Global Windows
7/4/05, 09:25 PM
#41
Cobra Member
Join Date: January 19, 2005
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am having a hard time understanding how it is wrong to sue another party that has willfully breached a contract. Absolutely there is a great deal of litigation that should not take place, but the purpose of the legal system is to insure that parties hold to their agreements, don't injure one another without compensating the other party, etc. There is nothing wrong with suing when you have actually been wronged. Regardless of how insignificant some of you may think this is, it is a breach of Ford's agreement with the consumer. When we ordered it, this was included in the option. It was not included, therefore Ford is wrong.
To those of you who don't like litigation....fine. Don't ever sue anyone and don't ever be compensated if you are wronged by someone, but don't complain that other people are enforcing a contract that was freely entered into by both parties. Seriously, I don't understand what is so wrong with that.
To those of you who don't like litigation....fine. Don't ever sue anyone and don't ever be compensated if you are wronged by someone, but don't complain that other people are enforcing a contract that was freely entered into by both parties. Seriously, I don't understand what is so wrong with that.
7/4/05, 11:03 PM
#42
Cobra Member
Join Date: January 4, 2005
Location: 'neath a cactus
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When does the litigious mindset end?
Here in Arid-zona the state used to chip seal the roads. My truck once got a rock chip when I was driving it on a freshly chip sealed road. Should I sue the state because their contractor obviously did an imperfect job applying the chip seal on the road?
This same Toyota truck had over-size Bridgestone Desert Duelers tires. I was driving along a road in south western Arizona and had a blowout. The people who replaced my tire indicated that a sharp object somehow punctured the sidewall. Should I sue Bridgestone because they certainly could have done a better job reinforcing the sidewall to prevent punctures and blow-outs?
Granted both examples are somewhat far-fetched. My point is simply that this nation has gotten litigious to the point where people sue others for the most ridiculous and frivilous reasons. Its no longer that law suits are used to get compensation when we're wronged by others. Law suits, in many cases, are now used as a means of trying to make a quick buck.
One last example. A criminal breaks into your home and threatens your life with a knife or gun. You defend yourself by using deadly force and kill the bad guy. No criminal charges are filed against you as its proven that you acted in self defense. The family of the now dead criminal files a law suit against you and asks for punitive damages. Why? Because your actions, while legal, had a signficant emotional and financial impact on them.
Don't believe me? In 1997 a jury in a civil action convicted OJ Simpson of wrongful death in the murders of his wife and Ronald Goldman (though as we all know Simpson was found innocent in the criminal trial) and he was ordered to pay a judgement of 33 Million dollars.
Personally I think there are plenty of examples where law suits serve a positive and necessary purpose. I don't, however, think that "Global Windows" is such an example.
Here in Arid-zona the state used to chip seal the roads. My truck once got a rock chip when I was driving it on a freshly chip sealed road. Should I sue the state because their contractor obviously did an imperfect job applying the chip seal on the road?
This same Toyota truck had over-size Bridgestone Desert Duelers tires. I was driving along a road in south western Arizona and had a blowout. The people who replaced my tire indicated that a sharp object somehow punctured the sidewall. Should I sue Bridgestone because they certainly could have done a better job reinforcing the sidewall to prevent punctures and blow-outs?
Granted both examples are somewhat far-fetched. My point is simply that this nation has gotten litigious to the point where people sue others for the most ridiculous and frivilous reasons. Its no longer that law suits are used to get compensation when we're wronged by others. Law suits, in many cases, are now used as a means of trying to make a quick buck.
One last example. A criminal breaks into your home and threatens your life with a knife or gun. You defend yourself by using deadly force and kill the bad guy. No criminal charges are filed against you as its proven that you acted in self defense. The family of the now dead criminal files a law suit against you and asks for punitive damages. Why? Because your actions, while legal, had a signficant emotional and financial impact on them.
Don't believe me? In 1997 a jury in a civil action convicted OJ Simpson of wrongful death in the murders of his wife and Ronald Goldman (though as we all know Simpson was found innocent in the criminal trial) and he was ordered to pay a judgement of 33 Million dollars.
Personally I think there are plenty of examples where law suits serve a positive and necessary purpose. I don't, however, think that "Global Windows" is such an example.
7/5/05, 06:53 AM
#43
ok, another point to make here. Any car, no matter where you order from, all manufacturers do state that good old "subject to change" clause, meaning they have the right to change anything during production they want. So they can either add or remove features that you think you might be getting without telling you. I know, it stinks, but legally you could not go for a class action lawsuit because they removed a feature.
7/5/05, 07:04 AM
#44
Meet Krissy, Our Star Racer
Join Date: March 19, 2005
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by adrenalin@July 5, 2005, 8:56 AM
ok, another point to make here. Any car, no matter where you order from, all manufacturers do state that good old "subject to change" clause, meaning they have the right to change anything during production they want. So they can either add or remove features that you think you might be getting without telling you. I know, it stinks, but legally you could not go for a class action lawsuit because they removed a feature.
ok, another point to make here. Any car, no matter where you order from, all manufacturers do state that good old "subject to change" clause, meaning they have the right to change anything during production they want. So they can either add or remove features that you think you might be getting without telling you. I know, it stinks, but legally you could not go for a class action lawsuit because they removed a feature.
that's fine and dandy, but what i don't understand is how they are allowed the right to change features people pay EXTRA for without doing anything about it (either issue a TSB to fix or reduce the price). you know? it's not like they removed a cupholder or removed one of the overhead lights or reduced the size of the glove box...it's like taking the Shaker 1000 option, and removing a sub woofer from the truck and just being like "sorry, your loss"
just doesnt make sense to me
7/5/05, 07:32 AM
#45
Perhaps their thinking was, you are buying the anti-theft system. The feature of being able to roll your windows down by using the remote control is just that, a feature, but in no way has anything to do with an alarm system. Ya, it is FORD's fault for even bundling the 2 together in the first place. Anyway, I wouldn't even had know of this feature if I didn't read my owners manual since I just thought I was getting an alarm system.
it is not quite the same as removing a sub from the shaker 1000 since that is part of the stereo system but I do see your point. However, as I asked before, for those complaining about it, do you have any documentation that came with your car that discusses the global option?
it is not quite the same as removing a sub from the shaker 1000 since that is part of the stereo system but I do see your point. However, as I asked before, for those complaining about it, do you have any documentation that came with your car that discusses the global option?
7/5/05, 07:37 AM
#46
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 13, 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2003 Accord had the window down feature on the remote. I used it all the time during the summer. (my windows were tinted at 20% and it still got hot) I was expecting this as well from the Ford system. It was the main reason I ordered it. I think someone should lite a fire under Ford's butt so they either fix the unit or replace it with a working one.
7/5/05, 07:41 AM
#47
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 7, 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TorchRedGT@July 4, 2005, 5:04 PM
Plain and simple, Everyone wants to sue someone for something. People in other countries see this as The american way. It just makes us look like money hungry people. As soon as one case goes through, everyone follows suit. Now someone mentioned a lawsuit for the window thing, all of a sudden people that never knew the feature existed are mad that it doesen't work.
Plain and simple, Everyone wants to sue someone for something. People in other countries see this as The american way. It just makes us look like money hungry people. As soon as one case goes through, everyone follows suit. Now someone mentioned a lawsuit for the window thing, all of a sudden people that never knew the feature existed are mad that it doesen't work.
I'm not one to want to sue for every little thing, but when Ford ignores the problem, and ignores me when I try to discuss it with them, maybe a lawsuit is the only thing that will get their attention.
I agree, that too often people want to sue companies over stupid things, but this is not one of those cases. The people have a legitimate complaint here.
7/5/05, 07:53 AM
#48
Originally posted by moc1976@July 5, 2005, 7:44 AM
Well, I knew about the global open/close, and that is why I ordered the option. WHat is wrong with being compensated by Ford for giving me my car without something I PAID for?
I'm not one to want to sue for every little thing, but when Ford ignores the problem, and ignores me when I try to discuss it with them, maybe a lawsuit is the only thing that will get their attention.
I agree, that too often people want to sue companies over stupid things, but this is not one of those cases. The people have a legitimate complaint here.
Well, I knew about the global open/close, and that is why I ordered the option. WHat is wrong with being compensated by Ford for giving me my car without something I PAID for?
I'm not one to want to sue for every little thing, but when Ford ignores the problem, and ignores me when I try to discuss it with them, maybe a lawsuit is the only thing that will get their attention.
I agree, that too often people want to sue companies over stupid things, but this is not one of those cases. The people have a legitimate complaint here.
Did you really order the global open/close option? I don't think that was ever something you could order separately. It was a feature of the anti-theft system. A feature that has caused a lot of problems so FORD removed it. When you ordered did FORD still show the global windows as a feature of the anti-theft system or did they remove it from the documentation? The reason I keep repeating this is because if you go to order a new stang right now and look at the anti-theft system, the global windows is not indicated anywhere so someone that thinks they are getting it is because they either know someone that has it or read an old document.
The 06 is probably going to lose some features the 05 has but the 06 will most likely have some better features to fix some flaws with the 05. I can't go to FORD and say hey, the 06 has it so I want my 05 to have it. Well I guess I can but I would be paying for it
7/5/05, 08:22 AM
#49
Shelby GT500 Member
I was really looking forward to having this feature on my car. Half the reason I bought the active anti-theft. It states in the owners manual if you have active anti-theft, that you have this feature.
I don't want compensation, I want Ford to fix it, once they resolved whatever issue they had for justifying to disable it.
I don't want compensation, I want Ford to fix it, once they resolved whatever issue they had for justifying to disable it.
7/5/05, 08:44 AM
#50
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
4 Posts
First I would like to state that I wanted this feature and did not get it and it can't be re-enabled on my car.
What I find quite humorous is that people are completely ignoring the reason Ford disabled this in the first place. THE WINDOWS OPENED BY THEMSELVES. Now if part of the Anti-theft option was self opening windows I believe that you would have a very good case for a law suit.
Ford thought so too, that is why they disabled this feature. My guess is that they originally disabled it hoping they could fix it; however, the cost became prohibitively expensive.
Am I ticked that I didn't get this feature, Yes!! Did I get an alarm system with door, trunk, hood, motion and inclination sensors for only $200, Yes!! I think I got more than my money's worth.
I don't begrudge anyone their right to sue if they feel slighted. I just don't think it's neccessary. And I really don't think anything positive can come from it, looking at the BIG picture.
What I find quite humorous is that people are completely ignoring the reason Ford disabled this in the first place. THE WINDOWS OPENED BY THEMSELVES. Now if part of the Anti-theft option was self opening windows I believe that you would have a very good case for a law suit.
Ford thought so too, that is why they disabled this feature. My guess is that they originally disabled it hoping they could fix it; however, the cost became prohibitively expensive.
Am I ticked that I didn't get this feature, Yes!! Did I get an alarm system with door, trunk, hood, motion and inclination sensors for only $200, Yes!! I think I got more than my money's worth.
I don't begrudge anyone their right to sue if they feel slighted. I just don't think it's neccessary. And I really don't think anything positive can come from it, looking at the BIG picture.
7/5/05, 08:46 AM
#51
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: April 8, 2005
Posts: 972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, here in South MS, it gets pretty darn hott! I have a black car with dark interior. So, I ALWAYS use my feature; and it helps ALOT.
If it was not an offered feature, then I would be fine without it. But since the car was listed as having it, if I was one of the many that does not have the Global Windows that I paid for, or was suppose to have, I would want Ford to fix it.
I dont think I would get into any law suit over it.... that just seems extreme.
I love the feature ----
If it was not an offered feature, then I would be fine without it. But since the car was listed as having it, if I was one of the many that does not have the Global Windows that I paid for, or was suppose to have, I would want Ford to fix it.
I dont think I would get into any law suit over it.... that just seems extreme.
I love the feature ----
7/5/05, 08:50 AM
#52
My windows have not rolled down by themselves yet, however, there have been times when I go to roll the passenger side back up and then it goes back down. The dealer said they would get a different module in to fix the problem but that has yet to happen.
7/5/05, 10:05 AM
#53
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 7, 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by adrenalin@July 5, 2005, 7:56 AM
Did you really order the global open/close option? I don't think that was ever something you could order separately. It was a feature of the anti-theft system. A feature that has caused a lot of problems so FORD removed it. When you ordered did FORD still show the global windows as a feature of the anti-theft system or did they remove it from the documentation? The reason I keep repeating this is because if you go to order a new stang right now and look at the anti-theft system, the global windows is not indicated anywhere so someone that thinks they are getting it is because they either know someone that has it or read an old document.
The 06 is probably going to lose some features the 05 has but the 06 will most likely have some better features to fix some flaws with the 05. I can't go to FORD and say hey, the 06 has it so I want my 05 to have it. Well I guess I can but I would be paying for it
Did you really order the global open/close option? I don't think that was ever something you could order separately. It was a feature of the anti-theft system. A feature that has caused a lot of problems so FORD removed it. When you ordered did FORD still show the global windows as a feature of the anti-theft system or did they remove it from the documentation? The reason I keep repeating this is because if you go to order a new stang right now and look at the anti-theft system, the global windows is not indicated anywhere so someone that thinks they are getting it is because they either know someone that has it or read an old document.
The 06 is probably going to lose some features the 05 has but the 06 will most likely have some better features to fix some flaws with the 05. I can't go to FORD and say hey, the 06 has it so I want my 05 to have it. Well I guess I can but I would be paying for it
So, I'm not sure what you keep asking. What documentation are you referring to? The brouchere said it was in there, the DORA only has a short description of each option, which only said active anti-theft alarm. The reason I thought I was getting it is because the brouchere said it was part of the option.
7/5/05, 11:05 AM
#54
Cobra Member
Join Date: January 19, 2005
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AWmustang@July 5, 2005, 8:47 AM
First I would like to state that I wanted this feature and did not get it and it can't be re-enabled on my car.
What I find quite humorous is that people are completely ignoring the reason Ford disabled this in the first place. THE WINDOWS OPENED BY THEMSELVES. Now if part of the Anti-theft option was self opening windows I believe that you would have a very good case for a law suit.
Ford thought so too, that is why they disabled this feature. My guess is that they originally disabled it hoping they could fix it; however, the cost became prohibitively expensive.
Am I ticked that I didn't get this feature, Yes!! Did I get an alarm system with door, trunk, hood, motion and inclination sensors for only $200, Yes!! I think I got more than my money's worth.
I don't begrudge anyone their right to sue if they feel slighted. I just don't think it's neccessary. And I really don't think anything positive can come from it, looking at the BIG picture.
First I would like to state that I wanted this feature and did not get it and it can't be re-enabled on my car.
What I find quite humorous is that people are completely ignoring the reason Ford disabled this in the first place. THE WINDOWS OPENED BY THEMSELVES. Now if part of the Anti-theft option was self opening windows I believe that you would have a very good case for a law suit.
Ford thought so too, that is why they disabled this feature. My guess is that they originally disabled it hoping they could fix it; however, the cost became prohibitively expensive.
Am I ticked that I didn't get this feature, Yes!! Did I get an alarm system with door, trunk, hood, motion and inclination sensors for only $200, Yes!! I think I got more than my money's worth.
I don't begrudge anyone their right to sue if they feel slighted. I just don't think it's neccessary. And I really don't think anything positive can come from it, looking at the BIG picture.
7/5/05, 11:33 AM
#55
Shelby GT350 Member
Join Date: October 4, 2004
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have come to the realization that I now have wasted 10 min. of my life, while reading this thread, that I can never get back.
law suit...you guys are retarded.
Show me a "breached" contract or how a party has been "injured". Sounds like alot of you went to community college and took one Business Law class; and now think you know everything.
as previosuly stated, go for it....wait months...spend time/energy...and enjoy your free oil change coupon.
law suit...you guys are retarded.
Show me a "breached" contract or how a party has been "injured". Sounds like alot of you went to community college and took one Business Law class; and now think you know everything.
as previosuly stated, go for it....wait months...spend time/energy...and enjoy your free oil change coupon.
7/5/05, 12:19 PM
#56
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 7, 2004
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by SurfnSoCal@July 5, 2005, 11:36 AM
I have come to the realization that I now have wasted 10 min. of my life, while reading this thread, that I can never get back.
law suit...you guys are retarded.
Show me a "breached" contract or how a party has been "injured". Sounds like alot of you went to community college and took one Business Law class; and now think you know everything.
as previosuly stated, go for it....wait months...spend time/energy...and enjoy your free oil change coupon.
I have come to the realization that I now have wasted 10 min. of my life, while reading this thread, that I can never get back.
law suit...you guys are retarded.
Show me a "breached" contract or how a party has been "injured". Sounds like alot of you went to community college and took one Business Law class; and now think you know everything.
as previosuly stated, go for it....wait months...spend time/energy...and enjoy your free oil change coupon.
You may think it's retarded, but I think a guy dressing up like a female is retarded.
Anyway, if I get a free oil change, that's better than nothing. How would you feel if you ordered say the IUP, and they decided to remove the aluminum dash cause it was unsafe with the airbags or something. You probably wouldn't like it. It should be fixed or we should be compensated.
The bottom line is Ford should have been upfront about removing, you know like my dealer telling me that when I ordered. My dealer had no clue it was disabled. Or they should have fixed the problem!
7/5/05, 12:33 PM
#57
Cobra Member
Join Date: January 19, 2005
Location: Olathe, KS
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by SurfnSoCal@July 5, 2005, 11:36 AM
I have come to the realization that I now have wasted 10 min. of my life, while reading this thread, that I can never get back.
law suit...you guys are retarded.
Show me a "breached" contract or how a party has been "injured". Sounds like alot of you went to community college and took one Business Law class; and now think you know everything.
as previosuly stated, go for it....wait months...spend time/energy...and enjoy your free oil change coupon.
I have come to the realization that I now have wasted 10 min. of my life, while reading this thread, that I can never get back.
law suit...you guys are retarded.
Show me a "breached" contract or how a party has been "injured". Sounds like alot of you went to community college and took one Business Law class; and now think you know everything.
as previosuly stated, go for it....wait months...spend time/energy...and enjoy your free oil change coupon.
7/5/05, 12:33 PM
#58
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: April 6, 2004
Posts: 873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Ford Divisoon reserves the RIGHT to CHANGE PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS at any time WITHOUT incurring obligations"
Thats from the order guide. It was part of the active anti theft, not a stand alone option. If it was seperate, and you ordered ti and they stopped makign it, then that would be different.
Now just imagine ford held up all production of cars with active anti-theft to fix a problem. Evidently it was nothign simple, because otherwise i'm sure it would have been fixed. Granted I have it on ym car, but honestly, the range on it is not good and I am always right near ym car before the windows roll down. Plus I am always concerned that I will coem out oneday to find my windows down by themselves.
Thats from the order guide. It was part of the active anti theft, not a stand alone option. If it was seperate, and you ordered ti and they stopped makign it, then that would be different.
Now just imagine ford held up all production of cars with active anti-theft to fix a problem. Evidently it was nothign simple, because otherwise i'm sure it would have been fixed. Granted I have it on ym car, but honestly, the range on it is not good and I am always right near ym car before the windows roll down. Plus I am always concerned that I will coem out oneday to find my windows down by themselves.
7/5/05, 12:34 PM
#59
Shelby GT350 Member
Join Date: October 4, 2004
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by moc1976@July 5, 2005, 11:22 AM
Only 10 minutes wasted? How much time did you waste dressing up like a girl and prancing around in a tu-tu
You may think it's retarded, but I think a guy dressing up like a female is retarded.
Anyway, if I get a free oil change, that's better than nothing. How would you feel if you ordered say the IUP, and they decided to remove the aluminum dash cause it was unsafe with the airbags or something. You probably wouldn't like it. It should be fixed or we should be compensated.
The bottom line is Ford should have been upfront about removing, you know like my dealer telling me that when I ordered. My dealer had no clue it was disabled. Or they should have fixed the problem!
Only 10 minutes wasted? How much time did you waste dressing up like a girl and prancing around in a tu-tu
You may think it's retarded, but I think a guy dressing up like a female is retarded.
Anyway, if I get a free oil change, that's better than nothing. How would you feel if you ordered say the IUP, and they decided to remove the aluminum dash cause it was unsafe with the airbags or something. You probably wouldn't like it. It should be fixed or we should be compensated.
The bottom line is Ford should have been upfront about removing, you know like my dealer telling me that when I ordered. My dealer had no clue it was disabled. Or they should have fixed the problem!
:scratch: That was a joke...I believe you are in fact, not joking. are you?
one would say that the aluminum dash IS a major part of the IUP package. How are the windows going down automatically part of the alarm system? lol.
Do you think about your arguments before you post, or do you just "talk to hear yourself talk"? :scratch:
7/5/05, 12:40 PM
#60
Originally posted by moc1976@July 5, 2005, 10:08 AM
OK, I ordered the upgraded alarm, which is supposed to include the global open/close. The original brouchere had the open/close as part of the active anti-theft system, hence why I ordered it. My DORA only showed the active anti-theft, it made no mention of the feature(global open/close) as part of the option of active anti-theft.
So, I'm not sure what you keep asking. What documentation are you referring to? The brouchere said it was in there, the DORA only has a short description of each option, which only said active anti-theft alarm. The reason I thought I was getting it is because the brouchere said it was part of the option.
OK, I ordered the upgraded alarm, which is supposed to include the global open/close. The original brouchere had the open/close as part of the active anti-theft system, hence why I ordered it. My DORA only showed the active anti-theft, it made no mention of the feature(global open/close) as part of the option of active anti-theft.
So, I'm not sure what you keep asking. What documentation are you referring to? The brouchere said it was in there, the DORA only has a short description of each option, which only said active anti-theft alarm. The reason I thought I was getting it is because the brouchere said it was part of the option.