Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #122948

Complaint Review: Electric Mobility - Sewell New Jersey

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Brownsville Texas
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Electric Mobility One Mobility Plaza Sewell, New Jersey U.S.A.

Electric Mobility/Rascal RIPOFF little old lady with TV ADS and promise. Sewell New Jersey

*Consumer Comment: She'll be headed to the Grand Canyon in no time!

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

PETE BRUNING
address

Electric Mobility
One Mobility Plaza
Sewell NJ. 08080
December 24, 2004
RE:
grandma
142 Leffert St.
Berlin WI. 54923

Your acct. # 360099

Mr.

1 In February of 2004, granny purchased a Rascal 625 scooter which was to be delivered in "three to
four weeks". It was never delivered as of August 6, 2004. Since then forms, letters, and phone calls have come
and gone. There was a lot of "he said she said" but the scooter was never delivered. Because Granny still
does not have usable transportation, she has not made any payments. Now, to make matters worse, she has
applied for a loan (mortgage) on on her home and been turned down solely because your company (and your
company only) has a delinquent account listed on Mrs.Emons' credit report.

Your "Customer satisfaction Research Specialist", Sinde Hoffman, in her letter to Granny dated August 6,
2004 agrees that granny did not receive what was ordered as follows: "That very same day you signed a
purchase agreement for a Rascal 625 scooter". Then, "Mr. Martin agreed to exchange the 625 for the scooter that you were demonstrated" then, he shipped the Rascal 600T"

It is worth mentioning here that your Mr. Martin promised to apply for Medicare to assist in paying for the rascal. The original reason for Granny contacting your company was your TV commercial about patients paying little or nothing for a rascal. Yet, Mr. Martin has not attempted a claim with Medicare as of this date.


BOTTOM LINE:
Mrs.Emons needs a three wheel Rascal because of her arthritis and leg bending (heart)problems. Your company substituted a four wheel Rascal then tried to make the difference with "foot pads", then another four wheel
Rascal.


LEGAL:

A- The repeated delivery of the wrong merchandise shows a definite lack of "meeting of the minds" which alone is grounds for nullifying the contract.

B- Your Sinde Hoffman is under the impression that grannyis attempting to "rescind the contract" and so
quotes the three day cancellation rule therein. This contract is null. grannydoes not want to cancel anything, she wants to nullify the contract because your company has never delivered the merchandise listed therein and therefore is in default (as 2in "exchange of value.") Your company reported a disputed account to a credit reporting agent as if it were delinquent (as a tool for negotiation) to the end that she has been refused a bank loan. This is bad faith on your part.

C- Your contract with Granny shows she purchased a "Specialty scooter" rather than the "625". granny
thought she had contracted for the 625. This ambiguity seems to be the reason grannynever received the 625. In court, this ambiguous contract also would be enough reason to void the contract especially if a judge is looking at a crippled, swollen little old lady who can barely speak English, walk, or draw a breath. Ambiguity is always decided against the author.

D- The intended purpose of the Rascal 625 was that grannycould mount and ride it. The delivery of other than the ordered item provided that grannycould NOT mount it and therefore NOT ride it. Therefore she is protected
under the Wisconsin "Warranty of merchantability" law.

E- Any judge seeing these facts would "null the contract and return both parties to their original state". This would cost you more money (and your expected profit) than the following:





PROPOSED SOLUTION:

1- Replace the machine currently in Mrs.Emons home with a 625 and the "high back" as ordered. This will not cost you much because the one currently in her possession has not been used and is in new condition. If there are any complications past that point, you are not liable for defaulting on the contract.

2- Call the bank today and inform them that you are taking the delinquent notice off Mrs.Emons' credit record and they can continue the loan, then follow through. This will end your liability for "Bad Faith" and minimize the damage done to granny by this transaction.


CONCLUSION: Please consider this letter as a "Demand to Pay" within 10 days of your having received it. Until then I remain,


Adamant,

William
Brownsville, Texas
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 12/15/2004 05:35 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/electric-mobility/sewell-new-jersey-08080/electric-mobilityrascal-ripoff-little-old-lady-with-tv-ads-and-promise-sewell-new-jersey-122948. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
1Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#1 Consumer Comment

She'll be headed to the Grand Canyon in no time!

AUTHOR: Tim - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Wednesday, December 15, 2004

I don't want to sound condescending here, William, and I surely hope that grandma ends up with a machine suited to her needs. I would just like to correct a couple of contract points.

First, it seems to me that this is more a failure to comply with the "perfect tender rule" than a "meeting of the minds" issue. Meeting of the minds seems present as both parties intended to contract, albeit possibly for different things. You might also have a claim of mutual or unilateral mistake, but mistake defenses are tough.

The perfect tender rule requires that the seller deliver exactly the goods contracted for. If your assertion that what was delivered was something different than what was contracted for is correct, then they have failed to tender perfectly conforming goods. The only problem with this is that some time has passed since she received the wrong machine, and the law may imply acceptance of the non-conforming good.

Also, "warranty of fitness for a particular purpose" would be a better argument than "warranty of merchantability." If the product delivered does what IT is supposed to do, then it is merchantible. The problem here, however, is not that the product sent is defective, but that it is incapable of meeting your grandmother's needs. If the seller knew of your grandmother's particular needs, and set a machine with that understanding, which subsequently failed to meet those needs, then it is likely that 1) a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose was given and 2) that it was breeched.

To illustrate, let's say that I go to a sporting goods store and ask for a tent that can fit ten people. They give me a quality tent made for eight people. If the tent can fit eight people, it is merchantible because it does what it is supposed to do. However, the seller had notice of my particular need, and gave me a product that was supposed to fit that need. He has simaltaneously created and breeched a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Again, here you may be plagued by the fact that Grandma has been in possesion of this machine for so long. But, if you made reasonable attempts to have it replaced with the correct machine, you're probably in the clear. If you have done everything you're supposed to do, and they have stifled your efforts, you should end up pretty well.

One last thing: the law has never heard of the word "always," and there is virtually nothing that "any judge" would do.

Best of luck!

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now