[sailor]

If you DO happen to end up having to live with it for a while at least, the info I posted links for in this thread: http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487441 might be useful.

Some unofficial comments on driving it, and a very recent unofficial video from a mechanic who's posted many useful videos on the subject.

Good list of things to try or do when it's "in spec" but not operating as you'd like.

 

[sailor]

Don't be too giddy that the process is moving along or you'll lose for sure.

Look at the requirements very closely, and find the best legal definitions you can.

Then make your case precisely along those lines.

Unhappy that it doesn't meet expectations is NOT likely to win you anything, so ignore that portion of your situation completely when making your case.

You aren't going into this to show Ford up, you're going to this trouble so YOU can come out ahead.

Ignore the opposing case they can present & your time is wasted. You need to anticipate & address their counter argument to have a chance.

 

[sailor]

Lemon law case can be like using a tourniquet to stop the bleeding.

It is a way to get out of an untenable situation, but the victory can be a pyrrhic one.

Walking away even is a best case result after all the effort involved.

 

[sailor]

"My state law says a nonconformity means a defect, a serious safety defect, or a condition, any of which substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a new motor vehicle to the consumer or renders the new motor vehicle nonconforming to a warranty."


Look at this condition for a lemon law case, quoted from the OP.

Ford's advertising doesn't even apply.

TooOld - I know you like to stir the pot, but for this one you prob. should start your own thread rather than going off topic here.


Tilting at windmills with a false advertising lawsuit is an entirely different subject, and I already tried to give a BROAD hint to the OP that it wouldn't serve him well in a lemon case.

 

[sailor]

That's simply not correct sir. Notice the end of your definition of nonconformity, "nonconforming to a warranty." A warranty can be expressed by advertisement. That's just as valid as an implied warranty.

Ford choosing to advertise the Powershift DCT as being seamless is an expressed warranty. Therefore a Focus with a DCT that is exhibiting shifting issues that could be defined as not seamless by a reasonable person has a nonconformity.

Not my definition, YOUR quote from the Georgia Lemon Law.


You're welcome to approach this any way you please, IMHO you'd be better served directing your arguments more closely to the Georgia law's requirements you quoted.

Arguing that hyperbole from advertising is an "expressed warranty" gets into an argument that's unlikely to be upheld at the hearing level you are dealing with.

If that is going to be the crux of your case, I think you're wasting your time.


Hopefully you will make a better argument by the time this comes to a hearing, I'm only trying to prod you into a more productive path for your case.

 

[sailor]

I hope any dialog here helps, I've seen some fail at the lemon law process elsewhere (no details, assume not adequately prepared) and I've seen unexpected testimony at a hearing (outright falsehood) come close to derailing a case (not lemon law).

Sounds like the GA process is set up to favor the petitioner, just remember that it's not a slam dunk. Even the written response terms mention that the arbitrator "can" refuse to consider, not "should" or "must".

Clear timeline on your facts and at least a couple separate arguments on why you should prevail will help. You don't want to be in the position of going in with a single line of argument that has no backup.

In your planning, consider worst case situations like "shudder" being thrown out as subjective when it doesn't reach a tested value (the rpm variation std. used for clutch replacement by Ford) and prepare a back up argument for that contingency.

There's a good chance you won't KNOW during the presentations what will be considered as adequate proof, so presenting multiple separate arguments may be the only way to get at least one into the record that could be upheld in your favor.

Like a Chess game where an obvious attack can easily be parried, a second or third avenue could be the successful one.

The point here is that the more items in the law's definition that you can cover with separate arguments the better the chance of winning the case.


You've got "defect, serious safety defect or condition" an the front side (three avenues) and they have to "seriously impair the use, value or safety" for any of those to be applicable. Address each individually with the best argument you can make.

"Or renders the vehicle non-conforming to a warranty" is a secondary avenue to use for any of the front three situations when you can't show how they "seriously impair the use, value or safety" of the vehicle.


Hopefully this helps, and shows why I put less emphasis on your "implied warranty" approach.

 

[sailor]

ItzLOL has a thread here for his case summary:http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=497217

(Might get harder to find later)