nobody has said anything about who's going to fix this car when it brakes. If you do find some way of keeping it, who would know how to fix it if something brakes. It doesn't sound like the type you can just figure out as you go along. Without the company's support/help when it stops working who will fix it? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Kuehn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 7:55 AM Subject: Re: Keeping your EV-1 legally, or not
> > >Civil disobedience (and I have no problem calling this act by that > >>name, since the goal is most definitely civic-minded) > > > >I wonder what the exact mechanics would be, because I think repo men would be > >dispatched immediately by GM. > > Well, as long as you are volunteering to break the law, you could > just do as Vince suggested and hide the car while offering to buy it. > That's theft, but the assumption is that you feel strongly enough > that the consequences are worth it. Of course, you wouldn't want to > involve anyone else in your hiding scheme, unless they, too, were > prepared for the consequences as a co-conspirator. > > If you hide the car well enough, you may not even go to jail, as a > court could side with you and order GM to accept payment, and then > simply impose the same punishment on you as on any other first-time > thief. That would require good lawyering, and certainly isn't an > outcome you could rely on, but it is one distinct possibility. You'd > definitely need real commitment to the cause to even try it, though > > David's "tie yourself to the car" approach could also work pretty > well, as this would likely result in a couple of nights in jail and a > relatively minor fine. The publicity would be shorter-lived than a > prolonged court battle, but the downside is much easier to take. > > Anyone who would consider this should be aware that an attorney will > be restricted in how he or she can advise you, as an attorney cannot > actively assist in law-breaking. An attorney can only tell you in a > hypothetical way what the possibilities might be and what the law is, > and then formally advise you not to engage in law-breaking behavior. > A truly ethical attorney who issued the hypothetical advice would > probably not want to take you on as a defendant, so as to remain > distant from the implication that he or she was a co-conspirator. > > >I wonder also if any consumer-rights organization would say that some would-be > >EV1 leasors were defrauded if GM deliberately delayed or prevented delivery of > >the vehicle? > > There is very likely no cause of action here, as there is no contract > or other enforceable relationship between the parties. If GM were > very formalistic about the way in which it accepted people onto its > wait list and gave them some assurances that they were operating > entirely on a first-come, first-served basis, there might be > something. Everything I've heard, though, is that GM did what it > could to duck even having a waiting list (quite possibly for this > very reason). Where waiting lists were formed, they were very > informal. The presumption is that GM can sell to whomever it wants, > whenever it wants, with some very carefully-carved exceptions (such > as race-based preferences). I very much doubt that there would be > anything here that would fall into such an exception or could be seen > as creating any enforceable obligation on the part of GM. > > As for deliberately wasting people's time, the key word there is > "deliberate". You would have to prove that GM acted purposefully > with the full intention of causing harm. It's just not going to > happen. There's a lot of crummy stuff in life that we just have to > put up with. This is one of them. > > -- > > -Adam Kuehn > >
