That's ghey - I remember when I was building my cobra I had looked at a Roush motor and one thing that attracted me to it was the fact it had a 2yr warranty. Then I read online what their 2yr warranty meant in real life - basically they tell you to f-off. I'd never touch their engines in a million years.
T I felt compelled to shift my personal commitment from protecting Roush's best interests to informing potential purchasers of their products of the type of actions they take in response to their own negligence.
Me too; the interest in the warranty went up in a puff when I read that the install has to be done by a certified mechanic. I assume that's not you or me. I know it's not me.
Well, I for one certainly appreciate your doing so. I hope you don't lose any leverage because of it, because I would also like to see you prevail in any action against them.
Glenn I'm certainly no lawyer. But have you actually discussed this avenue of internet "information" with your lawyer? You may well be opening yourself up to a slander/libal suit. Untill you have a court ruling, it's just your word against theirs. They could well bring a counter suit against you for libal & dammage to their professional reputation. This internet & social networking can be very dangerous when you decide to "vent" against a company without hard evidence to support. In this case a court ruling. Even pictures or the physical dammage to the car. It's only your word that it was caused by Rouch. Just some food for thought. I certainly wish you the very best & sucsess.
Mike S
The onus would be on Roush to prove that Glenn's statements are false, which in effect, would mean that they have to prove they did not damage the vehicle.
Ian I belive the burden of proof would be on Glenn. To proove that Roush did indeed damage the car etc. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant. They can claim the car was already dammaged when they got it. I hope he has a lot of pictures & witnesses that the car was in prime condition when shipped & recieved. The defendant doesn't have to do anything to PROOVE his innocence under our system. You are presumed innocent untill PROVEN guilty. Roush so far has pleaded innocent/not guilty. But on a libal suit, after a person has already spread the "story" all over the internet, has already hung himself. All they need do is print out the evidence. This is my understanding of such things.
Mike S
Ian I belive the burden of proof would be on Glenn. To proove that Roush did indeed damage the car etc. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant. They can claim the car was already dammaged when they got it. I hope he has a lot of pictures & witnesses that the car was in prime condition when shipped & recieved. The defendant doesn't have to do anything to PROOVE his innocence under our system. You are presumed innocent untill PROVEN guilty. Roush so far has pleaded innocent/not guilty. But on a libal suit, after a person has already spread the "story" all over the internet, has already hung himself. All they need do is print out the evidence. This is my understanding of such things.
Mike S
The whole innocent until proven guilty is the proof standard for a criminal case. This is civil law where the claimant has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence.
Beyond a reasonable doubt holds true for criminal trial, not a civil one.
Thought the criminal burden of proof was "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
K
Good luck to Glenn and may justice and truth prevail.[/QUOTE said:That would be my hope for a resolution.
This seems sad to me on many levels. There's Glenn's dilemma, Roush's dilemma, and now some of us will have a dilemma wondering about Roush engines.
I see things within this saga that disappoints me. I think this is similar to issues that arise when there is a large amount of media hype. Thankfully, there is no media involved, because it would be worse if there were.
Here are some observations, but they are not intended to favor one over the other. They are perhaps reasons that may support the idea that not rushing to the judgement of anyone is likely the best idea, while proclaiming only a universal desire that all individuals are healed financially and otherwise.
I'm guessing that the original race engine that requires 110 octane was only guaranteed for 90-days, while all other pump gas engines are guaranteed for 2-years. Not much was explained about the cause of the failure of the race engine with 4K plus mileage. Thus, this tends to cast an aspersion on the product out of the gate.
I believe the engine company voluntarily stated that one reason for the delay was that their technician had an accident with the vehicle. I'm just thinking the engine company could have made up a variety of excuses: waiting on parts, short on mechanics, equipment failure, etc., if they were dishonest?
Then there was the quick movement toward deciding on an amount of the reduction in vehicle value due to the accident. I understand that aspect and support it. However, the actual damages were not described. Was the frame bent, was the suspension damaged, or was it just fiberglass panel and paint damage?
Then, someone said try this guy's engines. OK, but that guy doesn't make hundreds or thousands of engines per year like the subject company does. It is not unrealistic to have a .05% performance engine failure simply because parts can be defective, and those parts are under a lot of stress. So, between bad parts and perhaps poor workmanship, there may be 5 performance engines bad out of every 1,000. None of us are perfect, at least I know I'm not. It's a bad deal when it happens to us, but @#IT happens. It's then a matter of how things are handled thereafter that counts.
I don't know if a rush to judgement is the best idea, because thus far, we've only heard one side, and there were missing details. But, even with additional details, we should defer to the courts and/or the jury to decide, because only they will eventually see and hear all the facts and expert testimony.
I desire the best for Glenn, as I would for any member or anyone really. I shall pray for this to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. "may justice and truth prevail" [for all], as Cliff so correctly and succinctly stated.
All good things, Robert