@umisef

Quote:

So let me get this straight --- if you take your car to a mechanic, and the mechanic gives you *in writing* "Should only be a couple of weeks", then two *months* later, you hit a cashflow problem and want to sell your car, you'd consider the mechanic to have a veto right? But wait, it gets better. You *do* sell the title to your car to a third party, the new owner pays for the agreed upon (in writing) sum to the mechanic, then sells the title to someone fourth party. When the fourth party turns up at the mechanic, the mechanic calls the third party, not the original owner, to check that everything is above board. The mechanic also sends a receipt for the money paid to the third party. Then the car, which is a real looker, attracts the attention of the local car magazine. The mechanic is interviewed and says "Oh, yeah, this one. Cool car, belongs to fourth party. It's been around the block a bit, but it has now found a nice new owner, and we are looking forward to working on it in the future". Then, after the mechanic has had the car for a year, the (second) new owner turns up and wants to take it home. "Oh, no", says the mechanic, "you still owe some of the agreed upon money". Well, the owner wants the car, so he pays. "Oh no", says the mechanic, "you still owe us more money". This is getting silly, but the owner wants to drive the car furing his holiday, so he pays, and asks for the keys. "Oh no", says the mechanic, "that car is not owned by you. The original owner had no right to sell it, 10 months ago. Says so in the contract. Look, right here, right under the 'should take two weeks' clause. So it's still owned by him!". And for extra fun and giggles, the mechanic then goes and sues you, the original owner....

It's indeed funny. One could even make nice short movie about these metaphors if not the real case. Also all the new owners could be played by same actor who is just wearing different glasses.

Last edited by quenthal on 01-Feb-2008 at 10:33 AM.
Last edited by quenthal on 01-Feb-2008 at 10:33 AM.
Last edited by quenthal on 01-Feb-2008 at 10:32 AM.

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @Lou Quote: As you may know, I own Fiero(s) and parts (source code) can be difficult to fine. No mechanic (or developer) can guarrantee to the day when something will be done escpecially when the parts supplier (Eyetech) sends you a different drivetrain than originally expected yet the original owner didn't see fit to complain about that and still expected the job to be done. So let me get this straight --- if you take your car to a mechanic, and the mechanic gives you *in writing* "Should only be a couple of weeks", then two *months* later, you hit a cashflow problem and want to sell your car, you'd consider the mechanic to have a veto right? But wait, it gets better. You *do* sell the title to your car to a third party, the new owner pays for the agreed upon (in writing) sum to the mechanic, then sells the title to someone fourth party. When the fourth party turns up at the mechanic, the mechanic calls the third party, not the original owner, to check that everything is above board. The mechanic also sends a receipt for the money paid to the third party. Then the car, which is a real looker, attracts the attention of the local car magazine. The mechanic is interviewed and says "Oh, yeah, this one. Cool car, belongs to fourth party. It's been around the block a bit, but it has now found a nice new owner, and we are looking forward to working on it in the future". Then, after the mechanic has had the car for a year, the (second) new owner turns up and wants to take it home. "Oh, no", says the mechanic, "you still owe some of the agreed upon money". Well, the owner wants the car, so he pays. "Oh no", says the mechanic, "you still owe us more money". This is getting silly, but the owner wants to drive the car furing his holiday, so he pays, and asks for the keys. "Oh no", says the mechanic, "that car is not owned by you. The original owner had no right to sell it, 10 months ago. Says so in the contract. Look, right here, right under the 'should take two weeks' clause. So it's still owned by him!". And for extra fun and giggles, the mechanic then goes and sues you, the original owner....

What you are ignoring is that after the work is done, it took alot more labor than originally expected yet the owner still expects to pay the original estimated amount. Now, by law, the mechanic has a mechanic's lein on the car. The original owner can sell the title to the car to whomever he wants, but the mechanic is not entitle to release the car until his bill is paid and the original estimate simply will not do. After a certain amount of time, the car is considered abandonned and becomes the property of the mechanic.

That is how mechanic's leins work here in the USA and no matter how you spin your words, the mechanic still owns the car until his bill is paid in full.

The original owner's promise to pay "2 meeellleon dollars" with is pinky next to the left most edge of his lip as he hits the send button on an email to the mechanic does not mean he will pay and the mechanic will not release the car until the money is really on the mechanic's desk.