3 of the 8 criteria. This should be easy to argue in and of itself, but where you need a lawyer to assist is in criteria 7. While you were never fearing the other driver to such a degree that you needed to call the police, his behavior was interpreted by you as "road rage" and you had a reasonable fear to not wish to engage him. It's not rules as written, but it could be that the rules allow for leaving the scene because of the plaintiff's behavior and could be valid in other forms. I'll admit, this will vary wildly on the judge's own interpretation of that rule, BUT it's worth a try. Keep in mind with all of these, the Prosecution will be required to prove all 8 facts against you, while you only have to disprove one, to some level of doubt. As an armchair jury, I have no facts to support your story, but I have no facts to doubt it either. And when doubt happens, you must assume innocence. It would help if you had any hint of the officers attitude at the time. Was he friendly? Dismissive? Distracted? What was the guy who hit you's attitude towards the situation? Was he constantly yelling at you and the officer? Was he quiet and separated? Either way, get a lawyer because 60 days of jail time and a $500 fine is not something you want to fight by yourself. Make calls (the ticketing officer should have a work number or other contact information on the ticket.). Notify the insurance company of the fact that it was cited as hit and run but not proven... it could make the difference of who's company is to pay (It will be his if there was no Hit and Run).
Are you at fault for the fact that Car C read ended you? Close call. A jury could go either way. Can this accident which is now appearing on your insurance be disputed as Car A did not report anything? Essentially I'm just wondering what the odds are that this can removed from Car A's record. I think that it is unlikely that the situation you suggest would happen, even though anything is possible. Usually there needs to be a claim of actual damage for an insurance company to treat it as an accident. The usual rule is "no harm, no foul" (unless someone is cited for a traffic violation). Insurance company accident records are not regulated to the same extent as say, credit reports. You could threaten to sue the company for negligent misrepresentation, or the driver of Car C for defamation, in order to try to get this statement removed, but those would be hard cases to win since you are at least arguably at fault and fault is to some extent a matter of opinion. It would be much easier to win a suit like that if the accident didn't happen at all. Here, it would be undisputed that an accident happened at a particular time and place involving certain cars and drivers, and the dispute is only over who was at fault.
There is a legal dictum, de minimis non curat lex, which might lead to an exasperated court official refusing to issue your lawsuit (with or without providing the $1 out of his own pocket to save everybody's time); I recommend you look it up. But there is no official term for what you suggest, although many lawyers might off the record provide colourful descriptions. If you wish to waste your money on such a claim, then obviously in your view it is worth pursuing. Clients often say "the principle is more important than the money", though they say so more often before they receive the bills than after.