|
1.367m later
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: small farm town Iowa..........at last
Posts: 6,357
|
Here Ye, Hear Ye. The Court of Public Opinion is now in Order
XXX Body Shop operates as an L.L.C. with two Members. Member A held a majority interest in the business. Member B, obviously held a lesser percentage of the business. One day Customer Joe brought his car in for repairs (consisting of major rust repair and a total refinish along with some upholstery work) ,paid for services as milestones were reached and the project advanced. Before the project was completed Member B terminates his interest and participation in the L.L.C. and Member A (holding the majority interest) retained all the elements of XXX Body Shop, including personnel, and moved to a separate facility. It was agreed between Member A and Member B that Member A would retain Customer Joe's car, complete it and receive payment for the balance of the project. Customer Joe's car was eventually completed and Member A received payment for services rendered and Customer Joe took possession of his car.
A short time later (well within any expressed or implied period of warranty) Customer Joe becomes aware of a couple details that he is not satisfied with. Customer Joe makes Member A aware of these imperfections and asks what can be done to correct them. Member A states that he would be willing to address imperfection #1 but is unable to address both as imperfection #2 involves refinishing part of the car and that he (Member A) is not capable of painting due to the absence of technical ability and the lack of proper facilities. Member A suggests that Member B should accept the responsibility of imperfection #2.
Here is where the question arises. To what extent is Member B responsible for warranty work on Customer Joe's car?
__________________
non velox ad propitiare, verisimile non oblivisci
If it's not The Original Automotive Innovations and Restoration, then it's just hot AIR.
Last edited by KevinP73; 06-22-2012 at 08:10 PM..
Reason: I corrected the terminology regarding "partner" and "Member" as McLovin pointed out
|