Mercedes Emissions

Sandtree

neilmcl said:

Sandtree said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Sandtree said:

Wait to see the outcome then sue yourself using a lawyer with a lower fee and use the preceding case as precedence  

Only certain courts create a precedent.  A county court is not one of them.

I’ll stand to be corrected but my memory of law 101 was all civil courts create precedence however it’s only binding on lower courts therefore a county court ruling (being the lowest court) should be considered by another county court however it’s much easier for it to come to a different conclusion 

Your memory is incorrect. The lower courts - County courts, Magistrates and Tribunals have no power to set binding precedent at their level.

I said its non-binding? 

So a quick google confirms that a decision from the "court of first instance" isn't binding however judges do consider rulings of other "courts of first instance"  and will normally follow them with the ruminations of  Justice Nourse (Lord Justice of Appeal)  quoted... I remember seeing his quote before and not understanding it then or now

ontheroad1970

There is little point to a non binding precedent.  I'm not sure it's even a correct legal term.  All it is, is a statement by the plaintiff that such and such happened at a previous court, which the defendant can counter another court saying something different.  

shuzbot

Hunyani_Flight_825 said:

Who ever bought a Mercedes diesel and ever thought about emissions!  Nobody and if they are that desperate for money they shouldn't have bought a Mercedes in the first place.

That’s a rather sweeping statement. I thought about emissions, and yes I knew a diesel put out more than a petrol, HOWEVER, I honestly, and you may say naively thought that the Adblue (or bluetech) As put on the back of a lot of cars including e.g. VW would and was designed to bring these back down and greatly reduce the emissions being put out. 
So to take this a little further in respects of the Mercedes claim for false emissions, I.e. I thought about emissions and considered that Mercedes as a leading quality mark in motoring engineering would have been true and of high standard to reduce this. To learn in fact that this may not be the case is a lie and falsehood, and I for one is unhappy about this. Not the financial claim. That said it does seem on the surface a little double standards that if VW can be held to account for their misleading but others are saying MB won’t be? MB last year apparently had a call back to amend the software, hmmmm interesting. I haven’t received a call back for my MB (purchased from main dealer), 3 years ago, so where’s my letter?.  

Flight3287462

shuzbot said:

Hunyani_Flight_825 said:

Who ever bought a Mercedes diesel and ever thought about emissions!  Nobody and if they are that desperate for money they shouldn't have bought a Mercedes in the first place.

That’s a rather sweeping statement. I thought about emissions, and yes I knew a diesel put out more than a petrol, HOWEVER, I honestly, and you may say naively thought that the Adblue (or bluetech) As put on the back of a lot of cars including e.g. VW would and was designed to bring these back down and greatly reduce the emissions being put out. 
So to take this a little further in respects of the Mercedes claim for false emissions, I.e. I thought about emissions and considered that Mercedes as a leading quality mark in motoring engineering would have been true and of high standard to reduce this. To learn in fact that this may not be the case is a lie and falsehood, and I for one is unhappy about this. Not the financial claim. That said it does seem on the surface a little double standards that if VW can be held to account for their misleading but others are saying MB won’t be? MB last year apparently had a call back to amend the software, hmmmm interesting. I haven’t received a call back for my MB (purchased from main dealer), 3 years ago, so where’s my letter?.  

Aye right!

Dr_Crypto

Sandtree said:

neilmcl said:

Sandtree said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Sandtree said:

Wait to see the outcome then sue yourself using a lawyer with a lower fee and use the preceding case as precedence  

Only certain courts create a precedent.  A county court is not one of them.

I’ll stand to be corrected but my memory of law 101 was all civil courts create precedence however it’s only binding on lower courts therefore a county court ruling (being the lowest court) should be considered by another county court however it’s much easier for it to come to a different conclusion 

Your memory is incorrect. The lower courts - County courts, Magistrates and Tribunals have no power to set binding precedent at their level.

I said its non-binding? 

So a quick google confirms that a decision from the "court of first instance" isn't binding however judges do consider rulings of other "courts of first instance"  and will normally follow them with the ruminations of  Justice Nourse (Lord Justice of Appeal)  quoted... I remember seeing his quote before and not understanding it then or now

I think the term is "persuasive". It is also applied to rulings from foreign courts which are sometimes referred to. Usually, but not always, from the English speaking world.  

Car_54

Sandtree said:

neilmcl said:

Sandtree said:

ontheroad1970 said:

Sandtree said:

Wait to see the outcome then sue yourself using a lawyer with a lower fee and use the preceding case as precedence  

Only certain courts create a precedent.  A county court is not one of them.

I’ll stand to be corrected but my memory of law 101 was all civil courts create precedence however it’s only binding on lower courts therefore a county court ruling (being the lowest court) should be considered by another county court however it’s much easier for it to come to a different conclusion 

Your memory is incorrect. The lower courts - County courts, Magistrates and Tribunals have no power to set binding precedent at their level.

I said its non-binding? 

So a quick google confirms that a decision from the "court of first instance" isn't binding however judges do consider rulings of other "courts of first instance"  and will normally follow them with the ruminations of  Justice Nourse (Lord Justice of Appeal)  quoted... I remember seeing his quote before and not understanding it then or now

They cannot generally consider rulings from the lower courts, for the simple reason that they are rarely (if ever) reported in sufficient detail in any authoritative publication.

michael21

Hi All, I am not going with the lawyers, how about setting up our own class action with Martin Lewis team representing us and they taking  10% of our winnings to go towards charities (after ex's) . 

AdrianC

shuzbot said:
MB last year apparently had a call back to amend the software, hmmmm interesting. I haven’t received a call back for my MB (purchased from main dealer), 3 years ago, so where’s my letter?.  

July 2017, actually.
Before you bought your car.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/19/mercedes-recalls-3m-diesel-cars-emissions-concerns

williamgriffin

michael21 said:

Hi All, I am not going with the lawyers, how about setting up our own class action with Martin Lewis team representing us and they taking  10% of our winnings to go towards charities (after ex's) . 

If I get to keep 90% of the winnings sign me up. 

iambrad

Diesels are finished! Watch this barrister talk about it https://youtu.be/Rsqu7Owi4zo