U-Haul

OMG - arrested for telling lawyer jokes. Now I know we have too many lawyers.

Did you hear about the new sushi bar that caters exclusively to lawyers?
It's called, Sosumi.

While all the comments are valid and there equipment is as one person put
it "CRAP" I still think it is discriminatory towards owners of Explorers.
If this is a lawyers / lawsuit game I say we find one of these sue happy
lawyers and file a class action lawsuit against U-Haul for discrimination
based on the fact Explorers do not have Firestone tires on them after the
recall. Also they are judging my / our driving habits on those who do not
drive responsibly. I for one do not want to be placed in that description.
I have had my Explorer for over 5 years and pull a 10' cargo trailer every
month without any problems. I guess I will get of my soapbox now.
Thanks Mike

Try to get a shyster to take the case. You can't force a business to
conduct business with a person unless you can prove discrimination based
on race, color, gender, creed, or national origin. In some jurisdictions
you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

But nowhere in the law does it say that U-Haul has to rent to any and
all comers. If they don't want their precious trailer hooked up to your
Explorer, you don't have a legal leg to stand on. They have every right
to tell you no. Does it make sense that they will allow Mazda Navajo and
Mercury Mountaineer owners (who of course are driving Explorers with
different trim and badging, but essentially the same underpinnings) to
rent trailers, but not Explorer owners? No. But blame their legal
beagles who think that by banning rentals to Explorer owners they can
decrease their potential liability for lawsuits when inexperienced
drivers make their rigs turn turtle in the median, or worse.

Mustang_Mike wrote:
> While all the comments are valid and there equipment is as one person put
> it "CRAP" I still think it is discriminatory towards owners of Explorers.
> If this is a lawyers / lawsuit game I say we find one of these sue happy
> lawyers and file a class action lawsuit against U-Haul for discrimination
> based on the fact Explorers do not have Firestone tires on them after the
> recall. Also they are judging my / our driving habits on those who do not
> drive responsibly. I for one do not want to be placed in that description.
> I have had my Explorer for over 5 years and pull a 10' cargo trailer every
> month without any problems. I guess I will get of my soapbox now.
> Thanks Mike
>

Richard Ray wrote:
> ... blame their legal
> beagles who think that by banning rentals to Explorer owners they can
> decrease their potential liability for lawsuits when inexperienced
> drivers make their rigs turn turtle in the median, or worse.

An interesting side effect of this might be:
Somebody driving an SUV that's _not_ an Explorer (or Navajo, etc.) has a
wreck while pulling a U-Haul trailer. They sue, claiming that there was
a fundamental mismatch between their vehicle and the trailer, and since
U-Haul bans Explorers for safety reasons they have assumed the duty of
vetting all tow vehicles.

In other words, by taking all comers U-Haul has a certain amount of
"plausible deniability" -- they can claim that they're not responsible
for your vehicle. But as soon as they ban ONE class of vehicles they
demonstrate that they believe they have special expertise. Therefore it
becomes their legal duty to check out all the vehicle models on the road.

Now we just need a non-Explorer driver to have a U-Haul wreck and be a
test case :-)

--
Gordon S. Hlavenka http://www.crashelectronics.com
Tragically, as many as 9625 out of every 10,000
individuals may be neurotypical

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:14:38 GMT, "Gordon S. Hlavenka"
> wrote:

>Richard Ray wrote:
>> ... blame their legal
>> beagles who think that by banning rentals to Explorer owners they can
>> decrease their potential liability for lawsuits when inexperienced
>> drivers make their rigs turn turtle in the median, or worse.
>
>An interesting side effect of this might be:
>Somebody driving an SUV that's _not_ an Explorer (or Navajo, etc.) has a
>wreck while pulling a U-Haul trailer. They sue, claiming that there was
>a fundamental mismatch between their vehicle and the trailer, and since
>U-Haul bans Explorers for safety reasons they have assumed the duty of
>vetting all tow vehicles.
>
>In other words, by taking all comers U-Haul has a certain amount of
>"plausible deniability" -- they can claim that they're not responsible
>for your vehicle. But as soon as they ban ONE class of vehicles they
>demonstrate that they believe they have special expertise. Therefore it
>becomes their legal duty to check out all the vehicle models on the road.
>
>Now we just need a non-Explorer driver to have a U-Haul wreck and be a
>test case :-)

Not to insult you, but...
I honestly believe that there are a *LOT* of lawyers out there who
have thought of this angle, and rejected it.
Why? Because, for example (and I'm no lawyer), U-Haul *hasn't* taken
on the job of vetting all vehicles for comaptibility with their
trailers.
What they've done is to take the advice of their lawyers (who, Im
sure, have thought of the same line of thinking you have).
In short, you would need to come up with a legal theory for a suit
that actually has some basis that a court would entertain as being
viable. As much as we like to characterize businesses as being
incredibly stupid (and I've sometimes considered certain company
policies as such), usually, they aren't.
Sorry.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

The horse is dead..... beat on it as much as you like.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:07:32 GMT, "Jim Warman"
> wrote:

>The horse is dead..... beat on it as much as you like.
>
Why, Thank You, Jim!
Sorry. I'm that way, I guess. :-(

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

I guess we all have our pet peeves.... you guys let me have mine so I guess
I should allow you yours...

I can be a dork since my Ex is my second vehicle and I can usually borrow a
trailer if my own proves too small.


"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:07:32 GMT, "Jim Warman"
> > wrote:
>
> >The horse is dead..... beat on it as much as you like.
> >
> Why, Thank You, Jim!
> Sorry. I'm that way, I guess. :-(
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

When the U-Haul company made their asinine decision to ban me from
renting one of their precious trailers, I went to one of the local
custom trailer manufacturers here in town and had one built to my
specifications. In the ten trips I have made to Orlando and back, it has
paid for itself. Screw 'em.

Jim Warman wrote:
> I guess we all have our pet peeves.... you guys let me have mine so I guess
> I should allow you yours...
>
> I can be a dork since my Ex is my second vehicle and I can usually borrow a
> trailer if my own proves too small.
>
>
> "Big Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:07:32 GMT, "Jim Warman"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The horse is dead..... beat on it as much as you like.
>>>
>>
>>Why, Thank You, Jim!
>>Sorry. I'm that way, I guess. :-(
>>
>>--
>>Bill Funk
>>Change "g" to "a"
>
>
>

Excellent. Way to go!


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.
"Richard Ray" > wrote in message
news:n1ANd.34427$EG1.21316@lakeread04...
> When the U-Haul company made their asinine decision to ban me from
> renting one of their precious trailers, I went to one of the local
> custom trailer manufacturers here in town and had one built to my
> specifications. In the ten trips I have made to Orlando and back, it has
> paid for itself. Screw 'em.
<snip>