Personally, I think the first thing to do of course is to ask what you want out of this. I for one am not interested in making money on this. I simply want the vehicle to be fixed right. I would only be interested in monetary compensation if in the end DCX could not (for some genuine engineering reason) or would not (the courts did not order this remedy - but instead only ordered monetary compensation) satisfactorily fix the problem.
Given my desired outcome of this mess - I think that perhaps the most prudent first step would be to give notice to DCX that most are not satisfied with the Customer Satisfaction Notice and its proposed fix. Once tended, DCX should be given the chance to come up with an acceptable remedy. If they refuse, then I think one might consider taking further steps.
One thing to note is that it might be difficult to obtain "class" certification and even if you could it might be undesirable to do so. I'm not a lawyer. Obviously, one might want to seek legal advice on the question of what would be the best course of action.
I found Flying J's link to the following California court case to an interesting and germane read.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revnppub/B152928.DOC
Highlights of the case:
1) The case involved '98 and '99 Dakota R/T pickups.
2) Chrysler sold or leased fewer than 7,000 of these trucks.
3) Chrysler incorrectly marketed these trucks as having a 6,400 lb towing capacity, when in fact they could only tow 2,000 lbs.
4) Chrysler's initial attempt to make this problem go away was to tell customers who wanted to tow more than 2000 lbs that they could do so if they had a $300 hitch installed.
5) Chrysler later realized the can of worms opened up by #4, notified the owners not to attempt towing of more than 2,000 lbs, and offered to refund the $300 to those customers who had already had the hitch installed.
6) Apparently somewhere around this time frame, DCX offered cash and merchandise in an attempt to make the problem go away. Many customers who never intended to tow more than 2,000 lbs found this offer to be satisfactory and accepted.
7) With the problem refusing to go away, DCX began authorizing "dealers to repurchase or replace Dakota R/Ts on a case-by-case basis, but only for customers who demanded such a remedy."
8) Plaintiffs filed suit seeking the return of their purchase or lease payments, compensatory damages, and attorney fees.
9) Chrysler then made an offer "to all previous Dakota R/T buyers of repurchase or replacement."
10) Chrysler's offer rendered Plaintiff’s case moot and the case was dismissed.
11) After the case was dismissed DCX continued "to litigate plaintiffs' entitlement to attorney fees. Chrysler insisted throughout that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees, contending plaintiffs had no effect on Chrysler’s recognition of the problem and decision to offer all buyers repurchase or replacement."
12) After a year or discovery, motions, and evidentiary hearings the court rejected Chryslers claim "that it had at least decided to offer all buyers repurchase or buybacks before plaintiffs filed their case" and instead found that "plaintiffs’ case was a catalyst for Chrysler’s eventual offer."
13) Chrysler was ordered to pay the fees, which amounted to $762,830.
14) "Nationwide, 2,549 Dakota R/T buyers opted for repurchase or replacement. Another 3,101 buyers opted for service contracts and parts coupons. The total value of these offers exceeded $15 million."
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
