Something is very fishy with the dealer from the get go and I don't think the windshield suffered a crack on the loader enroute to the dealership.

Great job EnergyAnalyst

Why was the error code not stated ? Don't tell me, they think that the error code is not important, so there is no point to mention the what is the error code correct ?

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jan 7 2024, 05:33 AM

Ms Nagakanni should learn to listen more to those higher up in authority especially when the COO comes out with a press statement and stop jumping into crazy ass conclusion based on ones limited understanding. Dah keluar press statement , masih berani cakap where is the black & white. Depan mata pun tak nampak. Buang masa aku tengah main golf nak datang buat press statement je. But customer always comes first.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jan 7 2024, 08:31 AM

I don't understand why was the first defendant, the sole distributor dismissed from the case, when it is them that who should be held to a higher level of accountability & liability.

Another thing is, "affects and issues raised by the plaintiff were not seriously disputed by the defendants." WTF is that supposed to mean and then award Rm50,000 compensation since the vehicle was used for 425 days trouble free ?

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jan 16 2024, 07:34 AM

When the court awarded compensation in the other case involving a defective VW, I thought the courts were doing alright but this case is like WTF ?

Now whichever party that pushes for Lemon Law until it is effective, wins my vote in the next GE. Scratch my back and I will scratch yours.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jan 16 2024, 10:14 AM

Oops

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jan 16 2024, 10:13 AM

You must be a lawyer or judge, otherwise where can find such links. Yes this case was loss of use. Quite ridiculous buy car but cannot use for 883 days within it's warranty period. Can't use Lemon Law if there was no such law right ? Anyway the Lemon Law is an American Law or what ?

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jan 16 2024, 09:27 PM

Why is the dealership liable again ? Why isn't the manufacturer that is liable ? Manufacturer or dealer yang pasang vehicles ? Shouldn't the manufacturer be producing vehicles that are of certain standard & quality, so that their vehicles are operable especially within it's warranty period ?

It's similiar to when buyers or their financier makes payment to the manufacturer via their dealership, don't the manufacturers & their dealers receive the full amount billed ? Ada ke tak terima full amount ? If ada, tak terima full amount atau tak dapat sebarang bayaran langsung or kena duit palsu ke, then tak payah be held liable for detective vehicles.

Ini kira vehicles yang defective aje tahu, belum lagi saya masuk "sengaja defective by design tanpa disedari ramai" tahu.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jan 17 2024, 07:18 AM

So nice. No liability.

Kejap didn't the plaintiff name manufacturer as the 1st defendant ? Why customer won't want to claim from manufacturer pulak ? Ini you tokok tambah betul ? Why did the court dismissed the 1st defendant ? Only the 1st defendant has the resources at their disposal in resolving the issue but dismissed pulak. Minta ambil alih dia punya tempat ialah dealership. What technical expertise that the sales personnel at the dealership would have, that is far greater from the technicians, engineers & designers at the manufacturing plant ? Patut la in the reports it was written something like failure to call "material witness" those with technical expertise but instead preferred to call Tom Harry Dick from the dealership to give vague statements. Kejap if the material witness had any material, do y'all think this case would even happen ? Hmmm

Where did you learn this line, "Whatever happen between the dealership and the manufacturer has got nothing to do with the customer" ? That applies to which manufacturer ? Cause I would HELL WANT to avoid buying vehicles from whatever happens between the dealership and the manufacturer has got nothing to do with the customer. Manatau in future, if the new vehicle I am going to buy ram into problems, I would want to avoid the same scenario in the court case with the dismissal of the manufacturer as the 1st defendant and expect to unearth answers via the court. Spare me the intelligence.

Lastly I am dying to know this, are you a vehicle manufacturer ? Which hidden hand are you ?

ADDITIONAL INFO : If it's only the dealer's fault, then apahal Perodua COO kacau selesaikan hal Bezza gula ? Shouldn't Perodua COO biar je dealer itu settlekan masalah gula ? Korang cakap macam naik basikal masuk kayu dalam rim.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jan 19 2024, 05:00 PM

KNN Singapore already adopted Lemon Law in 2004 almost 20 years ago, here the lemon minister nak buat analysis first. Maybe this lemon minister don't want my vote.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Jan 19 2024, 05:48 AM

5~7 years ? Macam tak nak vote saya je. Siapa cepat, siapa dapat.

Buying parts to make a vehicle = Buying a vehicle.

Yup you are right. I don't understand what is his problem. Aren't his suppliers suppose to meet certain quality and standards for the parts supplied to Proton. Otherwise why put a sticker LULUS Proton ? Kaki song ?

Is he implying that if his suppliers spare parts do not meet the quality standards, the parts would also be used on the production line. As such he needs the Lemon Law to protect Proton from his suppliers ? He smoking what weed until can become Deputy CEO ?

I also worked in factory before. If supplied parts dont meet specification, production stops. I think that is what he is trying to say, parts come already, cannot meet specification, production must carry on and fix barang out of specification aje la. Anything go wrong later, got Lemon Law man to protect our company from our supplier.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Feb 4 2024, 01:37 PM

That is why I swap out the stock battery whenever I receive the new keys. Scotty Killmer has a video on this.

My other half said "Why need change a new battery ? Waste of money only." Then I showed her what problems other owners are facing within few months of ownership and now she understands why I am so particular about batteries.

I think I found what I loved doing i.e. not replacing batteries, that any Tom's Harry Dick also can do but focus on maintaining my loyal clients vehicles electrical charging system. It is a challenge but it's the satisfaction I get when this kucing kurap tukang tilik gets the prediction right.

Here is Scotty ...



Actually there is a valid reason why it's being done so, but I malu la say out nanti tersinggung pulak perasaan orang lain, since I also need their support also..Going against them is pointless, their pockets are really deep but 1 got one thing I want to say to the powers-that-be, I hope I don't get to become the plaintiff je. You wouldn't want to see me in court as your opponent.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Feb 6 2024, 12:51 PM

How is it that the quality criteria is stated by the manufacturer and not according to international standard of operation ? If according to manufacturer standards, then the manufacturer can claim anything is valid and good. For example new modern vehicles now comes with GPS trackers etc from their distributor which suppose to help deter theft. How is it that vehicles equipped with such systems, the moment it's stolen, it cannot be traced at all within the minutes of it being stolen ? What manufacturer standard is that ? Manufacturer is helping the thieves or what ?

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Apr 10 2024, 05:31 PM

Limitation of 6 months ? Kind of ridiculous I would say for a GPS tracking system. Ridiculous is not the proper word in this context but it's outrageous. To add salt to injury, subscribers have to pay annual fees for such tracking system that is proven to be utterly useless the moment it is stolen. Ini macam mana kira ?

Whatever law they want to draw up, I am not bothered nor interested. In the most unfortunate event I ever become the plantiff, I pity the defendant who is going to face me in court. No out of court settlement nonsense.

Actually I was really bothered by it but now not so, as I have already done my homework and I will cross the bridge when I get there. In the meantime, they better hope that my ride is not nick because I will go to court given the chance.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Apr 11 2024, 05:17 PM

Kejap so if the vehicle is bought in 2025, next year 2026 can sue already right ? Or kena wait summore ?