Mercedes sold my car to someone else

KevinCJ

Btw just to clear the matter

Mr Armstrong of Mercedes Kidlington,
Mr Ken Chairman of Inchcape
And Simon Oldfield (MD Customer Service) of Mercedes are all liable.

When you call Mercedes or visit their show room it says Mercedes all over. From a legal (Contract Law) prospective my issue is with Inchcape but from IP (Intellectual Property Law) prospective, the customer is misguided and misinformed that Mercedes of Kidlington does not belong to Mercedes the umbrella group. As Mercedes has divided it self into different company’s its not the customers issue. They all represent them selves as Mercedes, share the common IP. This issue is directly connected to IP as I was purchasing a Mercedes I perceived that the car and service I received would be of a higher standard. In other words I was buying a physical car and the brand it self, from a “Official Mercedes Dealership”. What you will find is using contract law we will find Inchcape liable, but by IP law we will be able to bring Mercedes umbrella group into this matter as the dealership represents Mercedes Group.

If the Inchape group did not advertise them selves as Mercedes Kidlington, Mercedes the brand liability would be limited. But in this case it’s unlimited.

I am told when matters like these go to court, the Judge will consider the resemblance of Mercedes Kidlington and Mercedes the brand. Any normal consumer will think they are the same and will proceed on the contract on those notions. Inchchape and Mercedes will both get burnt on this.



:j

Equaliser123

KevinCJ wrote: »

Before we “sue”, I have to exhaust the formal methods of complaining. Once that is exhausted I believe “a letter before action needs to be sent”. Then we need to allow them 2 weeks to reply on that. According to the outcome we need to take it court or whatever.
Please note it’s as easy as pressing a button.

What is as easy as pressing a button?

What is the value of your claim?

Equaliser123

KevinCJ wrote: »

They all represent them selves as Mercedes, share the common IP. This issue is directly connected to IP as I was purchasing a Mercedes I perceived that the car and service I received would be of a higher standard. In other words I was buying a physical car and the brand it self, from a “Official Mercedes Dealership”. What you will find is using contract law we will find Inchcape liable, but by IP law we will be able to bring Mercedes umbrella group into this matter as the dealership represents Mercedes Group.

If the Inchape group did not advertise them selves as Mercedes Kidlington, Mercedes the brand liability would be limited. But in this case it’s unlimited.

I am told when matters like these go to court, the Judge will consider the resemblance of Mercedes Kidlington and Mercedes the brand. Any normal consumer will think they are the same and will proceed on the contract on those notions. Inchchape and Mercedes will both get burnt on this.

If you are really being told that, then you are getting awful advice.

IP law is not in the slightest bit relevant here.

Culex

sirmarcus wrote: »

You seem to be a non-believer pilgrim.

With regards your previous posting, Inchcape have a partnership with Mercedes-Benz as clearly shown on their website at http://www.mercedes-benz.inchcape.co.uk/ , so my previous email addresses were valid and relevant.

Yes, but wouldn't Jeremy Clarkson's email address be more helpful?

KevinCJ

Culex wrote: »

Yes, but wouldn't Jeremy Clarkson's email address be more helpful?

Yes, i think that might help.

:rotfl:

GM Mr Armstrong is not in the office for a week. MB dont care about the matter recieved no reply from Inchcape them self.

Equaliser123

KevinCJ wrote: »

Yes, i think that might help.

:rotfl:

GM Mr Armstrong is not in the office for a week. MB dont care about the matter recieved no reply from Inchcape them self.

MB don't care about the matter as it is not their problem.

KevinCJ

Equaliser123 wrote: »

MB don't care about the matter as it is not their problem.

Yes, when it comes to contract. BUT how the contract was made is when Mercedes comes in. As i wrote in the previous thread that, Inchcape make customers believe that "they are mercedes benz" hence i went to them. So the relief i would want is Mercedes would remove ALL Branding from Inchcape showrooms and inform the customers that Mercedes Kidlington does not belong to Mercedes. Change name to Inchcape Kidlington. Change the greeting on the telephone to say InchCape Kidlington. What I am trying to say is the Mercedes and InchCape show association when it comes to sales but show differences when it comes to resolve legal matters.

:rotfl:

fthl

because that is how the law works. and that is how franchise dealers work. it is fairly standard really, and I wouldn't really expect many people to think that they are dealing directly with the manufacturer. that would be a high fence to get over.

Yes, when it comes to contract.

Your whole claim would be based on contract, so you can't get away from it I'm afraid.

What I am trying to say is the Mercedes and InchCape show association when it comes to sales but show differences when it comes to resolve legal matters.

Because, legally, there are differences. If you sue the wrong party, you'll lose. The first thing to do in litigation is to make sure you have the right defendant.

KevinCJ

How dealers, franchise or the internal dealing work of an organisation have nothing to do with the customer. I can give you an example you walk into Tesco (any store) break a leg, send a letter to Tesco they come back and say, No we have nothing to do with Tesco in Park Lane London, We share no liability as they are a different entity. When you call Mercedes Benz Kidlington, they answer “Mercedes Benz Kidlingon”.

As for litigation is concerned first party to approach is InchCape and make Mercedes Benz as an interested party.

:rotfl:

DCFC79

KevinCJ wrote: »

How dealers, franchise or the internal dealing work of an organisation have nothing to do with the customer. I can give you an example you walk into Tesco (any store) break a leg, send a letter to Tesco they come back and say, No we have nothing to do with Tesco in Park Lane London, We share no liability as they are a different entity. When you call Mercedes Benz Kidlington, they answer “Mercedes Benz Kidlingon”.

As for litigation is concerned first party to approach is InchCape and make Mercedes Benz as an interested party.

:rotfl:

re the tesco example, doesn't tesco HO have a responsibility to ensure the stores dont do anything that causes a customer to break a leg