| ||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||
Our lemon law attorneys have been handling motorcycle lemon law cases since 1978. Helping consumers get rid of lemon bikes and Atv’s is what we do. Every day.
Tuesday
Triumph Sprint ST 1050 Recall
Triumph is recalling nearly 3,000 Sprint motorcycles because of dangerous wheel suspension defects. Do you own one of these potential lemon bikes? If so, the motorcycle lemon law can help you get your money back.
If you’ve got a lemon Triumph Sprint motorcycle, or any other lemon motorcycle or lemon Atv, email us or call us at 1-888-331-6422 Toll Free.
Our lemon law attorneys have been handling motorcycle lemon law cases since 1978. Helping consumers get rid of lemon bikes and Atv’s is what we do. Every day.
Our lemon law attorneys have been handling motorcycle lemon law cases since 1978. Helping consumers get rid of lemon bikes and Atv’s is what we do. Every day.
Ducati 1098R Recall, Ducati 1198S Recall, Ducati F1098 Streetfighter Recall
Ducati recalls motorcycles over engine fire risk. Do you own one of these potential lemon Ducati motorcycles?
Motorcycles that come apart on the highway aren't safe at any speed.
If you’ve got a lemon Ducati motorcycle, or any other lemon motorcycle or lemon Atv, email us or call us at 1-888-331-6422 Toll Free. Helping consumers get rid of lemon bikes and Atv’s is what we do. Every day.
| | ||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||
Motorcycles that come apart on the highway aren't safe at any speed.
If you’ve got a lemon Ducati motorcycle, or any other lemon motorcycle or lemon Atv, email us or call us at 1-888-331-6422 Toll Free. Helping consumers get rid of lemon bikes and Atv’s is what we do. Every day.
BMW K1300 GT Recall, BMW K1300 S Recall
BMW Recalls motorcycles over stalling defect. Do you own one of these potential lemon BMW motorcycles?
If you’ve got a lemon BMW motorcycle, or any other lemon motorcycle or lemon Atv, email us or call us at 1-888-331-6422 Toll Free. Helping consumers get rid of lemon bikes and Atv’s is what we do. Every day.
| | |||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||
Thursday
Sunday
Greatest Halloween Fright Video
This guy rigged a remote controlled motorbike with a skeleton driving and called it his "Jackie" bike. Then he hid across the street from a walled cemetery and when people walked by at night the skeleton rides up and gives them the fright of their life. Okay, Monday we'll get back to more serious stuff, but a little break can be fun once in awhile.
Besides, if the bike turns out to be a lemon, we're sure he'll call us for help. We're just not sure we'll answer.
Besides, if the bike turns out to be a lemon, we're sure he'll call us for help. We're just not sure we'll answer.
Burdge Law Office
Because life's too short to ride a lemon bike, or a haunted one.
With a special thanks to my dad who forwarded this Halloween greetings to me.
Thursday
Court Cancels Sale of Haunted House
It's the perfect story for Halloween. In 1989 Jeffrey Stambovsky bought an old Victorian house on the banks of the Hudson River at the bottom of a dead end street in the Village of Nyack, NY. At first he thought he got a good deal. But he didn't know what the seller knew.
It was haunted.
You can find the court case in a reported decision - 169 A.D.2d 254, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 is the citation where you can find the case in a lonely law book hidden away on a dusty shelf in the dark damp corners of an empty law library that echoes your footsteps down the hallway as you search among the stacks of musty leather bound volumes no one reads anymore, tucked away in rooms no one dares to enter.
As the court of appeals laced its decision with ghostly references to literature and lore, the court also did something that no other court seems to have ever done - it held that the home was haunted as a matter of law. No if, and or but about it. The poltergeist, it seems, was legally declared to be real. Or was it?
Quipped the judge, "I am moved by the spirit" as he proceeded to declare that "From the perspective of a person in the position of plaintiff herein, a very practical problem arises with respect to the discovery of a paranormal phenomenon: 'Who you gonna' call?' " Of course, we all know the answer to that one.
The buyer had signed an "as is" clause so the seller, Helen Ackley, argued to the court that there was nothing the buyer could do. He certainly couldn't sue her, she said, and the trial court agreed. Apparently the buyer had never asked if the house was haunted so, technically, the seller never really lied or hid it from him. He just didn't discovery it until he moved in. Haunted by the seller's treacherous deceit, the plaintiff appealed.
Like the 3 ghostly apparitions residing in the home, the appellate papers worked their way through the twists and turns of the legal system until they ended up on the desk of Justice Rubin of New York's Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Then, on an undoubtedly stormy summer night in 1991, no doubt with a headless horseman effigy hanging from a tree out front in the dark, Justice Smith sided up with Justice Rubin and together they crafted their wiley words that would undo the heartless seller's dirty deed.
No doubt with a straight face, the appellate judges noted the difficulties a buyer would face if the ghostly-burdened seller was allowed to avoid liability by her silence. "The notion that a haunting is a condition which can and should be ascertained upon reasonable inspection of the premises is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent and laid quietly to rest." And so they proceeded.
With citations to the ghost of Hamlet from Shakespeare, joined by Prosser on Torts, and muddied with actual case law to support the fearful logic of it all, Justice Rubin noted the difficulties faced by all home buyers if the seller's "as is" clause allowed her to sweep under the rug the loud proclaiming she had made (both nationally and locally) about her home's regular (and irregular) hauntings, made in the years before this unsuspecting buyer came along.
"Applying the strict rule of caveat emptor to a contract involving a house possessed by poltergeists conjures up visions of a psychic or medium routinely accompanying the structural engineer and Terminix man on an inspection of every home subject to a contract of sale," announced the court of appeals. A normal "subject to inspection" clause might never be the same.
In a written decision that resulted in 17 published points of law [which lawyers call "headnotes", not to be confused with the headless notes of less worthy court decisions, no doubt], the court ruled that since the house was haunted with poltergeists, then the seller did not deliver the premises "vacant" as required by the sales contract. Ahah, with the contract breached, a remedy had to be found.
To that end, the court declared the contract rescinded by the Law of Equity - and with that the seller's ownership of the home arose like a zombie from the grave to haunt her again. And the buyer's purchase was cancelled as the court ghoulisly called the sale "a most unnatural bargain."
So, if this Halloween season you are lured into buying a house without knowing it's haunted, you might want to call the fabled lawyer who got this seller back his money. He went on the become the town attorney for a nearby New York community - presumably where there are no poltergeists.
As for the seller, Helen Ackley, she finally sold the house and moved to Florida in the early 1990's. And just by a curious coincidence, perhaps, just across the river from the haunted house is Tarreytown. Sound familiar? It should. All little children have heard the story. That's where the famed Sleepy Hollow is - the one described by Washington Irving's Halloween tale of the headless horseman, "The Legend of Sleepy Hallow."
Burdge Law Office
http://www.burdgelaw.com/
http://www.burdgelaw.com/
Helping consumers protect themselves everyday, even from poltergeists.
Special thanks goes out to Nadine, a great friend and source of the case citation above.
The photo above is copyright by Warner Bros. from their 1940's movie "I Walked With a Zombie"
Monday
Panther P150 Recall, Panther P50 Recall
Do you own one of these potential lemon Panther motorcycles?
| N/A | ||
Ducati F1098S Streetfighter Recall
Do you own one of these dangerously stalling Ducati Streetfighter potential lemon motorcycles?
| N/A | ||
Friday
Wednesday
Harley Davidson FXDF Recall
| N/A | ||
Got a lemon Harley Davidson motorcycle? Get a Burdge attorney. Getting rid of lemon bikes and getting you back your money is what we do. We've helped thousands of clients since 1978. If you've got a lemon, don't take a chance. We can help.
Monday
Ducati MTS1200 Recall
It's the third recall we've been notified of just today on this bike model. What's up Ducati?
| N/A | ||
Tuesday
Yamaha FJR1300 Recall, Yamaha FZS600 Recall, Yamaha YZF-R1 Recall
Yamaha is known for its "fight at all costs" attitude when it comes to lemon bikes. And Yammie fans are a loyal bunch. But if you've got this lemon bike's stalling problems, you need help. Do you own one of these potential lemon Yamaha motorcycles?
| N/A | ||
Wednesday
Are Federal Safety Investigators Hiding Recalls Again?
On Jan. 22, 2010, CF MOTO reported to federal safety investigators that the rear brakes system on its CF250T motorcycles, built between 2005 and Dec. 31, 2009, failed to comply with federal motorcycle safety requirements because they were designed for "scooters" instead of motorcycles. CF MOTO's lawyers sent to letter to Stuart Seigel in NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in Washington. We have a copy of that letter.
NHTSA received all the proper documents to commence a recall to protect the safety of several thousands motorcycle owners nationwide. They even posted the recall in their online "NHTSA Recall Database" where the public could find it.
Buried in the small print was the statement by CF MOTO that it was not going to tell current owners of the recalled motorcycles of the defect for another few months and that it also had no intention of even telling their dealers of it for another couple of months. Of course, doing that would allow dealers to keep selling the recalled motorcycles without the dealers or the public knowing that the rear brake systems were the wrong ones. "Trust us. We'll get around to it" seemed to be the message.
Then a funny thing happened. The recall disappeared. Gone. Taken off the web site. Why?
Is NHTSA falling prey to more overseas undue influence? Did CF MOTO decide to get cozy with federal regulators, like Toyota did in order to save itself millions of dollars?
So far, the explanation is fuzzy, to put it mildly. Maybe NHTSA investigators are still "investigating" but if the manufacturer admits it built it wrong, what is there to investigate? Why the stall and delay? And in the meantime, how many owners are riding around thinking they have the right kind of brakes when they don't?
Maybe the recall is a big deal. We're sure CF MOTO would say it is not. That raises the question. Since when did a recall become a "not-recall"?
Burdge Law Office
http://www.motorcyclelemonlaw.com/
Because life's too short to ride a bad motorcycle,
NHTSA received all the proper documents to commence a recall to protect the safety of several thousands motorcycle owners nationwide. They even posted the recall in their online "NHTSA Recall Database" where the public could find it.
Buried in the small print was the statement by CF MOTO that it was not going to tell current owners of the recalled motorcycles of the defect for another few months and that it also had no intention of even telling their dealers of it for another couple of months. Of course, doing that would allow dealers to keep selling the recalled motorcycles without the dealers or the public knowing that the rear brake systems were the wrong ones. "Trust us. We'll get around to it" seemed to be the message.
Then a funny thing happened. The recall disappeared. Gone. Taken off the web site. Why?
Is NHTSA falling prey to more overseas undue influence? Did CF MOTO decide to get cozy with federal regulators, like Toyota did in order to save itself millions of dollars?
So far, the explanation is fuzzy, to put it mildly. Maybe NHTSA investigators are still "investigating" but if the manufacturer admits it built it wrong, what is there to investigate? Why the stall and delay? And in the meantime, how many owners are riding around thinking they have the right kind of brakes when they don't?
Maybe the recall is a big deal. We're sure CF MOTO would say it is not. That raises the question. Since when did a recall become a "not-recall"?
If you own a CF MOTO, you might want to be careful out there on the street. And you might want to ask NHTSA just whose side they're on. After all, there's a reason the name of the recall agency is the National Highway Traffic SAFETY Administration.
Burdge Law Office
http://www.motorcyclelemonlaw.com/
Because life's too short to ride a bad motorcycle,
no matter who built it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)