OT - Question for the "part-time lawyers" Who would be liable in this case?

[housejunk]

Originally Posted by Log

Dammit - I didn't want full time lawyers in here.... Just the part time ones that work for free!!!!

I agree in that the threat of legal action won't scare them too much. M

However, I am (and still will be) a loyal customer for the past 4 years with the same salesman. I have bought some big ticket items from there and refer friends and family there. I have some big purchases in the near future coming up, but will hold off on those until this is resolved - the salesman who I deal with knows this too.

One thing that will help is that Nissan will assist in getting this taken care of. So it isn't some schmuck off the street going against a larger corporation.

If that's the case, I think you're in really good shape. Having Nissan (or even the dealership) in your corner is great leverage on your account.

And briefly (since I'm waiting for a courier) I'll give you a bit of free advice. With regards to the pure legal issue, you are completely in the right. You contracted for a working system. You never recieved that system, as such they fundamentally breached the contract of sale. Additionally, there is an implied quality of service wararnty for all consumer services and purchases which indicates that "services supplied under a consumer agreement are of a reasonbly acceptable quality" see s.9 of the link below.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...c30_e.htm#BK10


Of course, that's a VERY broad law, and it doesn't carry a ton of weight in court, but still, it's there to point out to someone if you want to scare them. So, from a pure legal standpoint you definitely have a case. From a practical standpoint, STAY AWAY. Mediate, bother, cajole, complain. That'll be far more effective in the long run.

EDIT: Another thing I'd like to point out to people. No matter what some companies try to get you to sign, you CANNOT under any circumstances, contract your way out of certain base consumer protections. Even if a corporation makes you sign something which states that "they are not liable under any circumstances", it is complete BS. That goes for many other things other than consumer protection. There are always certain, base protections which the government has decided you will always need, and which you cannot forfeit. In regards to consumer rights and warranties from the above link to the Consumer Protection Act:

No waiver of substantive and procedural rights
7. (1) The substantive and procedural rights given under this Act apply DESPITE any agreement or waiver to the contrary

Just a good thing to keep in mind if someone appears to be trying to get you to sign your life/rights away.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by housejunk

If that's the case, I think you're in really good shape. Having Nissan (or even the dealership) in your corner is great leverage on your account.

And briefly (since I'm waiting for a courier) I'll give you a bit of free advice. With regards to the pure legal issue, you are completely in the right. You contracted for a working system. You never recieved that system, as such they fundamentally breached the contract of sale. Additionally, there is an implied quality of service wararnty for all consumer services and purchases which indicates that "services supplied under a consumer agreement are of a reasonbly acceptable quality" see s.9 of the link below.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...c30_e.htm#BK10


Of course, that's a VERY broad law, and it doesn't carry a ton of weight in court, but still, it's there to point out to someone if you want to scare them. So, from a pure legal standpoint you definitely have a case. From a practical standpoint, STAY AWAY. Mediate, bother, cajole, complain. That'll be far more effective in the long run.

EDIT: Another thing I'd like to point out to people. No matter what some companies try to get you to sign, you CANNOT under any circumstances, contract your way out of certain base consumer protections. Even if a corporation makes you sign something which states that "they are not liable under any circumstances", it is complete BS. That goes for many other things other than consumer protection. There are always certain, base protections which the government has decided you will always need, and which you cannot forfeit. In regards to consumer rights and warranties from the above link to the Consumer Protection Act:

No waiver of substantive and procedural rights
7. (1) The substantive and procedural rights given under this Act apply DESPITE any agreement or waiver to the contrary

Just a good thing to keep in mind if someone appears to be trying to get you to sign your life/rights away.

Of course, these consumer protection laws quoted above only apply in Ontario. I'm sure housejunk meant to qualify that response above. Log, you're in Saskatchewan, right?

Consumer Protection Act, S.S. 1996, c. C-30.1

Statutory warranties
48 Where a consumer product is sold by a retail seller, the following warranties
are deemed to be given by the retail seller to the consumer:
(a) that the retail seller has a right to sell the product;
(b) that:
(i) at the time of delivery to the consumer, the product is and will
remain free from any security interest, lien, charge or encumbrance not
expressly disclosed or actually known to the consumer before the sale is
made; and
(ii) the consumer will enjoy quiet possession of the product except to the
extent that it may be disturbed by any person entitled to any security
interest, lien, charge or encumbrance disclosed or actually known to the
consumer before the sale is made;
(c) where the sale of the product is a sale by description, that the product
corresponds with the description;
(d) that the product supplied under the contract is of acceptable quality,
except that this warranty is deemed not to be given:
(i) respecting defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention
before the contract is made; or
(ii) where the consumer examines the product before the contract is
made, respecting defects that examination ought to have revealed;
(e) where the consumer expressly or by implication makes known to the
retail seller any particular purpose for which the product is being bought, that
the product supplied under the contract is reasonably fit for that purpose,
whether or not that is a purpose for which the product is commonly supplied,
except that this warranty is deemed not to be given where the circumstances
show that:
(i) the consumer does not rely on the retail seller's skill or judgment; or
(ii) it is unreasonable for the consumer to rely on the retail seller's skill
or judgment;
(f) where the sale of the product is a sale by sample:
(i) that the bulk of the product corresponds in quality with the sample;
(ii) that the consumer is to have a reasonable opportunity to compare
the bulk of the product with the sample;
(iii) that the product is free from any defect that renders it not of
acceptable quality and that would not be apparent on reasonable
examination of the sample;
(g) that the product and all its components are to be durable for a reasonable
period, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the sale, including:
(i) the description and nature of the product;
(ii) the purchase price;
(iii) the express warranties of the retail seller or manufacturer; and
(iv) the necessary maintenance the product normally requires and the
manner in which it has been used;
(h) where the product normally requires repairs, that spare parts and repair
facilities will be reasonably available for a reasonable period after the date of
sale of the product.

[Hack&Lube]

Is a car starter really worth it? Is it that hard to walk to your car, put the key in the lock, turn, open the door, get in, put the key in the ignition, and twist?

I suppose in Calgary, it helps for winters because you could start your car from inside your house to warm the engine, etc. but other than that, is it really that useful?

BTW: here's a tip, next time you find yourself out of range, touch the remote/fob to the side of your head. You'll double the range.

[Log]

Originally Posted by housejunk

If that's the case, I think you're in really good shape. Having Nissan (or even the dealership) in your corner is great leverage on your account.

And briefly (since I'm waiting for a courier) I'll give you a bit of free advice. With regards to the pure legal issue, you are completely in the right. You contracted for a working system. You never recieved that system, as such they fundamentally breached the contract of sale. Additionally, there is an implied quality of service wararnty for all consumer services and purchases which indicates that "services supplied under a consumer agreement are of a reasonbly acceptable quality" see s.9 of the link below.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...c30_e.htm#BK10


Of course, that's a VERY broad law, and it doesn't carry a ton of weight in court, but still, it's there to point out to someone if you want to scare them. So, from a pure legal standpoint you definitely have a case. From a practical standpoint, STAY AWAY. Mediate, bother, cajole, complain. That'll be far more effective in the long run.

EDIT: Another thing I'd like to point out to people. No matter what some companies try to get you to sign, you CANNOT under any circumstances, contract your way out of certain base consumer protections. Even if a corporation makes you sign something which states that "they are not liable under any circumstances", it is complete BS. That goes for many other things other than consumer protection. There are always certain, base protections which the government has decided you will always need, and which you cannot forfeit. In regards to consumer rights and warranties from the above link to the Consumer Protection Act:

No waiver of substantive and procedural rights
7. (1) The substantive and procedural rights given under this Act apply DESPITE any agreement or waiver to the contrary

Just a good thing to keep in mind if someone appears to be trying to get you to sign your life/rights away.

Thank you so much for the info!!! You are a heck of a man doing a heck of a job!

Originally Posted by fredr123

Of course, these consumer protection laws quoted above only apply in Ontario. I'm sure housejunk meant to qualify that response above. Log, you're in Saskatchewan, right?

Consumer Protection Act, S.S. 1996, c. C-30.1

Statutory warranties
48 Where a consumer product is sold by a retail seller, the following warranties
are deemed to be given by the retail seller to the consumer:
(a) that the retail seller has a right to sell the product;
(b) that:
(i) at the time of delivery to the consumer, the product is and will
remain free from any security interest, lien, charge or encumbrance not
expressly disclosed or actually known to the consumer before the sale is
made; and
(ii) the consumer will enjoy quiet possession of the product except to the
extent that it may be disturbed by any person entitled to any security
interest, lien, charge or encumbrance disclosed or actually known to the
consumer before the sale is made;
(c) where the sale of the product is a sale by description, that the product
corresponds with the description;
(d) that the product supplied under the contract is of acceptable quality,
except that this warranty is deemed not to be given:
(i) respecting defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention
before the contract is made; or
(ii) where the consumer examines the product before the contract is
made, respecting defects that examination ought to have revealed;
(e) where the consumer expressly or by implication makes known to the
retail seller any particular purpose for which the product is being bought, that
the product supplied under the contract is reasonably fit for that purpose,
whether or not that is a purpose for which the product is commonly supplied,
except that this warranty is deemed not to be given where the circumstances
show that:
(i) the consumer does not rely on the retail seller's skill or judgment; or
(ii) it is unreasonable for the consumer to rely on the retail seller's skill
or judgment;
(f) where the sale of the product is a sale by sample:
(i) that the bulk of the product corresponds in quality with the sample;
(ii) that the consumer is to have a reasonable opportunity to compare
the bulk of the product with the sample;
(iii) that the product is free from any defect that renders it not of
acceptable quality and that would not be apparent on reasonable
examination of the sample;
(g) that the product and all its components are to be durable for a reasonable
period, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the sale, including:
(i) the description and nature of the product;
(ii) the purchase price;
(iii) the express warranties of the retail seller or manufacturer; and
(iv) the necessary maintenance the product normally requires and the
manner in which it has been used;
(h) where the product normally requires repairs, that spare parts and repair
facilities will be reasonably available for a reasonable period after the date of
sale of the product.

Yes it was done in SK. Thanks for the info too!



I'm going to Visions on Friday to talk to the manager. I'll keep you guys updated!!!

[Doctordestiny]

There seem to be some lawyers/lawyer wannbes here, so here goes another.

If someone (a construction contractor) held himself out to be operating a limited company (Joe Smith Contracting Ltd.) when he is a sole proprietorship, would that be considered to be fraud or some other serious offence? He has Joe Smith Contracting Ltd. on his signs, business cards, letterhead, etc. I think it is fraud or something, because Ltd. suggests a limit to liability, which seems to me to be fraud or near fraud. What about jobsite risk?

Anyone know?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

There seem to be some lawyers/lawyer wannbes here, so here goes another.

If someone (a construction contractor) held himself out to be operating a limited company (Joe Smith Contracting Ltd.) when he is a sole proprietorship, would that be considered to be fraud or some other serious offence? He has Joe Smith Contracting Ltd. on his signs, business cards, letterhead, etc. I think it is fraud or something, because Ltd. suggests a limit to liability, which seems to me to be fraud or near fraud. What about jobsite risk?

Anyone know?

If the contractor has incorporated correctly then there shouldn't be a problem. that's the main reason that most people incorporate themselves in the first place to limit personal liability so that if there are any issues you can only sue the corporation and their assets and not go after someone's personal assets.

I'm only a lawstudent so take that for what it is worth.


To the actual lawyer in this thread: the rumour mill around the law community is that small claims court judges actually dislike lawyers mucking up the process with all their legalese because small claims is supposed to be available to joe sixpack. Having never been to small claims I have no personal experience, are you saying that judges in small claims prefer lawyers?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by fotze

I seem to remember a post from you saying how well it worked or was that someone else?

Ya this thread pretty much eliminates me ever getting one done. Either pay $1000 and get it done through the dealer in which case it is not worth it at that price point. Or go cheaper and play the $5000 in the hole roulette. The payoff of a warm car just is not worth that.

I did say how well it worked. It was awesome until it made my car think it was boosting at 30psi.

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Is a car starter really worth it? Is it that hard to walk to your car, put the key in the lock, turn, open the door, get in, put the key in the ignition, and twist?

I suppose in Calgary, it helps for winters because you could start your car from inside your house to warm the engine, etc. but other than that, is it really that useful?

BTW: here's a tip, next time you find yourself out of range, touch the remote/fob to the side of your head. You'll double the range.

For me it was awesome when my car was parked in my parkade all day at Palliser parkade, and I could start it from inside the Saddledome after a game was done. Warm car by the time I got there!

Totally not worth it though. I'd never do it again. Hopefully its a factory option on my next car.

[housejunk]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

If the contractor has incorporated correctly then there shouldn't be a problem. that's the main reason that most people incorporate themselves in the first place to limit personal liability so that if there are any issues you can only sue the corporation and their assets and not go after someone's personal assets.

I'm only a lawstudent so take that for what it is worth.


To the actual lawyer in this thread: the rumour mill around the law community is that small claims court judges actually dislike lawyers mucking up the process with all their legalese because small claims is supposed to be available to joe sixpack. Having never been to small claims I have no personal experience, are you saying that judges in small claims prefer lawyers?

My primary practice area is in securities/M&A with some tax work. I haven't set foot in a small claims court since articling and that was for my uncle. A good friend of mine from law school, his father acted as a QB judge for years and did some time on the small claims circuit. His favorite saying is that the only people he dislikes more than lawyers are people pretending to be lawyers. I can't really comment on the rest of the legal community but that's the impression I got from him. From my own courtroom experience and a year spent clerking, I will say this: Judges don't prefer lawyers per se, they just prefer whatever makes their job easier and simpler. If a well-prepared, organized non-lawyer presented their case ably, I don't imagine they would have any problem with it. What they would not tolerate, would be an overly informal, disorganized, rambling presentation. Unfortunately, people acting in their own interest and on their own behalf generally fall into the later category.

[housejunk]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

There seem to be some lawyers/lawyer wannbes here, so here goes another.

If someone (a construction contractor) held himself out to be operating a limited company (Joe Smith Contracting Ltd.) when he is a sole proprietorship, would that be considered to be fraud or some other serious offence? He has Joe Smith Contracting Ltd. on his signs, business cards, letterhead, etc. I think it is fraud or something, because Ltd. suggests a limit to liability, which seems to me to be fraud or near fraud. What about jobsite risk?

Anyone know?

There's no fraud whatsoever. The fact that the indivdual has created and registered a corporation (Joe Smith Contracting Ltd.) is considered notice that it is a separate legal entity and has limited liability.

If, and only if there is especially egregieous behaviour, will the court "pierce the corporate veil" and attach full liability on the individual. There's a TON of old case law about the very situation you're describing. Simply put, its perfectly legal unless the court (on a case by case basis) finds something it feels it needs to rectify. That's a gross simplification, but the results are extremely fact dependent.

[Alpha_Q]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Is a car starter really worth it? Is it that hard to walk to your car, put the key in the lock, turn, open the door, get in, put the key in the ignition, and twist?

I suppose in Calgary, it helps for winters because you could start your car from inside your house to warm the engine, etc. but other than that, is it really that useful?

BTW: here's a tip, next time you find yourself out of range, touch the remote/fob to the side of your head. You'll double the range.

Is it worth it? In a word - yes. The first time you have to chisel ice of your windshield (while holding the scraper against your forehead to get better leverage) in -20 Celsius weather you'll understand.

[Log]

Originally Posted by housejunk

There's no fraud whatsoever. The fact that the indivdual has created and registered a corporation (Joe Smith Contracting Ltd.) is considered notice that it is a separate legal entity and has limited liability.

If, and only if there is especially egregieous behaviour, will the court "pierce the corporate veil" and attach full liability on the individual. There's a TON of old case law about the very situation you're describing. Simply put, its perfectly legal unless the court (on a case by case basis) finds something it feels it needs to rectify. That's a gross simplification, but the results are extremely fact dependent.

I think what Doc was getting as was Joe Smith registering his trade name as Joe Smith Contracting Ltd, having a sole owner (not director), but creating the illusion that he is incorporated.....

[Doctordestiny]

Originally Posted by housejunk

There's no fraud whatsoever. The fact that the indivdual has created and registered a corporation (Joe Smith Contracting Ltd.) is considered notice that it is a separate legal entity and has limited liability.

If, and only if there is especially egregieous behaviour, will the court "pierce the corporate veil" and attach full liability on the individual. There's a TON of old case law about the very situation you're describing. Simply put, its perfectly legal unless the court (on a case by case basis) finds something it feels it needs to rectify. That's a gross simplification, but the results are extremely fact dependent.

Guess I wasn't sufficiently clear. He does not have a corporation. He has a sole proprietorship but likes people to think he has a corp for his image so he has put Ltd. on all of his materials. He's not incorporated.

Is it fraud or something very serious to misrepresent yourself like this?

[housejunk]

Originally Posted by Log

I think what Doc was getting as was Joe Smith registering his trade name as Joe Smith Contracting Ltd, having a sole owner (not director), but creating the illusion that he is incorporated.....

If that were the case, there would be absolutely no benefit at all to Joe Smith. If Joe Smith gives the impression that he is incorporated when in fact he isn't, the second any liabilities come due he would not be able to hide behind the "corporate shield" and claim limited liability. Any creditor would be able to attack his personal earnings/property directly. If an individual wants to pass itself off as having limited liability when in fact it doesn't, that would be absolutely foolish on their behalf. The only benefit of passing itself off as a corporation would be to entice other shareholders to join the company under the protection of limited liability. In the case of a small time contractor, that benefit and foresight is unlikely.

Fraud, in these types of situations ALWAYS involves a corporation that IS incorporated and does have limited liability trying to pass itself off as being a sole proprietorship (SP's). Creditors are more willing to deal with small time SP's instead of incorproated companies since they know they can go after all assets, not just those of the corporation. In the above example, Joe Smith would benefit if it did have limited liability, but instead stated to creditors that they did not.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

There seem to be some lawyers/lawyer wannbes here, so here goes another.

If someone (a construction contractor) held himself out to be operating a limited company (Joe Smith Contracting Ltd.) when he is a sole proprietorship, would that be considered to be fraud or some other serious offence? He has Joe Smith Contracting Ltd. on his signs, business cards, letterhead, etc. I think it is fraud or something, because Ltd. suggests a limit to liability, which seems to me to be fraud or near fraud. What about jobsite risk?

Anyone know?

It's an offence under Alberta law to use "Ltd" (or a variety of other terms) in your business name without being properly incorporated in Alberta. You could be fined in an amount not to exceed $5000. See below...

Businss Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c. B-9

Corporate name
10(1) Subject to section 15.4(1), the word “Limited”, “Limitée”, “Incorporated”, “Incorporée” or “Corporation” or the abbreviation “Ltd.”, “Ltée”, “Inc.” or “Corp.” shall be the last word of the name of every corporation, and a corporation may use and may be legally designated by either the full or the abbreviated form.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the words “Professional Corporation” shall be the last words of the name of every corporation whose incorporation is approved in accordance with section 7(2), but a professional corporation may add a professional descriptor to its name, and the professional descriptor may be inserted between the words “Professional” and “Corporation”.
(2.1) For the purposes of subsection (2), a professional descriptor is a term that describes the profession or occupation of the professional corporation, including the terms “Legal”, “Law”, “Medical”, “Dental” or others descriptive of the profession or occupation.
(3) Subject to section 15.4(2), no person other than a body corporate shall carry on business within Alberta under any name or title that contains the word “Limited”, “Limitée”, “Incorporated”, “Incorporée” or “Corporation” or the abbreviation “Ltd.”, “Ltée”, “Inc.” or “Corp.” or the words “Professional Corporation”.
(4) A person carrying on business in contravention of subsection (3) or section 15.4(2) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5000.
(5) A corporation may file a notice in the prescribed form with the Registrar designating an additional form or forms of its name in accordance with subsection (6).

[housejunk]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

Guess I wasn't sufficiently clear. He does not have a corporation. He has a sole proprietorship but likes people to think he has a corp for his image so he has put Ltd. on all of his materials. He's not incorporated.

Is it fraud or something very serious to misrepresent yourself like this?

I guess it could be a misrepresentation, but I cannot forsee any actionable harm that would result in legal action. If I were a creditor, I would LOVE to find out that someone I dealt with did not actually have limitedl liability when they stated they did. Like I stated above, he's an idiot for advertising that he has limited liability when in fact he does not.

[Doctordestiny]

Originally Posted by fredr123

It's an offence under Alberta law to use "Ltd" (or a variety of other terms) in your business name without being properly incorporated in Alberta. You could be fined in an amount not to exceed $5000. See below...

Businss Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c. B-9

Corporate name
10(1) Subject to section 15.4(1), the word “Limited”, “Limitée”, “Incorporated”, “Incorporée” or “Corporation” or the abbreviation “Ltd.”, “Ltée”, “Inc.” or “Corp.” shall be the last word of the name of every corporation, and a corporation may use and may be legally designated by either the full or the abbreviated form.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the words “Professional Corporation” shall be the last words of the name of every corporation whose incorporation is approved in accordance with section 7(2), but a professional corporation may add a professional descriptor to its name, and the professional descriptor may be inserted between the words “Professional” and “Corporation”.
(2.1) For the purposes of subsection (2), a professional descriptor is a term that describes the profession or occupation of the professional corporation, including the terms “Legal”, “Law”, “Medical”, “Dental” or others descriptive of the profession or occupation.
(3) Subject to section 15.4(2), no person other than a body corporate shall carry on business within Alberta under any name or title that contains the word “Limited”, “Limitée”, “Incorporated”, “Incorporée” or “Corporation” or the abbreviation “Ltd.”, “Ltée”, “Inc.” or “Corp.” or the words “Professional Corporation”.
(4) A person carrying on business in contravention of subsection (3) or section 15.4(2) is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5000.
(5) A corporation may file a notice in the prescribed form with the Registrar designating an additional form or forms of its name in accordance with subsection (6).

Excellent. Thank you.

[Log]

Originally Posted by housejunk

I guess it could be a misrepresentation, but I cannot forsee any actionable harm that would result in legal action. If I were a creditor, I would LOVE to find out that someone I dealt with did not actually have limitedl liability when they stated they did. Like I stated above, he's an idiot for advertising that he has limited liability when in fact he does not.

Agreed. I am a tax collector for the province of Saskatchewan.... It is way way way way easier to collect funds from a proprietor or partnership as opposed to a corporation.

Also in Saskatchewan you can't legally register a sole proprietorship or a partnership with INC, LTD, CORP or whatever at the end of the name.

If I operated a business, I would definately incorporate to reduce the personal liability.

[Titan]

Hey Log.

I have done half a dozen small claims actions here in Alberta. My experience is that an honest person that has documents and receipts to back up their claim and can demonstrate a reasonable effort to recoup their losses has a great advantage in small claims. As often as not the judges are "distressed" when a lawyer gets all lawyerly. Do not pretend to be a lawyer and you will be fine.

I think you have a claim against the place that installed it and against the contractor they hired. I would sue both. I would check the agreement to see if they advised they would be hiring a contractor. It does not matter much from a liability perspective but if they did not disclose it to you it may help. Having said this the best use of small claims is as a bargaining tool. You may want to get the forms from the courthouse and go through them before you meet with the manager so you have a good idea of your case. Assemble all your receipts and write out your "claim" so you are prepared when you meet the manager. Also, have your lowest acceptable position so if an offer is made you can decide whether to take it or not.

I would also mention to the manager that you are prepared to go to the media. Leah Williams-Dogherty and Tony Tighe (in calgary but I am sure Regina has the same types) both do consumer protection stories.

Finally, I am suspicious that the nissan dealer is so willing to eat a bunch of the costs. Maybe, they did something that they are not telling you. In any event I would determine what they are willing to pay for and then approach Visions and say Nissan will pay for this if you pay the remainder then the matter is closed. Any reasonable manager should jump at that.

Finally, get the manager's manager's name and ask if they have a arbitration program. Just asking for the boss' name is often effective.

If all else fails off to court. It is worth your time and you are able to do it yourself and you many learn something about the process.

good luck.

[Log]

Update - it appears as though Visions and the guy who installs the command starts have agreed to cover the costs that Nissan is asking them to.

Great news!!!

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

Excellent. Thank you.

What company are you talking about? PM me if you wish, but I'm looking into home renovations and would like to avoid this outfit.