mechanic at the dealer would cause damage during an inspection to enhance their inco

[Willlyjo]

I took my new 2010 Altima to Metro Nissan in Montclair, CA since it was under warranty and told them that the A/C stopped working, knowing that they would recharge it or give me a cost how much it would cost to recharge the system. There was no fraud on my part, since I expected that they would call me back and give me a quote for repair.

Sorting all of this out, it does seem to me that you intended to get your air conditioner recharged so it would throw out cool air. You stated since the car was under warranty, the service dept. at Montclair would recharge the conditioner. Obviously, this implies that your intention was to use the warranty to do this. This would have been misusing the warranty on your car!

Having said that, the truth of the matter is--you never followed through with your intention because they damaged the new unit your friend put in for you.

I can believe they intentionally damaged the unit so they could profit from the situation. They did commit a fraudulent act while you only intended to do so.

I would file a claim in small claims court against the service center that intentionally damaged your car and provide the pictures you say you have showing the new parts that your friend put in the car.

It is neither here nor there as far as whether you intended to wrongfully use the warranty or whether you intended to get a quote on the cost of putting the coolent into the air conditioner. The fact is, such intention never came to fruition.

I can't believe the other responses in this thread would attack you more for what you intended to do than empathize with you for the actual malicious damage it seems the service center in Montclair, Ca. did to your car.

I hope the judge awards you some type of punitive damages as a result of this service center's malicious behavior in order to secure an unfair profit.

 

[cyjeff]

Sorting all of this out, it does seem to me that you intended to get your air conditioner recharged so it would throw out cool air. You stated since the car was under warranty, the service dept. at Montclair would recharge the conditioner. Obviously, this implies that your intention was to use the warranty to do this. This would have been misusing the warranty on your car!

Having said that, the truth of the matter is--you never followed through with your intention because they damaged the new unit your friend put in for you.

I had such high hopes that this would be the post where you would actually provide correct advice.

You should have stopped with the original paragraph.

Are you saying that it is only fraud if you successfully cheat someone? Are you saying that the attempt to defraud isn't enough?

Think really hard.

I can believe they intentionally damaged the unit so they could profit from the situation. They did commit a fraudulent act while you only intended to do so.

We don't know this.

I would file a claim in small claims court against the service center that intentionally damaged your car and provide the pictures you say you have showing the new parts that your friend put in the car.

You are telling the OP to actually create evidence to be used in the fraud case against her. You do realize that, right?

It is neither here nor there as far as whether you intended to wrongfully use the warranty or whether you intended to get a quote on the cost of putting the coolent into the air conditioner. The fact is, such intention never came to fruition.

Completely and utterly wrong.

You do not have to successfully defraud to be found criminally liable.

I can't believe the other responses in this thread would attack you more for what you intended to do than empathize with you for the actual malicious damage it seems the service center in Montclair, Ca. did to your car.

I never attacked her. I said that when you intend to defraud and, in addition, are defrauded you put yourself on shaky legal ground.

Two wrongs do NOT make a right.... especially when one of the witnesses is a shade tree mechanic that was helping the OP to defraud a business.

Further, we still don't know if the dealership actually did anything. We know what the shade tree mechanic that was helping the OP defraud a business said, but that is all.

After all... he would help her lie to the dealership but he would never lie to HER, right?

What do you think a judge would say to that line of reasoning?

I hope the judge awards you some type of punitive damages as a result of this service center's malicious behavior in order to secure an unfair profit.

Never going to happen. Not even maybe.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

What a terrible web we weave...

When we practice to deceive.

 

[Willlyjo]

I had such high hopes that this would be the post where you would actually provide correct advice.

You should have stopped with the original paragraph.

Are you saying that it is only fraud if you successfully cheat someone? Are you saying that the attempt to defraud isn't enough?

Think really hard.



We don't know this.



You are telling the OP to actually create evidence to be used in the fraud case against her. You do realize that, right?



Completely and utterly wrong.

You do not have to successfully defraud to be found criminally liable.



I never attacked her. I said that when you intend to defraud and, in addition, are defrauded you put yourself on shaky legal ground.

Two wrongs do NOT make a right.... especially when one of the witnesses is a shade tree mechanic that was helping the OP to defraud a business.

Further, we still don't know if the dealership actually did anything. We know what the shade tree mechanic that was helping the OP defraud a business said, but that is all.

After all... he would help her lie to the dealership but he would never lie to HER, right?

What do you think a judge would say to that line of reasoning?



Never going to happen. Not even maybe.

Relax Cy! So you believe that since the Op took the car to the service center to get the air conditioner serviced is an attempt to defraud the service center by possibly wrongfully using the warrany.

That is an assumption and assumptions do not equate to an attempt to defraud! How do you know the Op wasn't going to get her service and then simply pay for it? We don't! Therefore it would be a very weak case to pursue an attempt to defraud the service center against the Op.

If in fact it was an attempt (and we all have our opinions), it didn't get far enough to merit any unlawful activity. The post by the Op on its face, shows the Op took the car to get serviced since the air conditioner wasn't working properly and she said herself that she was expecting a call back concerning the charges to service the unit.

Instead, the service center damaged the car so they could make some extra money. The person who fixed the Op's car in the first place has evidence that he put new parts in the car and that the only thing needed was for the air conditioner to be serviced. Then they find the car is damaged?!!

Like I said, the Op should file a small claims against the dealership.

And...submitting a fraudulent warranty claim takes more than just telling the dealership the air conditioner stopped working. It takes paperwork that gets signed agreeing and acknowledging you did nothing to cause the air conditioner to stop working which would invoke the warranty. At that point, I assume the Op would tell them about the ladder on the road. You might assume that the Op wouldn't. But assumptions don't win cases do they?

 

[cyjeff]

Relax Cy! So you believe that since the Op took the car to the service center to get the air conditioner serviced is an attempt to defraud the service center by possibly wrongfully using the warrany.

I believe this based on the OP's post.

That is an assumption and assumptions do not equate to an attempt to defraud! How do you know the Op wasn't going to get her service and then simply pay for it? We don't! Therefore it would be a very weak case to pursue an attempt to defraud the service center against the Op.

Which is why I asked twice if she told the service center that she ran over a ladder.

She refused to answer. Therefore, I can only assume that she never told the dealership about the damage.

And, therefore, was attempting to get services for free that she should pay for through deception. That is fraud. Even if it doesn't work.

If in fact it was an attempt (and we all have our opinions), it didn't get far enough to merit any unlawful activity.

Simply wrong.

The post by the Op on its face, shows the Op took the car to get serviced since the air conditioner wasn't working properly and she said herself that she was expecting a call back concerning the charges to service the unit.

That is not what she said. Read it again.

Instead, the service center damaged the car so they could make some extra money. The person who fixed the Op's car in the first place has evidence that he put new parts in the car and that the only thing needed was for the air conditioner to be serviced. Then they find the car is damaged?!!

So, an authorized person performed repairs to the exact same system that the OP is telling the dealership was malfunctioning.

That INCREASES the changes of fraud being proven, not decreases it.

Further, what do we really know happened with the friend? We don't. What do we really know happened with the dealership? We don't.

Like I said, the Op should file a small claims against the dealership.

And the dealership should file companion claims against the person.... and violate the remainder of her warranty.

And...submitting a fraudulent warranty claim takes more than just telling the dealership the air conditioner stopped working. It takes paperwork that gets signed agreeing and acknowledging you did nothing to cause the air conditioner to stop working which would invoke the warranty. At that point, I assume the Op would tell them about the ladder on the road. You might assume that the Op wouldn't. But assumptions don't win cases do they?

Oh, so you were there and saw the paperwork the OP signed when she dropped off the car?

And committing fraud doesn't require paperwork.