QUINCY IL DODGE DEALER SUCKS

I think that you are kinda beating a dead horse here. It was simply a combination question / suggestion that was shown not to be usable in this situation but the dealer is not fulfilling his obligation to the customer just the same. It does appear however that there is a federal law that does not have the same time limit and perhaps the OP might want to look it up and proceed from there.

Wow ................ I've gotta start checking this group more often now. Haven't been ignoring it that long and old Tom has gone from the guy with answers to a regular little shade tree troll. What the hell you guys been feeding these people......lol.....

Jerry

Now you're twisting like a leaf... I said the Lemon Laws only applied to new vehicles. YOU said, "please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon". I did just that. Now you want to spin it around to talk about original vs. second owners. I never said his truck was a used vehicle... my claim this whole time was that his vehicle was TOO OLD to qualify under a Lemon Law.

But we weren't talking about Federal breech of contract laws... we (specifically, YOU) were discussing Lemon Laws, which are administered by the State, and ONLY APPLY for a limited amount of time to NEW vehicles (in other words, to the original owner).

That's because they DON'T... because they're not covered under LEMON LAWS - which is what you initially suggested. You didn't even know the difference until you read the page that I linked for you.

Well, who can argue with THAT definition.... "it is what it is". Fascinating...

Wow... "to hell with what the laws say... if I think something is so, then it's gotta be". Yeah - you could refer to any vehicle at any point in it's lifetime as a "lemon" - that's just a slang term. But when you start invoking Lemon Laws, that's a specific legal remedy that has very specific restrictions placed on it, so regardless of what you think, or how you feel, a 5-year old vehicle can NOT qualify for remediation under any state's "Lemon Law". Period. End of story.

Yeah... and if my aunt had balls...

Bottom line - vehicle is too old - doesn't qualify under Lemon Law (unless you can find me a State statute that extends Lemon Law protection to, say, 7 years and/or 70,000 miles). There's no "almost qualifies", or "gee, it's so close"... it's black or white. It either does or it doesn't. In this particular case (despite to your inference to the contrary), it doesn't.

We all agree that that's not right, and can be addressed through other means. Lemon Law filings aren't one of them.

Period. End of story.

You know it's not the end, I know its not the end, everybody here knows tbone will never let you get the last word in...

Denny

Really??? How about where you said " You'll notice they specifically say "applies to new cars", and mention nothing about used vehicles." You were the one that specifically mentioned used cars, not me. I thought that you were trying to make a particular point on something that I may have missed but now I see that you are just being an asshole. Now who is twisting like a leaf?

Yea, and your point is? I simply made the comment based on your post that even though the State Lemon Laws will not help him, the federal ones may. Now I see that you are once again mentioning the original owner. Unless the OP in not the original owner, perhaps you could tell me WTF that has to do with the discussion?

I don't recall saying that I did and I don't recall anything about any Lemon Law specifics either. It does mention in the fine print that certain states have some laws that can get your money back but no specifics, imagine that.

And your definition is, smartass?

Where exactly did I say that or is this just another one of your half-assed interpretations?

Yeah - you could refer to any vehicle at any point in it's

The only person that you are arguing with is yourself. I simply made a suggestion and was told that there are limits on those laws and this vehicle didn't qualify. I don't recall arguing it or insisting that it did so WTF are you whining about?

Does she?

Fine. I thing that point has already been more than established.

Is there a particular reason for you being such an asshole? I simply said that it followed the general requirements as far as problems and attemps to repair to be covered under the lemon law and it does. I was unaware of specific state lenght of time requirements and thought that they covered the vehicle for the entire length of its warranty. Now that I an aware of this limitation, I am not arguing the point so what are you whining about?.

I am not saying that it is. I thought that it could be and now I know different so exactly what additional point are you trying to make?

No, Tom - I'm not being an asshole (at least I'm not trying to be). I will

100% guarantee that you were first to bring up the "new vs. used" point. It's all here in this thread, but I'm going to consolidate (and heavily paraphrase, for the sake of brevity - all the previous posts are right here in this thread if you care to fact-check) it down to the relevant portions.

TB: (That's you) Claimed (or asserted, or asked - whatever) that a Lemon Law claim could help the owner of a 2000 Ram with an apparent habitual problem. GG: (That's Gary) points out, in his own unique way, that you're incorrect TL: (That's me) Says that lemon laws are restricted to the first 2-3 years, depending on the state. Gives an example of NJ's laws. Claims that no state extends LL coverage to 5 years TB: Re-claims that the warranty is in effect for 7 years, so LL coverage should apply TL: Agrees with the concept of "it should be covered under warranty", but says it doesn't qualify for a LL claim. TB: Asks me 'please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon'. NOTE: first time the concept of "new car" is brought up. TL: Posts a link to a site that says, "applies to new cars" - as a direct response to your challenge of 'only a new car can become a lemon'. TB: Argues that the OP is the original owner, so it's not a used vehicle (although no one ever claimed it was). TL: Claims TB is twisting things around... TB: Claims that I was the one who specifically mentioned used cars', then calls me an asshole for it

Okay... now, after looking through that, I can see where the confusion came. When you said, "please point to the definition that claims only a new car can be or become a lemon", I interpreted that as, "Any car, new or used, can be a lemon". That's why, when I posted the link, I pointed out that it specifically said "new", and mentioned nothing about used.

So, if that's where the confusion originated, and you didn't mean to imply that a used vehicle (as opposed to new) could be classified as a lemon, then I apologize for making that inference (although it seemed a pretty logical inference to make, given the wording)...

Oh - and I see you've resorted to name-calling... hmm... what was that you said about someone who does that? :)

LOL, it was not so much name calling as getting pissed for being lectured when I am already in agreement with you and then having to deal with Gary's childish actions on top of that, well, enough said.

Apologies while appreciated are not necessary. Just take it easy and give me a chance every now and then. I'm not always the bad guy and am trying to get away from the BS I used to do in the past but old habits do die hard.