I think I said "What if you wreck a dealers car during a test drive?" And along with that scenario I posited the thought that the dealer should allow ME to fix the car- and if the dealer refused then I could say they were being unreasonable.
It was an analogy to this situation in which the dealer (or I should say the dealer's cheerleader) felt the dealer had a right to retain and fix the owners car. And to the argument that the M5 owner was 'unreasonable' when he pulled his car out.
Sarafil- the driver/employee was fired. I realize it is a BIG stretch, but can we agree he wasn't on an authorized test drive? He was a lot monkey as I gather, NOT a person that did nor was qualified to do test drives. I think even ttured has given up on "he was doing a tst drive that was part of the normal service' theory
Finally the dealer has certain legal 'duties' when accepting a car for service. One is to exercise reasonable care. While the dealer didn't wreck the car, the dealer perhaps had poor policies and controls in place to control access to keys, and perhaps has a pattern of this kind of thing. At the end of the end of the day, this can grind out and turn into a legal colonoscopy for the dealership... perhaps he enjoys this kind of thing, or his insurer is saying we'll handle it...or business is such that he isn't paying much attention.... who knows? Generally most owners realize that the loss versus the legal cost analysis makes most actions 'non-economical'.... It is the notable one out of a thousand case, like the doctor with the repainted BMW as a new car that said "take this all the way no matter what the cost" that sets that landmark case...but the other 999 customers just get screwed
Last edited by ard; 09-09-2010 at 12:00 AM.