Actually, no. They only have to prove that AFTER you sue them, which happens
AFTER they have refused/voided your warranty. They need nothing other than
what they THINK might have happened or might be going to happen to take some
action wholly to their benefit and to your detriment. They own the football.
They need prove nothing, only allege it, to act on their own paranoia. Proof
only needs to happen in a courtroom, not at the service desk. Unfounded
allegations and unwarranted suspicion are quite sufficient for some
corporate entity to take some action in fear that something MIGHT (however
unlikely) be happening that could cost them money.
It's what I call arrogant stupidity. Plain ignorance can be fought with good
information. Arrogant stupidity is when they don't care about any
information that is contrary to their position, even when the position is so
obviously wrong to anyone who knows what they are talking about.
--Rocky
-----Original Message-----
From: Tharpe, Joe (RyTull Coil) <JoeT@ryersoncoil.com>
To: .Team.Net <autox@autox.team.net>
Date: Monday, June 25, 2001 5:09 PM
Subject: RE: Big Brother, the original question
>Wouldn't the burden of proof be on them to prove that you were using the
>vehicle in question. Ask the dealer to prove that it was your car that was
>being driven. If they cannot prove that it was the vehicle being serviced
>then they should service the vehicle. Unless there is a record of GPS
>locator information for the vehicle in question, and there is no
>photographic evidence that the vehicle in question was actually being used
>in competition, then how can they deny service? The SCCA does not require
>VIN's at check in. Maybe you drove there in your vehicle, used a friends
>vehicle in competition. I would think they would have to prove that you
>were using the vehicle in question in competition. Just because your name
>shows up on a results sheet does not mean you were driving a particular
>vehicle. Maybe one just like it.
>
>Just my 2 cents.
>
>Joe ( I still think this monitoring stuff is all wrong)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Rocky Entriken [mailto:rocky@tri.net]
>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 4:54 PM
>To: .Team.Net
>Subject: Big Brother, the original question
>
>Okay, folks, the thread wandered off to other interesting angles, but
>quickly away from the original question.
>
>Not asking here about whether or not autox activity SHOULD be covered under
>warranty, or whether advertising with a performance theme is tacit approval
>for using the products in a performance mode.
>
>The question is -- are reports real of GM (or any automaker) using autox
>RESULTS they find on SCCA websites as cause for voiding warranties, or is
>this urban legend? Ditto insurance companies using such data to void
>policies or refuse claims.
>
>This was generated by the local (newbie) competitor asking that his finish
>be left off the results so GM would not know he was using their Z06 for
such
>nefarious purposes.
>
>Is this Chicken Little? Or is the sky really falling?
>
>I want to be able to tell the fellow his fears are groundless -or- urge
SCCA
>to get proactive with GM et al to cease such practice.
>
>The closest (and about only) response on point so far is the one from
Arthur
>Emerson about VW and Nissan dealerships in Jersey sending service reps to
>the dragstrip to photo and note cars that were competing. That still does
>not confirm any "spying" on our websites.
>
>--Rocky Entriken
|