Paint shop mishap w/hardtop

[maytag]

Originally Posted by Starter986

You're in Cali?



If you find the circumstances challenging... feel free to connect with me (PM). I'm not an attorney... I play by different rules... and my "consumer advocacy" correspondence 100% have met with success, in favor of my clients.



Gratis. Complimentary.



Good luck!

Hmmmm...... this sounds like my "collections department"..... baseball bats and ski masks?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Starter986]

Originally Posted by maytag

Hmmmm...... this sounds like my "collections department"..... baseball bats and ski masks?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Jr. Louisville Slugger and welding mask equivalent.

[thom4782]

You're entitled to the value of your top before the glass broke. They can either replace your top with an equivalent used one or you'll likely be liable for the incremental cost between the new top's value and the old top.

This rationale is the reason why you don't get a new car when your car is totaled in an accident. The negligent party only owes you what the value of your car was before it was damaged.

[JBauer]

Originally Posted by thom4782

You're entitled to the value of your top before the glass broke. They can either replace your top with an equivalent used one or you'll likely be liable for the incremental cost between the new top's value and the old top.

This rationale is the reason why you don't get a new car when your car is totaled in an accident. The negligent party only owes you what the value of your car was before it was damaged.

They owe him a new top because his window got broken?

Must be a California law. 🙄

[Starter986]

Originally Posted by JBauer

Must be a California law. ��

If it isn't law now, it will be. Thanks.

[thom4782]

I don't know if its a California law or a law anywhere else.

t's pretty simple really: the goal of awarding damages is to put the harmed party back in the same position - not a better position - they were in before the damage occurred. For example, it the shop destroyed a customer's top worth $500, then it owes the $500 either in a replacement top worth $500 or in money. The shop's not obligated to pay more then $500.

Do believe this? Well, why do you think insurance companies can replace damaged parts with used parts and avoid having to install new parts. It because used parts can restore the damaged property to is value. If the courts typically awarded the price of new parts in settling claims, this issue would have been litigated long ago in the favor of new parts for the owner. I'm pretty sure it hasn't worked out that way. The only way I see it turning out otherwise is if the shop were gross negligent and that would be very difficult to prove when glued-in glass is involved.

[JBauer]

OK now I agree. They may owe him a rear window.

Your earlier post said he should get a new top