There's risks with a lot of things in life. No one here should be expecting a course of action that guarantees a 100% favorable outcome in any of this.
People still go to court and sue with lawyers even after arbitration cases if they so desire. Alabama has a rep as a very litigious state.


I've been around a few cases featuring a variety of manufacturers and the only one where I saw a person lose was when they had a modified car and wanted their powertrain warranty honored.

 

Cool beans. Not sure how this relevant to the issue.

If you actually take your car to the track and something breaks, I have no sympathy if your warranty claim is denied - you gotta pay to play and only an idiot races a car they can't afford to destroy.

What was being discussed was your hypothetical situation where a manufacturer denies legitimate warranty work because they attempt to interpret the vague terms of the contract such that reasonable, foreseeable use of the vehicle is characterized as abuse, e.g. towing a trailer with a truck.

Now you're speculating about some bogey man data that a manufacturer may have to try to **** you.

 

If it's truly binding arbitration, you give up your right to sue as part of the arbitration.

I'm not talking about a calculated risk. I'm talking about expecting a biased party to make an unbiased and fair decision. That's naive.

 

I get that, but somehow the lawyers find a way depending on who is writing the checks.

Assuming they are always biased when you have no experience with the system is the only thing naïve. The manufacturers pick up the bill, the arbiters don't work for them.

 

I'm not saying they're always biased. I'm saying relying on a system whereby you a forced to arbitrate seems risky to me as a lawyer, given the importance of impartiality.

 

The people who put this in play believe that it is risky for a typical Alabama citizen, a great deal of them who are poor, to try to go up against a manufacturer or a tire company or a typical car dealer who can hire a legion of Perry Masons, Matlocks and Harvey Specters to smack down whatever chucklehead they can scrape together funds to hire. So it levels the playing field because no lawyers are involved.


And in my experience in the four cases I have been witness to, they seem heavyhanded against the companies.

 

Yes, that is a classic sign of a "fair" process, no right to legal representation...

 

Well, like I said, people still sue if they don't get the result the want. I think it is really only binding for the manufacturer. So if you insist and still want to crack open your savings for a "fair" process against a manufacturer who will do everything they can to stall things and run you over so that you tap out you can. OR if you just don't want to take the quick easy out settlement that most dealers and companies will offer you just so you will go away because they hate bad press and hate going to court even more...you certainly can. But it hardly ever turns out the way people want. The lawyers cost too much and the process takes too long and most people would probably admit that you should just take whatever olive branch they get offered and run.


That's why lawyers hate it. It takes a potential client out of the market.

 

I question whether this is binding arbitration then. I don't see why a manufacturer would agree to take part in a process that is only binding as against them.

Even by your own description, it sounds like a **** process.

 

They take part in it because they want to continue to do business here. It is a minor risk and not a big deal compared to what a state like California does to auto makers. But they are a tremendous market and even the big guys can't afford to ignore no matter how crazy they are and what hoops they make them jump through.

It is too bad you draw that conclusion, but since your job is to take people's money during disputes like this, it isn't surprising.

 

Because manufacturers don't have the funds to hire effective lobbyists?

Ah yes, the classic "lawyers do it for the money" argument .

Do you have any links to this process? I tried finding some non-GPTourer information and can't find anything suggesting there is a mandatory binding resolution process applicable to car manufacturers in Alabama.

 

I was responding to letsgetthisdone's claim that "The dealer has to prove misuse." In my experience, its the opposite. If the dealer/manufacturer denies warranty work because they claim you must have raced/misused the car, then its on you to somehow convince them otherwise.

If the matter went to court, I suspect the manufacturer would have data (from logs, scans, or whatever) that supports their decision to deny the work.

 

The dealership/manufactuer does have to prove misuse. I would hope someone with a J.D. would recognize that fundamental legal fact.

The dealership/manufacturer would be claiming that the proposed warranty work should not be paid for by them because you fall under some type of contractual exception. It is their legal duty to establish that the exception is applicable.

They want you to think that you need to prove to them that the warranty is applicable, when in reality, based on a plain and common-sense reading of the contract, they need to establish why the warranty is not applicable, after you have established some basic facts (there was a warranty in place, the work falls under one of the prescribed categories, etc).

Like I said, you are speculating that because they have data, they'll somehow avoid covering legitimate claims. I think you are wrong and appear to be operating under incorrect legal and factual assumptions.

 

Are you asking me or telling me? All I am telling you is what is.

Not an argument a fact. I don't begrudge people for wanting to be paid for their services. No need to get defensive, if you do it for free, then good for you. The lawyers I know want money. The good ones with experience anyway.

You want me to mail you a contract?

 

Don't try to back out now. You very clearly implied that lawyers are against your claimed binding arbitration scheme because of their desire to get paid. I'm saying that's wrong, and yes, offensive to lawyers.

I'm asking you to show me proof that in Alabama, automobile manufacturers are obligated to proceed to arbitration that is only binding on them. I'm well aware that a party can include a contractual provision for binding arbitration, but I can't see a party drafting a contract that contains provisions that aren't in their favour.