Quote:
Originally Posted by NoGaBiker
Man, you're just digging it deeper. Is that supposed to make sense?
As to your knowledge of the practices of the legal profession... okay. I stand corrected. Your suggestion that a corporation would litigate a major class action lawsuit (and believe me, they're all major) by using corporate counsel instead of retaining outside litigators sounded like someone who didn't know what they were talking about with respect to commercial litigation.
Wait... it still does!
|
Oh, such a clever fellow!
Okay, so I never practiced corporate law, was shooting from the hip on that one...so sue me. As far as I'm concerned, the matter of WHO represents them in a court of law is all but irrelevant to this discussion. It matters not a whit to me who represents them. My point, a secondary one, is that they have the resources to handle such matters with regard to both courtroom representation and with regard to fixing what they repeatedly screwed up in the vehicles powered by faulty M96 power plants. My primary point? HAD they had the decency to address the latter, the former would not even be an issue. They still could do this. Face the fact that there is a significant problem (albeit with an admittedly small number of their vehicles). Develop a corporate policy on owner-assistance in those cases, the details of which can be based on a myriad of factors for any given case: age of the vehicle, mileage, original owner vs second hand, maintenance records, etc. Don't make aggrieved owners grovel at the dealership level---that's not even fair to their own people, those making the sales and dealing with disgruntled owners. This policy could be reduced to some sort of formula-based approach, a sliding scale---they needn't throw a new crate motor into every car that dies a premature death due to a faulty design, nor do they need to compensate everyone who bought a car with an intermediate shaft---hell, if the thing blows at 150k virtually no one's gonna make a stink about it. A reasonable compromise is the key here, emphasis on the "reasonable." People---even those with vehicles that fall apart at 40k miles---can be reasonable when they're treated with decency and respect. When they get burned, they don't get bent out of shape when they are offered an evenhanded compromise. They DO get bent out of shape when, at the dealership level, they are handled in a patronizing manner, are offered empty platitudes, or, as in many cases, are simply blown off altogether. That's a pretty effective way to erode your future customer base---not only among the victims themselves, but among their friends and associates, friends of friends, etc.
Porsche is not going to go belly up on this, as some have suggested...of that I'm convinced. This is not about unfortunate souls being incinerated in vehicles with poorly designed fuel tanks. We're not talking about astronomical punitive damage awards here---we're probably not talking punitive damages at all. Simple restitution, that's all. I've talked to lots of people at various levels at a number of dealerships, and they offer the familiar slogan, the corporate line no doubt: it (IMSB) is an insignificant problem affecting an insignificant number of vehicles, and when it happens there are warning signs that allow owners to react and take corrective measures. That message just doesn't fly with someone whose IMSB failure---often with no warning (if what I've so often read on this board is accurate)---just rendered their vehicle virtually worthless. It's offensive...it's counterproductive...it's shameful...it's wrong. AND...it's beneath that Porsche heritage so many seem to hold in such high regard. And if the IMSB problem is as rare as all the Porsche reps I've listened to say it is, fixing it really shouldn't be that financially taxing for them should it?
And when I said I know what I need to know about these cars? What I was inarticulately trying to express in the short amount of time I had available to me was that I know what I need to know about these cars
relative to the IMSB issue. I was in a hurry, had something important to attend to (aka going to work). So sue me again, I stand by the sentiment of my statements.
NoGaBiker, are you a lawyer?...did I offend with the use of my "toady" adjective?? If so, my apologies...what can I say? I was on a roll, my fingers on the keyboard just sort of took over. It happens. I'll try to curb my sarcasm if you'll do the same. Deal??
I've had my Box for 7 years now. I STILL to this day drink in the beauty, the wonderful lines, of this car every time I walk into the garage, still eagerly anticipate the exhilaration of the next time I drive her. Sounds hokey, I know, but anytime I'm around it, I find myself whispering quietly, "
Oh Baby, I do love this car." Unfortunately, I am much less impressed by the individuals running the company that makes it. And that's a real shame.