The responses to this thread is disappointing. The details of the case is still rather vague, so it'll take some enlightenment before making a judgement call on whether it was the right decision for the woman to have won the sum she won.

 

If the car was only going to get 20 MPG, but was advertised to get 50 MPG, then it's arguably a case of fraudulence. If only this applied to broadband speeds too.

The responses to this thread is disappointing. The details of the case is still rather vague, so it'll take some enlightenment before making a judgement call on whether it was the right decision for the woman to have won the sum she won.

 

If the car was only going to get 20 MPG, but was advertised to get 50 MPG, then it's arguably a case of fraudulence. If only this applied to broadband speeds too.

Or wireless N routers.

The responses to this thread is disappointing. The details of the case is still rather vague, so it'll take some enlightenment before making a judgement call on whether it was the right decision for the woman to have won the sum she won.

 

If the car was only going to get 20 MPG, but was advertised to get 50 MPG, then it's arguably a case of fraudulence. If only this applied to broadband speeds too.

 

What is known that it was advertised as 'up to 50MPG', and that this figure was approved and given by the EPA, a totally separate body to Honda. We also know that she had owned the car for 6 years without raising any queries whatsoever with Honda, until November 2011, shortly before the case went to court. It is also known that she refused to let Honda inspect the car prior to it going to court, and that the car did have a sticker on the window stating that the MPG figures can vary.

 

That is all fact as far as I can see.

I'm riding in my dad's car right now and the screen that monitors the fuel economy is fluctuating between 15 and 99 MPG. It's ridiculous to expect the MPG to be exactly the same at any time. Also, from what I understand, she turned down Honda's offer to give all of the owners $100 to take almost $10,000 for herself.

Lol. why are people blaming the woman here? If the MPG isn't accurate, then Honda shouldn't be using it to advertise the product.

Lol. why are people blaming the woman here? If the MPG isn't accurate, then Honda shouldn't be using it to advertise the product.

Even when

she had owned the car for 6 years without raising any queries whatsoever with Honda, until November 2011, shortly before the case went to court. It is also known that she refused to let Honda inspect the car prior to it going to court, and that the car did have a sticker on the window stating that the MPG figures can vary.

?

Lol. why are people blaming the woman here? If the MPG isn't accurate, then Honda shouldn't be using it to advertise the product.

Even when

she had owned the car for 6 years without raising any queries whatsoever with Honda, until November 2011, shortly before the case went to court. It is also known that she refused to let Honda inspect the car prior to it going to court, and that the car did have a sticker on the window stating that the MPG figures can vary.

?

 

Ownership time is not an accurate indication for when a problem arises. It can take years before auto problems are addressed or even admitted to via recalling, part issues, inaccurate figures, etc. Businesses don't want to do things like that because it costs money. They get away with murder from anywhere to faulty parts to faulty advertising because of "puffery" and other ridiculous clauses in FCC regulations not to mention quality control within the automotive industry.

Lol. why are people blaming the woman here? If the MPG isn't accurate, then Honda shouldn't be using it to advertise the product.

Even when

she had owned the car for 6 years without raising any queries whatsoever with Honda, until November 2011, shortly before the case went to court. It is also known that she refused to let Honda inspect the car prior to it going to court, and that the car did have a sticker on the window stating that the MPG figures can vary.

?

 

Ownership time is not an accurate indication for when a problem arises. It can take years before auto problems are addressed or even admitted to via recalling, part issues, inaccurate figures, etc. Businesses don't want to do things like that because it costs money. They get away with murder from anywhere to faulty parts to faulty advertising because of "puffery" and other ridiculous clauses in FCC regulations not to mention quality control within the automotive industry.

 

The time is crucial because anybody with knowledge of cars knows that as they are driven more, their MPG drops. It varies car to car, but 6 years of ownership can critically decrease the MPG of a car, especially if it hasn't been properly maintained. And time is an accurate indication for when a problem arises. There may be the odd time when a manufacturer chooses to recall due to a design fault or manufacturing fault, but they are few and far between when the full scale of car ownership is taken into account. Cars as they age are much more likely to fail due to wear, that is fact, there is no disputing that.

Cars as they age are much more likely to fail due to wear, that is fact, there is no disputing that.

 

And no one is disputing it, you're the only one harping on the obvious fact and missing the point.

Then what is your point?

I don't understand, does fine print hold any weight anymore?

 

On every single new vehicle, window stickers clearly state that the MPG figures are EPA (aka not honda,volkswagen,toyota,ect) numbers and will vary based on several factors. Honda claimed this woman, and many other hybrid drivers may get UP TO 50MPG. They never promised 50MPG at any time. Several companies do this for a wide variety of products, it's standard business practice and its up to the consumer to consider this.

both of you have trouble understanding because both of you keep bringing up irrelevant points.

 

read the article then go to the woman's website to get her story. it's not just "durr obv she didn't get 50 MPG durr"

Ok I read the website for these 'facts' people are using as reason why her case is bogus and people are still being ridiculously selective and bias over which facts they respond too and which they ignore.

 

The website also mentions:

1) She DID go to a Honda dealer and was told several times it was their policy to not look at the car (in relation to this issue) unless a certain warning light was on.

2) She offered to let them inspect it before the court case

3) The MPG issue relates to a software update the Honda's got that was 'to extend battery life' which it achieved (without being made clear to customers) by causing the engine to use the petrol more than previously thus seriously reducing MPG to below half of the stickered 50 MPG for many people. - A Honda Employee even testified to this being true in the court case.

4) The EPA contacted Honda to say that they should probably put a lower MPG on the sticker as the testing conditions they use, they had decided, could not accurately present average driving on a hybrid engine.

Ok I read the website for these 'facts' people are using as reason why her case is bogus and people are still being ridiculously selective and bias over which facts they respond too and which they ignore.

 

The website also mentions:

1) She DID go to a Honda dealer and was told several times it was their policy to not look at the car (in relation to this issue) unless a certain warning light was on.

I doubt they refused, but they probably advised her it was not an issue based on there being no warning light, which is not just policy for Honda but most garages, as it can waste their time (not finding a fault) and her money.

2) She offered to let them inspect it before the court case

The official statement fron Honda says otherwise, and I'm more likely to believe an official statement from them than from her.

3) The MPG issue relates to a software update the Honda's got that was 'to extend battery life' which it achieved (without being made clear to customers) by causing the engine to use the petrol more than previously thus seriously reducing MPG to below half of the stickered 50 MPG for many people. - A Honda Employee even testified to this being true in the court case.

This is true, and I don't question it. However,this is not claimed in any of the articles on this case. If anything, it is misrepresentation by the press. I have read prior articles specifically on the software update, and have seen that it was mainly made because the battery life was being shortened by city driving in hot areas, due to constant stopping and starting with air conditioning on. I have not seen a copy of the letter given to customers (apparently only 100,000 were sent out) but I know that it was not forced, and customers could opt-out of it if they wanted to. I have no idea on the small-print of the letter, so for all I know it could have said that it may effect MPG. It also didn't always reduce MPG, as there are statement by owners that theirs was either only very slightly effected, or not effected at all.

4) The EPA contacted Honda to say that they should probably put a lower MPG on the sticker as the testing conditions they use, they had decided, could not accurately present average driving on a hybrid engine.

If the car, once in its lifetime has reached 50MPG, they are fully allowed to say 'Up to 50 MPG'. That is simply what companies do when they advertise.

Still the fact remains based on the info we have there is just as much proof of it being a proper case than of it being bogus.

The statement from her and from Honda should both be disregarded as we have no logical reason or evidence to believe one over the other and they cancel out; you could argue 'Honda is a company it won't lie/its more trustworthy' but at the end of the day it's a known fact (especially in legal cases) big corporations WILL twist facts and evidence in anyway possible to show them in a good light. Equally you can argue some random woman could be lying for a quick buck. Both have their merits and we are in no position to judge ones statement (both specifically written to persuade people they are in the right) as more trustworthy than the other.

 

As for the EPA thing yes they are perfectly entitled too, however it does suggest *something* is up when the EPA specifically contact them to suggest they lower the figure as they have concluded their tests won;t give accurate results for average driving on a hybrid. Also the fact the Honda employee testified to the fact that the irreversible software update to do with battery life is known to impact MPG as it makes the battery get used less and that this wasn't made clear in the information given to customers is kinda a flag post that it's not an entirely bogus case.

 

Plus the whole fact the court did find in her favour (and previously the class action suits' favour) gives a strong suggestion that after thoroughly going through all the facts (which we don't have) there was a genuine case.

 

I just find it ridiculous to think you can judge something better than a court when you barely known any of the facts about the case and the little information we do know could easily support either side.

 

:thumbdown:

Read her site and most of the actual court decision text.

 

Seems to me that there's a whole lot of semantics going on in the case. Honda lists gas mileages as "up to" meaning it is possible that they could reach the number stated. Plenty of owners of the exact same car as her are happy and are getting up to (in some cases, in some circumstances, over) 50 mpg.

 

In addition, the number it lists is given by the EPA. Nothing stops them from listing that as a possibility because it IS a possibility. There is no law against that. It is up to the consumer to see that they are doing what ALL companies do - legally bending the objective truth a little bit to make their product seem better. Ever watched commercials? With sexy women whom you will get to hang out with when you drink that beer, or the chiseled body you'll get from using that supplement? Yeah, that's kind of what Honda (and all other car companies) are doing with their "up to" language.

 

Another point, the contention they have about the offers to inspect her car before the case was opened - I have a very difficult time thinking that Honda would flat out lie in an official statement about whether they offered to inspect her car before the trial. They gain nothing by not inspecting it before the trial, they actually stand to gain a lot by doing so. My guess is that the woman either misunderstood or bent the facts.

 

Quote straight from the court findings:

 

"...the court is not finding there is clear and convincing evidence that Honda concealed or misrepresented problems with the vehicle generally, or with the software patch, out of oppression, malice, or intentional fraud, as required by the statute."

 

I don't know whether the decision was the right one, but it does seem that the woman took some liberties with the truth and likely flat out lied about many things.