Another great letter from a friend

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing you this email on behalf of Mrs. Nicole Silva reference
to case number 7071044. I do not have all the facts on the case,
however I have been involved in legal affairs for over 30 years and
feel that most problems can be solved by going to the right person.
Nicole has been agonizing over the mechanical and safety issues with
her Nissan Cube. My understanding is that the defects have been
present since purchase of the vehicle, verified and been unable to be
remedied. According to the The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (P.L.
93-637), the law contains words to the affect:

Under a full warranty, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or
failure to conform with the written warranty, the warrantor:

" must, as a minimum, remedy the consumer product within a
reasonable time and without charge;
may not impose any limitation on the duration of any implied
warranty on the product;
may not exclude or limit consequential damages for a breach of
any written or implied warranty on the product, unless the exclusion
or limitation conspicuously appears on the face of the warranty; and
if the product, or a component part, contains a defect or
malfunction, must permit the consumer to elect either a refund or
replacement without charge, after a reasonable number of repair
attempts."


According to Mrs. Silva, she won an arbitration argument and states
that the settlement offer is neither reasonable or in good faith.
The audacity of Nissan offering not refund the or replace the vehicle
free of charge is not a offer in good faith. To charge a customer
'depreciation' for a vehicle that never operated properly to begin
with is not in compliance with the law. The law states:
"if the product, or a component part, contains a defect or
malfunction, must permit the consumer to elect either a refund or
replacement without charge, after a reasonable number of repair
attempts."

My understanding of the situation is that the vehicle defects were
confirmed but can't be properly repaired in that the vehicle still
contains defects that cause safety concerns.

I highly suggest that corporate get involved to solve Mrs Silva's
complaint. My understanding is a person at email:
Jabriel.Allah@nissan-usa.com was the one who generated a poor
settlement offer. Certainly Nissan Motors can assist Mrs. Silva to
settle this issues rather than undergo the scrutiny of the press and
consumer affairs organizations.

She has informed me that she is contacting all of the Consumer
organizations in her state plus news groups and newspaper consumer
reporters. Her clout and position in the community will certainly
draw attention. I am not sure what she wants as a settlement but I
can report to you this has become an anguishing event in her daily
life. It has caused hardship and stress along with providing her an
unsafe means of transportation. It has left here stranded and left
her unable to function normally in her daily life. My question is
why did the case have to go to arbitration in the first place.
Obviously her case is covered by federal law.

Nissan manufactures great vehicles, the one she purchased is a
lemon, simply refund her money or provide her a new vehicle that
operates properly. It's an easy solution made difficult by unwilling
corporate representatives or shady dealers.