The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About94-06964 ".f :t 't :{ - ~ ~ ~ :J --- ~ 1. "* ':to " ~ ~ ~ -:JJ "-' \-. lA r-l C> 0 ,.\ ~V) lA :j- ~ "tII' Ii I ' ~-_. 114l <,dlld'". tl1ll~\HlJllJ(n ^w -.or ;.J-, :,,~- .. ~ , ~-l , '., , -, /"IJIJltl/lliJ!lll /'.' u, ..,",' 1"!J"u' 11"'1,',\ ,0111/.111/"1"110/'1 ,!lflJl'II4.1S IUlIIII' /(/ ,1I1I)I'"t",'" "I' -- J(l A\!(r' --'SIHl '11'\1 .1111) l'IIIIJJ1IIU:)~IIrI~ UNV,IOJ\\IHI Lilt) NIJOMS tlj'II'Il! I'd'pr.llt' 11/';';),1, \J,'IJlJ'I~ 'I!l!lll (pJI;IISdloll) (P,lij'lJ.nj ,\q: I .'11',1-1 Itll"~i,,,j ,\q Iii 11"11",','1111,1' '1",\ "jI\!l.lljIIIHHj.'.\ 011'.1)""11,111111' dill IHldl! f1'dddV III " "Illf'j ",,'HI" ".tl1J\..,I,\lI'du,'"" iH..':tlll"':, ,,,!, J "I "Plll ,lIl1 p..,,),!'; I jl'lIl 1;'1I1111j pur~ 'Ul<H.Jlfpulpl!I~I:111~.Ll,.j\4''1'U'" !"'" II "''1'.1 \\I"I,:','t~:"i uu -.--- S,JiJIH'~\ 'pflUJ \I''"IPI<llii,lI) Iplll'll,n~ j,q un 11I..'.1IP 1\,lll'ldll,,:IP ,'lll~nr 1~1"I~tU lljl '",' i"I" - ,d ,','i (,I;IlIII) '11-11111 Iii 'Iii 111.,11' fO\II' '1""'''1) J).ljrJl'IIl~ 11I!,u,11 -1,1 'I,~J..S)O ,111'1') If'",ldl/ pi d:lflllrJ .ltjl jll AliI):! r 'U) .,'Iil\,:,' :1"1"" ,01 1'1 1.1 d'd!I' {I i'~ ", '1.1 11.101111111:, J 1,1,\ 1,1' 111j! III IIJJI' In 11',1'\\\ .~q;II,'q I :,lI^\lOI:l:l\l h' .m_-._jO A1Nno:t VINV^'ASNNld .jO 1I1'V:JMNOW~~OO '(.\-intll")I(II'J,/,:'i'/' 'jllf/,J 1,.,tf,''';II,/''J''/'/ilh:, '1;1 Ii It." ,i J, \/ I ,"dll'.l I,ll i J.j II j .),i .J S,}i~ ,111/,/\' II! lunJ.! 5,1/11) INIV1d"~OJ :111J 01 31m! ONV 1V~lddV JO 3:JIJON JO DIIIlE1S :IO'J00l1d . i >- ~Il() <1:)1 .-). _L~~-i-j-:-I- !II~ O:tj~ i ~ ; I ~ Ii ,. i E< ,.II'do!o!" i ~I", ) :, "'" , .- il \li ~ 1 ~I,~ ~ .I' ,e ' "i' ~ , 3 .. 'I ~11 c ~ , ~, ~i ~ I).li, < ~ c \ ' , ~ ~ i i JlI' ~. ~il~!~ oJ" '-I\).. '" >dilf\" 'I.' I s.g . . ~ '-I '\ '" , < ;.1 ,~",' ; i; ; I I "i'~ I \:,' ~I~ ~ ~~IJ r~' ~ : "; D H ii' ~ p "l.." (\~~'- "I~~ !!;" ..'~l. ~' \ ~ ::,." ,11. i1f" "I~ i ,~~ ~gg~. i rj II) '-.I 41'~, ~:, 'lf~ Ii! 1Il~~ ~~~;ti ~ ~ R '=6.L i~'-\''''I'~ .'~ il.~"t!.'iil ,,,- ',.." '" d" --.-~o '.. - u.: ",",cr', ,1,1; . ~B"~ 3 ~' '7-- c" ~ - 1" ,. _ 'Ie' "'. ." ".i- I' -'''''\,~~. ,. v<;'''r 'WI' -~ ~ 1'lllI:O~~ "-"" ~I\ ,-, en '-" - "'" ~. . . , , , 3 i~ U~ ::, ~ , I~ I ,- ,-.... . ~ ~ ! ; a g . ~)I/: ~ oJl,' \,C--~~ ll~ " ~.~ ~! 8'! ~ ~ . ,,11\ ,,L!t::: ~2.;~ I f1i:al' 1 I~~ , ,~ li'l" ",' \..1"51'~ i'~! ,. !.I"fil! '" ~J, c I l~ I ';. i~ 0,'1' Illi \!; III S' -I ", , , ' 'ffi "1' f ! ~ -~;!:} '-12"',. ~~ ~ , ',' .',g:~~ ~ \ ~ !Jlf!i-,'Ilili~ ," '" ~ -, i., c. - r" ,c. ,J;~'"<-f1 , OJ.,,, llj ,\~ '''-I' '- '''! , o'!" ~ '" " ",. I ! gll" I..! , "\iri' .. '. '\ ., '" "I ")Ibllbl"""" ~ )'. ' ,k l~~ , · \" ' ''', ;: 1 '" 'i i . . "1'1 if' '''11 "I " : ,f " 'I ~ ; l ~H ~ I' .' ;1 ~ ii~;'t <~ , ~ ' ~ ~ /' \, i :'" I~P~ g ~~ ofilJlfufiU \ · . "'1 --.; "'" -r",. " ~ /i!8bIJ8" l ,. I - I" 'T :, ,- , .. i ,.11 i.'II1 I~ ~ - ~l'''': , ;: '" '~I .... -'...:. R ~ '... \{ 0 ~ 11)llIle M . " ~ " " '''" ~ "lc--c , ,_a ""'- ! lii i , ,', ~ .: , , , ..' ". ~,l~ ~ . ,I ~'l , . ,\i',...;: !j w, I ~ I ,~ ,: L.. ,I'~ 'S~ '1'~~i ~L:~; ~Ili; ~ffi ~ fh:ffi Q<~ l, " '. . '.. L , " ~ ., II !:;'i ,", ,: " , " :' , '.. , ,. ,. ~ , -". ....", I I', '.' 'J :, . v . tih. " ""'1'1 ~ ~ F, '." r ..,E.. _ '; '1'-' \'~tr~ i., \I. ' ~ ~ ~' t: J& ~ I ...-u;. o..v...nNc.4u\ ~ .- x: ~ 'd rtJ ~ _I I~ I~ l'.- ,.:= I'~ '0 i G:I 60. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 60 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent a responsive pleading is necessary, it is specifically denied that there was an intervening cause or causes leading to Plaintiffs' damages and that any action on the part of Defendant was not the proximate and/or competent producing cause of Plaintiffs' damages. To the contrary, the actions of Defendant were the proximate and/or competent producing cause of the Plaintiffs' damages. 61. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 61 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent a responsive pleading is necessary, it is specifically denied that some or all of the damages sustained by Plaintiffs were or may have been caused and/or contributed in whole or in part by the negligence and/or related actions of one or more third persons for whose conduct the Defendant is not responsible or with whom the Defendant has no legal relation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Robert O. Brown, Jr. and Rebecca Brown, respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendant, together with an award of such -6- diagnostic services and to advise Plaintiffs of repairs necessary to address concerns that the Plaintiffs stated regarding the mechanical condition of their vehicle. 5. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 5 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is deemed required, K&H investigated the mechanical condition of the vehicle and found low oil pressure and excessive wear of parts in the lower portion of the engine, which was the portion which K&H was authorized by Plaintiffs to inspect. K&H advised Plaintiffs that certain engine parts were worn and required replacement. K&H also advised Plaintiffs that the balance of the engine parts may also be worn. Plaintiffs refused to authorize the complete diagnostic work and repairs that K&H recommended and requested that K&H limit repairs to replacement of the oil pump, seals, main and rod bearings. Any inference that K&H represented or that Plaintiffs expected that the diagnostic work and repairs performed by K&H were all of the diagnostic work and repairs that K&H recommended is specifically denied. 6. Admilled. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 7. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 8. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. - 3 . 9. Denied. The avermenrs of Paragraph 9 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa,R.C.P. To the extent a response is deemed required. upon reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to fonn a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 9. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the extent a response is required. it is specifically denied that K&H "serviced" the rod bolts of Plaintiffs' vehicle on June 14, 1994. To the contrary. the rod bolts were neither replaced nor serviced by K&H's service department. 10. Denied. The letter which Plaintiff, Robert O. Brown. Jr., wrote and delivered to K&H, being an instrument in writing, speaks for itself. To the extent that the avennents of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint are inconsistent therewith. they are denied. It is admitted only that the documellt attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the correspondence received by K&H. Any inference that the letter attached at Exhibit "B" of the Complaint accurately recounts the interaction between Plaintiffs and Defendant is specifically denied. To the contrary, K&H recommended that the Plaintiffs undertake more extensive diagnostic work and repairs to their vehicle. Plaintiffs refused and chose not to follow hat recommendation because they wished to use the van on their vacation and were not therefore willing to leave the vehicle with K&H long enough for the full diagnostic work and repairs to be completed. By way of further response, K&H service representatives specifically advised the Plaintiffs that not all of the potential problems with their vehicle were necessarily identified and/or addressed by the limited wok that Plaintiffs authorized. Further, upon information and -4- belief, Ashland Ford-Mercury has not concluded that a rod bolt worked on by K&I-l was the cause of the engine failure. II. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs received no response (presumably to Exhibit "B") from K&H. To thr. contrary, since transmitting thatleller, Plaintiffs have had several contacts with K&H. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to fonn a belief as to the truth of the avennents of Paragraph 12. Said avennents therefore are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. The avennents of Paragraph 13 constitute conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, tJ;e Defendant is without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to fonn a beliefas to the truth of the avennents of Paragraph 13. Said avennents therefore are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. The avennents of Paragraph 14 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied that K&I-l failed to properly install and service a rod bolt in Plaintiffs' van. To the contrary. rod bolts were not "installed" or "serviced" as part of the work perfonned by K&H. IS. Denied. The avennents of Paragraph IS constitute conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is deemed required, - 5 - it is specifically denied that the damages alleged by Plaintiffs are the result of any breach of K&H. By way of funher response, after reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 15. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proofthereofis demanded at trial. 16. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 16 constitute conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is admitted only that Plaintiffs paid K&H in full for the repairs authorized by the Plaintiffs. It is specifically denied that the amount paid by Plaintiffs to K&H constitute a ponion of their damages. To the contrary, 51,383.02 paid by Plaintiffs to K&H constitutes proper payment for value received and the repairs performed by K&H to Plaintiffs' vehicle. WHEREFORE, Defendant, K&H Ford, Inc., respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with an award of such costs, interest and other relief as the Coun deems just and reasonable. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 17. The averments of Paragraphs I through 16 of this Answer with New Maller are incorporated herein by reference and reassened as if fully set fonh. 18. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 18 constitute conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is re.'jUired under the Po.R.C.P. - 6- it is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs relied upon K&H's expertise in the service of their Aerostar van. To the contrary. the Plaintiffs refused to follow K&H's expert advise and instead authorized K&H only to repair certain aspects of the vehicle, Plaintiffs stated to K&H that they did not wish to leave the vehicle with K&H for a sufficient length of time to have all of the diagnostic tests and potential repairs recommended by K&H performed. 3 I. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 31 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is deemed required, K&H did supply, deliver, replace and install the parts authorized in a workmanlike manner. By way offurther response. it is not reasonable for the Plaintiffs to believe that K&H would be responsible for the mechanical failure of their van after Plaintiffs failed and refus:d to authorize K&H to complete all of the recommended work. 32. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 32 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. 33. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 33 constitute conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that K&H installed rod bolts in the van. It is further denied that K&H made express or oral warranties. To the contrary, Plaintiffs failed to authorize additional diagnostic and potential repair work recommended by K&H and were expressly advised by K&H that without additional diagnostic work. the condition of the remainder of the engine was unknown, - 13 - 34. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 34 constitute conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is required, "rod bolts" were not supplied. delivered. replaced or installed by K&H. Further, the oil pump. seals, main and rod bearings were installed in a workmanlike manner in accordance with industry standards, and all parts were free of material defects. 35. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 35 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. 36. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 36 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is required. K&H did not supply, deliver, replace or install the rod bolts. 37. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 37 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. To the extent a response is required. the rod bolts were not "serviced or installed" by K&H. 38. Denied. The averments of Paragraph constitute conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pa.R.C.P. WHEREFORE, Defendant. K&H Ford, Inc., respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and enter judgment in its favor and against the Plamtiffs, together with an award of such costs. interest and other relief as the Court deems just and reasonable. - 14- NEW MATTER 39. The foregoing responses to the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference and realleged as a defense. 40. Plaintiffs brought their 1989 Ford Aerostar van to K&H on or about June 14, 1994, stating that the engine red light was coming on intermittently. 41. The vehir.le's mileage was 69,067. 42. K&H was authorized by Plaintiffs to perform necessary diagnostic work to check engine oil pressure, which included removal of the oil pan. 43. K&H determined that the oil pressure was low and upon inspection discovered that the engine had heavy sludge deposits in the oil pan. 44. Upon further inspection, K&H determined that the engine parts observable after removal of the oil pan showed excessive wear considering the vehicle's mileage. 45. Plaintiffs were advised by K&H of the conditions described in Paragraphs 43 and 44 above. 46. Plaintiffs were unable to advise K&H of when the oil and filter had last been changed on the vehicle. 47. Plaintiffs are unable to present documentation of performance of regularly scheduled maintenance. including oil and filter changes. on the vehicle. 48. Plaintiffs did not perform maintenance. including oil and filter changes at intervals recommended by the manufacturer. - IS - 49. Plaintiffs were advised by K&H representatives that based upon the findings from the inspection of the lower portion of the engine. there may be concerns regarding the condition of parts in the upper engine, SO. K&H recommended to Plaintiffs that additional diagnostic work to inspect the remaining (upper) parts of the engine was advisable. 5 I. Plaintiffs declined to authorize the additional work, advising that they wished to use the van for a vacation and would not leave the vehicle with K&H for the additional time required. 52. K&H completed the work authorized by Plaintiffs and after an inspection, including road test, determined that the vehicle oil pressure was within specification. 53. Plaintiffs drove their vehicle in excess of 1,200 miles before experiencing the mechanical problems alleged in their Complaint. 54. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 55. Plaintiffs action against Defendant is barred because of failure of consideration. 56. Plaintiffs action against Defendant is barred by the principle of laches. 57. Plaintiffs action against Defendant is barred by the doctrine of waiver. 58. Plaintiffs action against Defendant is barred by the doctrine of e!toppel. 59. If the Plaintiffs sustained the damages alleged in the Complaint, which potential finding is hereby expressly denied, then such claims are prohibited and/or barred and/or reduced - 16-