Or it's possible that they just didn't do a good enough job at inspecting it.
Unless the first shop had some connection to the seller (quite possible even if it's not obvious), then they would have no reason to lie about it.
I glossed over that in the initial post. I have a problem with one of the tires on my car - uneven wear due to insufficient repairs by a shop who I will soon learn if their "lifetime guarantee" means anything.
Funny thing is, that even though I can see the tire is not in good shape, a "mechanic" at a local oil change shop seemed horrified by the wear on it. He wasn't trying to sell me new tires either - it seems he was just a "chicken little" (the sky is falling).
Anyway - even if the shop who repaired the suspension the first time doesn't come through, I'm not going to sue them for "millions". I might sue them for the cost of repairs, but at most, that will me limited to low 4 digits. Jeebus, it's only a friggin' car. Even without it being fixed, my damages are limited to having to replace a tire about 3 times as often as I should have to.
I've never heard of rating brakes at a percentage. But I'd want mine working *100%*.
In spite of comments of some other posters here, I've gone months with a broken car air conditioner. In Texas. In the summer. In
100+F weather. On the other hand, I went about 10 minutes without functioning brakes when a dealer forgot to put back in brake fluid after working on them. There was no accident; when I discovered I was still headed through a red light at an intersection the parking brake stopped the car. Then I drove back to the dealer REAL SLOW.If the brakes had failed you and you got into a crippling or fatal accident, THEN you would have an opportunity to sue for millions. I won't guarantee you'd win, though.
What are your damages? You bought a car with bad brakes when you could have gotten a better one (at possibly a higher price). It seems to me your damages are *at most* the cost of fixing the brakes and the hydraulic system to be as good as he claimed they were, plus maybe a little for loss of use of the car while it's being repaired, or a loaner car. I hope that $300 repair gets your brakes to better than 40%.
Tire issues are very much a safety issue.
Which mechanic is right? I'm sure there are a lot of scammers out there who like to lie and tell you you don't need to give them any money to fix something - just like all the crooked bankers who lend you money, then skip town without leaving a forwarding address. NOT! The usual scam is to claim you need repairs you don't really need.
Dude, you're an idiot.
Ok, first of all: Geesh, I wasn't going to sue anyone for millions or probably sue at all. I presented the whole range of things that can CAN do. So for all the flamers, get off it. My own conclusion, after this 3-day intensive auto "seminar": I can at the most ask for the cost of the brakes change ($300), and more realistically to get the inspection's money back ($80). I'd skip the first option, since if they did a sloppy inspection I don't want them fixing my brakes anyway, and the second might not be even worth my time.
Brakes: More interesingly, as some of the more productive posters noted, the brake fluid thing might really been a scam; Hal pointed in another post: "Some shops will pull the boot back from around the piston and say 'See! It's leaking!'" That's EXACTLY what they did. The shoes are at about 2mm. Conclusion: I'm not going to touch the cylinders, and will change shoes in 2000 miles.
Tires: Guess what, among everything else I inspected when considering the car - gear shifting time, engine noise, testing the brakes, corrision in hinges and chaisis etc. etc. - yeah, I DID look at the tires. Two 2"-long cracks in one of them. Which is why I pointed it out to the inspecting mechanic. He said it's no biggie. If 3 certified mechanics have 4 opinions about "how bad is this tire", what do you want from me. Eventually: mechanic #3 agreed they're unsafe (excessive wear not on the treads, but on the interior edge), and I got new ones.
Seems like the first shop was sloppy, and the second overzealous. Third one seemed somewhat ok, I'll probably go there for my next service. Though there's still a misfire OBD code to be figured out... but that's a different story for another post.
Drew
Do you realize that you are responding to yourself with this?
It could be that the leak just developed between the first and second inspections. The percentage of brake material is a subjective guesstimate. Unless you have something here that demonstrates clear incompetence or gross negligence, I doubt you have a case at all.
You have to exercise some diligence in your selection of the mechanic. You should have some experience with them so that you know you can trust their assessment.
What do you wanna bet he took it to the "cheapest" shop he could find ...?
LOL!
Then frankly, they shouldn't be driving cars. I've ALWAYS said that cars shouldn't be operated like they were toasters- at least a BASIC knowledge is absolutely essential- and checking something as important as the brake fluid and visually inspecting something as important as tires DEFINITELY fall in that category. I'm not saying that every driver should be able to rebuild an engine, but every driver SHOULD be able to determine WITHOUT HELP whether his or her car is basically sound and safe to drive or not.
"Binba" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Hey, Binba. First, here's hopes you enjoy your newly-bought car. And it is apparent you expect to spend a few $ on a used car. Since I am familiar with inspections only in our own state, my perception is that when you take a car, before purchasing, to a mechanic, you are paying him to inspect and give you HIS OPINION. It is definitely not for any warranty. So being, one's opinion can well differ among mechanics. Otherwise, if they all saw things in exactly the same way, then all would have wanted the same wife--and what a fiasco that'd be. You have, in here somewhere, mentioned what I'd agree should be the proper thing to do: remember that 1st mechanic may be too liberal. The 2nd one may be "over-zealous". And if whomever replaces your brakes seems to do a good job and does so w/out robbing you, then remember just that when it comes time for repairs again. I think there are many of us who would agree that these inspections are just opinions(which we've all heard, are like a**holes:everybody has one). And, if you look at it in the same light, I'm sure you agree with us that one's opinion is merely that. It may be erroneous, but it still is his "baby". Example: So many mechanics & car enthusiasts have for years run down Quaker State oil. And I know several mechanics who use nothing but QS in their personal cars and have done so for decades. Obviously their opinions differ from my own: but having watched them get good service w/oil I don't personally prefer, I sometimes question whose is more nearly valid . Nonetheless, when I hear these pos. opinions re:QS oil, altho' they may be invalid as I see them, I have to respect that they ARE these guys' opinions, however unprofitable/profitable they may be. Luck to you, and Happy Easter!!! s
Your perception of may well differ from the mechanic's legal obligations. If a consumer pays a mechanic to inspect a car and the mechanic misses a significant problem, esp one that other mechanics would/should have uncovered in the inspection, that mechanic may be liable for damages to the consumer (eg, cost of repair, dimunition in value).
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.