[-] JakenVeina@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

In this case, the portals are only moving in planes parallel to each other, so there is no stability introduced.

[-] JakenVeina@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Portals can only move within planes parallel to each other.

[-] JakenVeina@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Who the hell is Looten Plunder?

[-] JakenVeina@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I was wondering about that, curing Type 1 Diabetes would be a HELL of a breakthrough.

[-] JakenVeina@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

SCOTUS these days can and will make up whatveer the fuck rationalization they want to justify any decision, and then tagline it with "but this only applies to this one specific scenario" to keep from locking themselves out of ruling the opposite way next time.

Last year (or earlier this year?) they ruled on a case where the event that triggered the suit was literally made up and never happened, and everyone knew it.

[-] JakenVeina@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Same, I see nothing but the title in the body.

1
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by JakenVeina@lemmy.world to c/legaladvice@lemmy.world

Well, someone's gotta make a first post, I guess.

Around 6 months ago, I took my car to a regional chain mechanic shop for a decent chunk of work (timing assembly replaced). About 5 months later, it died in the driveway.

I took it back to them and they ultimately told me I have a spun bearing and that the entire motor would need to be replaced. Neither me nor a friend of mine were satisfied with this answer (for one, a spun bearing wouldn’t destroy the motor), so we investigated it briefly with a scope and discovered what we both suspected: that the timing assembly is indeed destroyed, which contradicts the mechanics words that “the timing assembly is fine”, which I had asked him explicitly to check, since it was worked on recently.

I also read through their warranty, and found two problematic clauses:

When warranty service is requested, this warranty shall not be valid if the customer does not permit [REDACTED] to install all necessary parts and/or perform all necessary services needed to restore the vehicle for safe operation or that would allow the warranted part to operate in the manner it was intended.

THIS WARRANY DOES NOT COVER THE COST OF REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY PART THAT IS DAMAGED DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE WARRANTED PARTS OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF TIME, INCONVENIENCE, LOSS OF USE OF VEHICLE, TOWING CHARGES OR OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.

Is there any chance either of these is illegal or unenforceable? The "consequential damages" waiver feels particularly egregious to me, like it might violate some consumer protection laws.

Normally, small claims court would be the option to go for if the mechanic refuses to acknowledge liability for the motor, would it not? Does the warranty make that option worthless?

JakenVeina

joined 1 year ago