Jan 30, 2007 5:34:10 PM
- easy_rider911
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: London , United Kingdom
- Posts: 22190, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 8, 2004
- Reply to: nberry
Re: Game over Nick
Ahh, welcome back Nick. So you do want your balls back. 
Not so fast - I guess I have to squeeze them a bit harder to get you to concede! 
I needn't repeat myself since the answer was already provided to you previously so I'll just quote my previous posts which you didn't read carefully.
I guess your attention must be somewhat distracted by the pain of having your balls clasped so hard. 
I wrote "Nick, I can anticipate what your 'justification' might be for your blatant U-turn. Yes, I know Porsche930S claims that his car started leaking right from the start whereas mrcohanian's fault manifested itself at 4000 miles. However, both Porsche930S's and mrcohanian's problems are latent defects from the time of manufacture that passed factory quality control/PDIs etc. In Porsche930S's case, the problem surfaced immediately after customer delivery whereas mrcohanian's latent defect manifested itself some 2 months later. The 2 situations are not materially different".
I subsequently elaborated on this as follows:
"mrcohanian's engine problem and Porsche930S's problem are both due to defective manufacturing (be it parts, labour etc). All that differs is WHEN their respective problems surfaced. Porsche930S's latent (hidden) defect surfaced immediately after delivery. mrcohanian's latent defect surfaced after 2 months and 4000 miles of driving. That doesn't mean that mrcohanian's defect didn't exist before the 4000 miles had been driven. His defect had been there all along but had merely not surfaced yet. As such, both defects were there all along. They merely manifested themselves 2 months apart. IMO their situations are not materially different in law. mrcohanian's and Porsche930S's remedies ought to be the same as a result".
Nick, even you should realise now that your ship has sunk. Give up the ghost man. You've been sunk by your own words
Not so fast - I guess I have to squeeze them a bit harder to get you to concede! I needn't repeat myself since the answer was already provided to you previously so I'll just quote my previous posts which you didn't read carefully.
I guess your attention must be somewhat distracted by the pain of having your balls clasped so hard. I wrote "Nick, I can anticipate what your 'justification' might be for your blatant U-turn. Yes, I know Porsche930S claims that his car started leaking right from the start whereas mrcohanian's fault manifested itself at 4000 miles. However, both Porsche930S's and mrcohanian's problems are latent defects from the time of manufacture that passed factory quality control/PDIs etc. In Porsche930S's case, the problem surfaced immediately after customer delivery whereas mrcohanian's latent defect manifested itself some 2 months later. The 2 situations are not materially different".
I subsequently elaborated on this as follows:
"mrcohanian's engine problem and Porsche930S's problem are both due to defective manufacturing (be it parts, labour etc). All that differs is WHEN their respective problems surfaced. Porsche930S's latent (hidden) defect surfaced immediately after delivery. mrcohanian's latent defect surfaced after 2 months and 4000 miles of driving. That doesn't mean that mrcohanian's defect didn't exist before the 4000 miles had been driven. His defect had been there all along but had merely not surfaced yet. As such, both defects were there all along. They merely manifested themselves 2 months apart. IMO their situations are not materially different in law. mrcohanian's and Porsche930S's remedies ought to be the same as a result".
Nick, even you should realise now that your ship has sunk. Give up the ghost man. You've been sunk by your own words
They were there all the time so both cases are materially the same. So the accusation that you blatantly did a U-turn stands proven since you gave 2 different opinions in substantially similar cases. Now who's being obtuse? 
