[ QUOTE ]
Steve,
I can appreciate that, but here is where my point of reference lays. If GM does in fact have records of the builds where they have claimed along that they don't, doesn't that open them up to the following suit. A guy files claim against GM stating that GM could have released these documents years earlier and prevented him from buying a car that he thought was a real Copo? Couldn't they argue that had GM released that info years earlier that it could very well have prevented a lot of misrepresented deals. Doesn't this give merit to a lawsuit against GM?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it would be thrown out. Unfortunately in our wonderfully litigious society most people seem to believe the following mantra: "It's never my fault, who can I sue?". You cant sue GM for not preventing you from getting ripped off. The responsibility is on the buyer, absent total misrepresentation, to verify what he's got. Didnt we all see the Brady Bunch episode on "Caveat Emptor"? where Greg buys the 57 Chevy????
for $350 and gets ripped off.
I equate these lawsuits to the "Wrongful Life" lawsuits. You're probably familiar with "Wrongful Death" where someone rightfully sues another person, like a drunk driver for killing their family member. Well, in wrongful life lawsuits, they sue the doctor for allowing their "defective" child to be born claiming: if I had known the child would have had this defect, I would have aborted him. You have people suing for all sorts of defects like brain damage, birth defects, attention deficit disorder, failure to clean up their rooms, etc. But who's to blame? Are you really going to try to make a doctor pay for letting your child exist? .....Are you going to make GM pay for letting you buy a "birth defective" car? And where does it stop? Do you sue for the car having the wrong shade of green on it now, versus what is was built with? Rallye green vs. British racing Green?
Just thought I'd start y'all on a nice slippery slope.
