Lemon / defect process tips (discussion) from non-experts

[sharpsicle]

In order for party A (customer) to receive remedy of a financial harm caused by party B (seller), party A is required to sign an NDA or be denied remedy from party B .
What you leave out is the initial contract of make right warranty, party B will not honor that unless party A agrees to new terms (nda).... that's coercion and coercion is duress

A buyback is an offer to you, not a legal judgement. You accepted the offer. You were free to deny the offer and continue legal claims against FCA. This is essentially a settlement that you willingly participated in.

Please, let's stop.

Sponsored

 

[AnmiP]

As much as this thread got heated quick, that was part of my intent. Determining varied parties perceptions and understandings may help us to see a bigger picture than we would otherwise.

It makes sense to me that this is mostly normal contract making and is in essence a settlement

A buyback is an offer to you, not a legal judgement. You accepted the offer. You were free to deny the offer and continue legal claims against FCA. This is essentially a settlement that you willingly participated in.

Please, let's stop.

This is where the line blurs for me between the two perspectives up this thread of legal mumbo-jumbo. On one hand it is an offer to me, a settlement. On the other, FCA is legally required to buy back my vehicle under my state's Lemon law. My offer even states that the offer is "under the terms of the MD lemon law."

If you view it as a settlement, then I would be refusing to accept the offer by refusing to sign. If you view it as FCA's legal obligation to buyback the vehicle, then by requiring additional legal stipulations such as agreeing FCA is not admitting liability, the offer is solely for the satisfaction of the customer, and a NDA section; they are refusing to meet their legal obligations if the customer doesn't agree to their terms.

Essentially if you perceive the offer as a settlement or contract in a vacuum, then the customer refusing to sign is declining the arrangement. If you view the offer as FCA's legal responsibility, then by refusing to complete the buyback if the customer does not agree with the release agreement, then it is FCA that is the one refusing the arrangement.

It seems odd that to complete a legally required transaction, the liable party states it will only meet their legal requirements if the agreved party is required to sign a release that says the liable party is not accepting liability. (Becomes a chicken or the egg problem once the customer signs)

It feels like if someone steals you car, then is required to legally return it to you when they are caught. If the thief said they would only return the stolen vehicle if the rightful owner signs a release stating that: by returning the car the returning party will no longer held liable, the return of the car by the thief is not an admission that the car was stolen by the theif, and that the car owner can not disclose (except as legally required) that the thief did anything wrong, that the car was ever stolen, or make any disparaging statements about the thief's actions in the future.

 

[sharpsicle]

As much as this thread got heated quick, that was part of my intent. Determining varied parties perceptions and understandings may help us to see a bigger picture than we would otherwise.

It makes sense to me that this is mostly normal contract making and is in essence a settlement

This is where the line blurs for me between the two perspectives up this thread of legal mumbo-jumbo. On one hand it is an offer to me, a settlement. On the other, FCA is legally required to buy back my vehicle under my state's Lemon law. My offer even states that the offer is "under the terms of the MD lemon law."

If you view it as a settlement, then I would be refusing to accept the offer by refusing to sign. If you view it as FCA's legal obligation to buyback the vehicle, then by requiring additional legal stipulations such as agreeing FCA is not admitting liability, the offer is solely for the satisfaction of the customer, and a NDA section; they are refusing to meet their legal obligations if the customer doesn't agree to their terms.

Essentially if you perceive the offer as a settlement or contract in a vacuum, then the customer refusing to sign is declining the arrangement. If you view the offer as FCA's legal responsibility, then by refusing to complete the buyback if the customer does not agree with the release agreement, then it is FCA that is the one refusing the arrangement.

It seems odd that to complete a legally required transaction, the liable party states it will only meet their legal requirements if the agreved party is required to sign a release that says the liable party is not accepting liability. (Becomes a chicken or the egg problem once the customer signs)

It feels like if someone steals you car, then is required to legally return it to you when they are caught. If the thief said they would only return the stolen vehicle if the rightful owner signs a release stating that: by returning the car the returning party will no longer held liable, the return of the car by the thief is not an admission that the car was stolen by the theif, and that the car owner can not disclose (except as legally required) that the thief did anything wrong, that the car was ever stolen, or make any disparaging statements about the thief's actions in the future.

Yeah but what you might be misunderstanding is that it truly is an offer. Yes written under the terms of the lemon law stated, but an offer. Lemon law is there to get both parties to the negotiating table, not to lay blame or liability on anyone. So you're in arbitration. You can reject an offer and go back to arbitration as @ShadowsPapa mentioned. But there is always a risk in dragging out arbitration. But the process of hammering out the offer, presenting it, and choosing to sign or not sign is a negotiation. And requiring an NDA to cover this process for your particular offer is normal to protect everyone involved. If you handle contracts and NDA's more often, you'll begin to see this is not a strange, coercive, or illegitimate act on FCA's part, it's a standard part of contract negotiation and settlements.

To compare this to a crime is asinine, they're not even remotely in the same category.

If you want FCA to accept liability, then why are you going through the lemon law process rather than filing suit with evidence to show their negligence? This is your other option, this is where class-actions often come from, and if that's what you want to see (an admission of liability and no attached NDA) then lemon law is not the avenue to take.

Most of what you said here is exactly why I always advise people to consult a lemon lawyer for the process. Most people can't keep these things straight, and it becomes a convoluted mess like your post. That's not your fault, though, and I'm not attacking you for it. It's a common thing to see and why people need to accept help.

The key here is that at no time are these negotiating points going to be considered coercion or duress, and if the actions of FCA do fall under that category, then that's a serious accusation that needs to be documented and addressed immediately. Coercion or duress goes waaaay beyond liking or not liking the deal you sign. It's a pretty serious thing to accuse, and if you truly feel you were a victim then your next course of action isn't to spout off on a message board, but to start the legal process of nullifying the contract you signed.

 

[Mr._Bill]

Non-Experts should not be providing tips and assistance on Lemon Law issues. Trying to provide something for everyone just doesn't work, in this case. Lemon Laws are controlled at the State level, and each one is different. The whole process, and what is allowed by and expected from each party, will vary by location. If you are in a situation where you need to invoke the Lemon Laws to get a resolution, then you should be using an attorney who is experienced in such matters.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Yeah but what you might be misunderstanding is that it truly is an offer. Yes written under the terms of the lemon law stated, but an offer. Lemon law is there to get both parties to the negotiating table, not to lay blame or liability on anyone. So you're in arbitration. You can reject an offer and go back to arbitration as @ShadowsPapa mentioned. But there is always a risk in dragging out arbitration. But the process of hammering out the offer, presenting it, and choosing to sign or not sign is a negotiation. And requiring an NDA to cover this process for your particular offer is normal to protect everyone involved. If you handle contracts and NDA's more often, you'll begin to see this is not a strange, coercive, or illegitimate act on FCA's part, it's a standard part of contract negotiation and settlements.

To compare this to a crime is asinine, they're not even remotely in the same category.

If you want FCA to accept liability, then why are you going through the lemon law process rather than filing suit with evidence to show their negligence? This is your other option, this is where class-actions often come from, and if that's what you want to see (an admission of liability and no attached NDA) then lemon law is not the avenue to take.

Most of what you said here is exactly why I always advise people to consult a lemon lawyer for the process. Most people can't keep these things straight, and it becomes a convoluted mess like your post. That's not your fault, though, and I'm not attacking you for it. It's a common thing to see and why people need to accept help.

The key here is that at no time are these negotiating points going to be considered coercion or duress, and if the actions of FCA do fall under that category, then that's a serious accusation that needs to be addressed immediately. Coercion or duress goes waaaay beyond liking or not liking the deal you sign. It's a pretty serious thing to accuse, and if you truly feel you were a victim then your next course of action isn't to spout off on a message board, but to start the legal process of nullifying the contract you signed.

I've signed so many NDAs I've lost track (I've done a ton of alfa-testing, IT work, and buying and selling businesses)
The thing is that when someone settles and gets a buy-back or other similar settlement and they then go out and give details, others latch on and believe they'll get the exact same thing - hey, George got it, Sam should, too! But consumers aren't smart enough to see the differences in the details. They assume. So NDAs are needed.
Too many go out and yap about it, even bragging about how well they did. It's a legal settlement - shut the F up about it and move on, let others reach their own settlements. You just can't compare.

On the other, FCA is legally required to buy back my vehicle under my state's Lemon law.

No, they are not. There's the option of giving you a replacement OR a buy-back, which-ever is acceptable to you. AND they can deduct for the use you got out of the vehicle up to 15% in your state (and it's really generous in your state! Not all are that generous)

From your state AG:
The manufacturer can replace your vehicle with a comparable one that is acceptable to you, or buy it back, whichever you prefer. The repurchase price you are offered should cover the full purchase price including license fees, registration fees and other similar governmental charges. The manufacturer can subtract up to 15 percent of the purchase price for your use of the vehicle, and a reasonable allowance for damage not attributed to normal wear and tear.

YOU have an obligation, too and can't be totally stubborn about it. As long as FCA follows the above and is within the law, you must accept one or the other - another vehicle or the buy-back as prescribed. You can't ask for more - then it's YOU not following the law. You can't ask for a full 100% refund with no deductions and get a year's worth of free gas, too, but that's what many seem to think - that they are OWED. No, they are only owned a replacement or a buy-back with deductions for wear and tear and use - you DID have a vehicle for part of that time you owned it. You don't get that for free.

There's no liability or guilt to it. IF it's a defective vehicle, they can absolutely require certain documents be signed as long as they fulfill their obligation to EITHER furnish a replacement, or buy yours back with deductions for use. You sign papers releasing them of anything else at all - because they did what they were supposed to do. So you release them of further liability and sign NDA.
It's truly that simple.

In order for party A (customer) to receive remedy of a financial harm caused by party B (seller), party A is required to sign an NDA or be denied remedy from party B .
What you leave out is the initial contract of make right warranty, party B will not honor that unless party A agrees to new terms (nda).... that's coercion and coercion is duress

Nope, not at all. You sign a check from your insurance company - you are releasing them of all further and future claims. It's always that way. And it's that way with lemons - you accept the settlement and you release them of any future claims from you. There's no coercion or duress to it. If you want this check, you release us from any future legal actions. It's a SETTLEMENT - it's being SETTLED. If you refuse then you are refusing to settle the case and saying no, I may want to sue you in the future, too, if I think of something else and any business would be a complete idiot to leave themselves open.
Next time you get some check from an insurance company in payment of a loss - look at the fine print on that check. You've settled. That's that. You promise this settles your claim against them and you won't bring it up again. Same for lemon law settlements. Thus, the term settle(ment)

 

[ShadowsPapa]

then you should be using an attorney who is experienced in such matters.

Add to your quote "...... in your specific state........"

 

[ShadowsPapa]

FCA representatives stated that the release form is required for a buyback.

So what? That's standard! Apparently you've not been involved in legal settlements, insurance settlements, buying and selling of businesses, suing or being sued and so on.
Big deal - it's what you do. You release them from any further actions from you. You SETTLE. Get it - the word SETTLE.
They don't want you later seeing that Joe got another 5K over your settlement and going back after them. They say this is their offer, you accept, it's settled, and you release them from further harm. I guess this is all new to you.
A release form is standard practice and smart business.
If you are sued and you settle with another party, maybe you caused an accident and you agree to pay them 20K to cover their loss - trust me, you'll want to cover your ass and get them to sign a release saying it's SETTLED and they hold you harmless and release you from any further obligation - that's what the release does - the party suing you releases you from further obligation. In this case, you release FCA from any further or future obligation - it's SETTLED.

 

[Teqsand]

So what? That's standard! Apparently you've not been involved in legal settlements, insurance settlements, buying and selling of businesses, suing or being sued and so on.
Big deal - it's what you do. You release them from any further actions from you. You SETTLE. Get it - the word SETTLE.
They don't want you later seeing that Joe got another 5K over your settlement and going back after them. They say this is their offer, you accept, it's settled, and you release them from further harm. I guess this is all new to you.
A release form is standard practice and smart business.
If you are sued and you settle with another party, maybe you caused an accident and you agree to pay them 20K to cover their loss - trust me, you'll want to cover your ass and get them to sign a release saying it's SETTLED and they hold you harmless and release you from any further obligation - that's what the release does - the party suing you releases you from further obligation. In this case, you release FCA from any further or future obligation - it's SETTLED.

Just curious, this was about NDA enforceability why you've veered off to the left and seem to have made it about the settlement itself and future hold harmless contingencies... pretty sure everyone is clear on the finality of a settlement....

 

[AnmiP]

Yeah but what you might be misunderstanding is that it truly is an offer. Yes written under the terms of the lemon law stated, but an offer. Lemon law is there to get both parties to the negotiating table, not to lay blame or liability on anyone. So you're in arbitration. You can reject an offer and go back to arbitration as @ShadowsPapa mentioned. But there is always a risk in dragging out arbitration. But the process of hammering out the offer, presenting it, and choosing to sign or not sign is a negotiation. And requiring an NDA to cover this process for your particular offer is normal to protect everyone involved. If you handle contracts and NDA's more often, you'll begin to see this is not a strange, coercive, or illegitimate act on FCA's part, it's a standard part of contract negotiation and settlements.

To compare this to a crime is asinine, they're not even remotely in the same category.

If you want FCA to accept liability, then why are you going through the lemon law process rather than filing suit with evidence to show their negligence? This is your other option, this is where class-actions often come from, and if that's what you want to see (an admission of liability and no attached NDA) then lemon law is not the avenue to take.

Most of what you said here is exactly why I always advise people to consult a lemon lawyer for the process. Most people can't keep these things straight, and it becomes a convoluted mess like your post. That's not your fault, though, and I'm not attacking you for it. It's a common thing to see and why people need to accept help.

The key here is that at no time are these negotiating points going to be considered coercion or duress, and if the actions of FCA do fall under that category, then that's a serious accusation that needs to be documented and addressed immediately. Coercion or duress goes waaaay beyond liking or not liking the deal you sign. It's a pretty serious thing to accuse, and if you truly feel you were a victim then your next course of action isn't to spout off on a message board, but to start the legal process of nullifying the contract you signed.

Thanks for the clarification. I think it prudent if I keep my employment (or not) of legal counsel separate from this discussion. My personal goal through this process was initially to avoid such measures unless no other option succeeded. I am aware that the NDA and release of liability is standard practice, it does not mean that I have to like it.

I also see (upon rereading my post) how my attempts to state my dislike of the terms vs the situation in what I thought were simpler terms, ended up being quite the opposite "convoluted mess."

My crime example was not intended to create equivalency, only to illustrate a framework of thought. Poor choice on my part in hindsight.

The reason I "spout off on a message board" is to hopefully provide insight to the greater community, which I now see will not be acccomplised through this forum. I do / did not claim that I was coerced or in duress; only that I would be denied buyback if I do not agree to "all" FCA's terms "no negotiation".

I appreciate your clarification of my excessively loose use of the term "liability." I took the term too literal, following the definition of "the fact that someone is legally responsible for something." (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/liability) I.e. a buyback or replacement.

As you suggested, this is an endeavor meant for the experts, and my attempt to foster community discussion is in hindsight, misguided at best.

*Of note, tried the arbitration process, where false statements were made in the arbiter's decision (not trying to spout off, simply explaining why I didn't use that venue).

 

[AnmiP]

So what? That's standard! Apparently you've not been involved in legal settlements, insurance settlements, buying and selling of businesses, suing or being sued and so on.
Big deal - it's what you do. You release them from any further actions from you. You SETTLE. Get it - the word SETTLE.
They don't want you later seeing that Joe got another 5K over your settlement and going back after them. They say this is their offer, you accept, it's settled, and you release them from further harm. I guess this is all new to you.
A release form is standard practice and smart business.
If you are sued and you settle with another party, maybe you caused an accident and you agree to pay them 20K to cover their loss - trust me, you'll want to cover your ass and get them to sign a release saying it's SETTLED and they hold you harmless and release you from any further obligation - that's what the release does - the party suing you releases you from further obligation. In this case, you release FCA from any further or future obligation - it's SETTLED.

I am simply stating this for those who are not aware of this reality. No need to be... brash about it. Please don't make assumptions of my experience beyond what I have stated in this forum. You clearly do not know me. Yes a settlement implies that "it's settled". However not everyone on this forum would be aware of the concept. Thank you for your accurate observation that. a release is standard practice.

 

[AnmiP]

Thanks all for the clarity and lively discussion. I just returned from a family vacation and caught up on this. My initial thought when starting this thread was that more community input would be better for all on this subject. It appears that I misjudged. It seems that due to the legal intricacies of this subject that this thread possibly should be removed entirely to prevent confusion within the community. Before requesting so, I would like to add some commentary for those who have followed this thread:

I admit that some of my examples were excessive (I.e. comparing to a crime). My intent was not to create equivalency, but to illustrate a broader concept; they were poor choices on my part. I have examined my state's laws (contrary to what some posters believe), and made generalizations attempting to illustrate points, not full legal arguments. (I.e. I suggested that FCA had the legal responsibility to buyback a lemon in Maryland... Yes, they may also replace the vehicle with one that is acceptable to me.) I was attempting to illustrate the legal requirement for a remedy, with only the information I had available at that point (FCA did not offer such an option until pressed multiple times, and they can not provide an offer/cost on a replacement until I order a new vehicle "option-to-option" and it is completed being built).

I also understand and agree that the customer should be responsible for THEIR use of a vehicle. In my personal example, I only find it disheartening that FCA wishes to charge me for the miles driven by the dealer & service department (~50% at time of reaching lemon status, & ~10% at time of buyback offer), and am not thrilled that over 40% of the time I have owned the vehicle (since Oct 2022), it has sat at the dealership.

I am not sure where the attacks directed at posters' lack of experience, genuine questions, and when stating facts comes from; but I don't find it helpful to the conversation, and expected better from this community.

My intent with this thread was to help others with navigating this shitty process, not to stir up a hornets nest of who thinks they know better than everyone else. New to this forum, but coming from nearly two decades of Jeep forum experience, my perception thus far is that some Gladiator forum posters are helpfully, a few are stuck up know it all's (more than the traditional Wrangler forums), and possibly FCA reps masquerading as regular users.

If I relayed my entire poor experience with my Gladiator you likely would find it unbelievable. It has soured me from a life long Jeeper (since 1979 / or 1993 depending on how you count) into a cynic. Instead of purely bad mouthing FCA, I was attempting to take a primarily helpful approach to the community (admittedly with some cynicism). I wanted to help prevent others from suffering the same experience.


As stated above, this thread is not accomplishing my intended goals and I ask the moderators to remove it to prevent confusion in the community.


Thanks again everyone for your participation in my failed endeavor.

Sponsored