From: philg@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Philip Greenspun)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Ford litigation update
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:33:46
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Reply-To: philg@martigny.ai.mit.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: zug.ai.mit.edu


Here is the latest in my litigation with Ford:

1) they are resisting discovery tooth and nail.  I suspect that they
have a lot of embarassing internal data about a) how unreliable their
cars are, and b) how they have cheated other customers.  The judge
will decide whether they can keep all this good stuff to themselves on
November 18 (I filed a motion to compel discovery).

2) it is pretty easy to do legal research if you have a law library
with a reference librarian handy.  Lawyers don't really know anything
critical that you can't learn pretty quickly (maybe a week) it seems.
For example, I needed a precedents showing that advertising to
consumers is not only admissible in court but becomes part of a
company's contract with a consumer.  In a few hours I found a chain
going back to 1932 all involving Ford Motor Company!  They've
apparently been cheating people for years and fighting all the way to
the supreme courts of various states (the only decisions that have
value as precedent).  What is best about this is that you are supposed
to summarize the facts in cases you cite and Ford comes off as a real
enemy of the consumer (not surprising since otherwise why would the
customer have sued them?).

3) they still say my car is a lemon when it suits them ("your Honor,
we've admitted the car is defective and offered to settle, but
Greenspun is so unreasonable.") and then deny it when that is more
convenient ("we admit that Greenspun has allegedly experienced
problems", i.e. we admit that Greenspun complained to us but not that
the problems are real).

4) Ford is trying to settle, but of course not without a threat to
make me pay their future expenses of litigation if I don't take their
current offer and the court ultimately awards me less (I think they
know that they are going to lose eventually because all the facts are
against them).  I'm trying to figure out their chances of succeeding
with this.  In any case, their offer is currently $20,000 higher than
it was before I started litigating, so I have already established that
suing was the only way to get anything approaching fair treatment out
of Ford.

5) In one of my discovery requests (for correspondence between me and
Ford), Ford failed to produce all the letters!  Thus, I have pretty
much no faith that they will comply with my other requests if they
didn't do a good job with one where I was very likely to detect their
sloppiness.

6) I looked up their lawyer in Martindale-Hubbell and found that he is
a graduate of New England School of Law 1988 (it ain't Harvard, or
even BU) and that is when he started to practice.  His undergraduate
career was no more distinguished.  Thus, although Ford has piles of
money, they don't apparently send really good lawyers up against
consumers, possibly improving our chances to win redress.

Philip Greenspun
MIT Deparment of Electrical Engineering

-----------------------------------------------background for people
who didn't see earlier posts

6 months in the shop on 13 separate occasions during my first 18
months of ownership.  Ford has never successfully fixed any of the
serious engine control, brake or suspension/tire vibration problems
with the vehicles.  Ford has breached their explicit warranty that
promises a free loaner car and/or rental car reimbursement.  After I
sued them in Small Claims Court, they hired a vicious lawyer who
threatened to sue me for "distributing privileged information about
Ford".

I've written letters to executives and gotten no response (not even a
form letter back from a secretary).  I've sent them free engineering
advice on how they could fix some of their brain-damaged software.
I've called their 800 number (they promise to call back, but almost
never do).

A local consumer lawyer said that Ford is the most tenacious of the
car companies in fighting its own customers.  He told me of one case
where Ford spent $50,000 to litigate a poor lemon-owner into the
ground.

Here's what happened during the judicial hearing of Ford's Motion for
Summary Judgment.

First, a recap of the history:

1) I won three small claims cases against Ford, which they defended by
having Ford employees go before the judge and lie, sometimes so
transparently that their own printed documentation revealed their
statements to be false.

2) my latest small claims victory prompted them to go to their
attorney, who claims to do nothing but litigate against unlucky Ford
consumers.  He threatened to sue me to recover Ford's legal expenses
after beating me in some complicated way and also threatened to sue me
for distributing "privileged" information.

3) their attorney successfully transferred my current small claims
case (for $900 in rental car expense) into regular district court
where he could exploit his superior legal talent.

4) Ford filed a summary judgment motion to get the judge to say that I
could not recover more than $X (where X is about half of what the car
has cost me) under the Lemon Law, which I had not even mentioned in my
complaint.

5) I had decided that the judge in Malden was nasty and viciously
prejudiced against "the little guy", i.e. me.

Here is what happened at the hearing:

1) Ford's attorney, Jeffrey Moss, spoke for a few minutes about what a
pain in the ass I was, having successfully sued them three times in
small claims court.  The judge, who I've decided is in fact kind of
nasty, said "well, why was he successful?" and totally threw Moss off
balance.  Moss said something lame about how he hadn't been
representing Ford at the time so he couldn't say.  Then the judge said
"so why didn't you appeal the loss?"  Moss again struggled for words.

2) The judge told Moss that he didn't understand what this motion was
about since Ford was asking for summary judgment and hadn't even filed
a counterclaim or any sort of complaint against me.  They could move
to deny me what I'd ask for, but they weren't allowed to ask for
summary judgment without first asking for it in a complaint.

3) Moss went into a long exposition about how he had calculated my
Lemon Law damages, including putting in a 5 day limitation per repair
attempt on rental car expense.  The judge disputed this assumption
immediately, saying that he'd only done one Lemon Law case but that he
thought the law provided for "reasonable" rental charges.  Moss said
that the Lemon Law provided for rental car reimbursement only where
the manufacturer does not provide a rental and that my Ford warranty
gave me only 5 days.  The judge asked Moss to read the text of the
Lemon Law to him and afterwards accused Moss of distorting the law.
Moss disputed this and the judge zeroed in on the phrase "unless the
manufacturer provides a free loaner car" and asked "Did you provide
him a free loaner?"  Moss said "sometimes" (not actually true -- they
never did, but I hadn't said anything up to now and didn't want to
interrupt) and the judge rolled his eyes.

4) Moss talked about what a difficult person I was and how they had
admitted the car was defective and tried to settle with me for a year
by giving me a replacement car or my money back.

5) The judge asked me to speak now.  I said that I too was confused by
the motion as a matter of law and that, even if this were a Lemon Law
case, Ford's calculation relied on numerous disputed facts.  I listed
them, mostly issues of when the car was in the shop and what I was
doing at the time.  I also noted that Ford had testified under oath in
Small Claims Court in April, 1992 that there was nothing wrong with
the car and that the idea that they'd been trying to settle with me
equitably for a year was fantasy.

6) The judge told me that I couldn't just dispute facts orally, that I
had to file an affidavit.  I responded that he would find it attached
to my opposition memorandum.  He seemed kind of impressed that someone
without a lawyer had done things reasonably (of course, I was
following a lawyer friend's instructions).

7) I went on to talk about how Ford's first settlement offer was
minimal and the second was coupled with a threat to sue me for
"distributing privileged information about Ford".  I noted that Ford
had stonewalled and refused to do anything at all until I sued them.
I said that at all times I was prepared to take a reasonably cash
settlement and all I'd ever wanted was enough to buy a comparable
vehicle.  The judge asked Moss if I was offered a comparable car.
Moss gave a long legalistic answer referring to the Lemon Law statute
and the judge asked again: Did you offer him a comparable car.  Moss
finally had to admit that he didn't know the terms of the offer on
which he was relying.  The judge looked disgusted and asked if anyone
had anything further to say.  Then he said he would "take the matter
under advisement".

Ford's attorney walked away dejected, predicting defeat.  I called the
clerk this morning and found out that Ford's motion was denied.

Next stop: discovery.  I hope to make Ford disgorge all kinds of
incriminating internal memoranda with Requests for Production of
Documents and Interrogatories.

I'll keep you posted.

Philip Greenspun
MIT Department of EE & CS

P.S.  Let me know if any of you have any fun Ford experiences to
relate.

Newsgroups: rec.autos