Some Rental Cars Are Keeping Tabs on the Drivers

Insurance Know-It-Alls **** me off.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:14:43 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

In article ,
doubter wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:55:17 -0600,
(Matthew
Russotto) wrote:

Section 6700 says a nonresident may operate a vehicle registered in
another state. This overrides Section 16020 demanding insurance. Or
do you claim that a nonresident operator needs _California_ insurance?
Self-insurance is not treated differently.

Matthew, you are VERY good at avoiding the question. You again say
"Self-insurance is not treated differently" which is where the "provide
a
citation" subthread started. You have yet to offer even a hint that a
bond posted with one state is accepted by another state as proof of
financial responsibility.

I don't claim it is. Instead, I claim that one may drive one's own
vehicle in a state other than one's own without satisfying that other
state's financial responsibility requirement.


WHAT!

I didn't notice that the subject and content of this discussion
shifted from rental vehicle to one's own personal vehicle!

None of your arguments are valid relative to the topic being
discussed, so pack up your carpet bag and move your ass some lace
else!

wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:14:43 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:


I don't claim it is. Instead, I claim that one may drive one's own
vehicle in a state other than one's own without satisfying that other
state's financial responsibility requirement.

WHAT!

I didn't notice that the subject and content of this discussion
shifted from rental vehicle to one's own personal vehicle!

So? The same applies to a rental company -- their financial
responsibility requirement doesn't depend on where their
vehicles are driven.

wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:08:21 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin"
wrote:

wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:14:43 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:


I don't claim it is. Instead, I claim that one may drive one's own
vehicle in a state other than one's own without satisfying that other
state's financial responsibility requirement.

WHAT!

I didn't notice that the subject and content of this discussion
shifted from rental vehicle to one's own personal vehicle!

So? The same applies to a rental company -- their financial
responsibility requirement doesn't depend on where their
vehicles are driven.


Your wrong about that - and besides you must have also fallen off the
track a while back since that has nothing to do with the topic being
discussed.

The topic was whether rental companies have reasons not to allow
cars to be driven in other states. The NY law disallowing transfer
of liability to the renter is one such reason.

Lack of insurance coverage in the other state is not.

In article ,
wrote:

I didn't notice that the subject and content of this discussion
shifted from rental vehicle to one's own personal vehicle!

Sorry about that; do try to keep up in the future.




--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

DarkMatter wrote:

Insurance Know-It-Alls **** me off.

Especially when they're wrong.

--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.

What was this worth for Payless?



How many people, like me, will never ever ever rent from Payless. Even if
they right about contract - $1/mile is way to excessive. My experience tells
me: Once a cheat - always a cheat. ( This rule is almost always accurate
when dealing with businesses ).



Few years ago I tested this rule on Providian: they got busted for assigning
"late fees".

Rule held 100%. They immediately tried to cheat on finance charges, assign
default privacyguard, etc. No thanks.



Now I have two companies on black list:

Rent-A-Car - attempted to charge for excess speed.

Payless - In-state scam.

"Arthur L. Rubin" wrote in message ...

However, LEGALLY, the contract is binding regardless of whether specific
provisions are initialed or noticed, unless specifically altered by
law.


WRONG.

I'm not a lawyer, but the following is what I was taught in a Business
Law course I took in college that was taught by a law professor who
was (and still is) a practicing lawyer in the state of California.



In California, a written contract is not considered legally binding
unless it can be proven, to the satisfaction of the court (jury or
judge - depending on the type of trial), that all parties involved in
the contract had read AND UNDERSTOOD the contract before entering into
the contract.

Signing the contract isn't even necessary to have it enforce (but can
be used as evidence that all parties have agreed to the contract terms
and conditions).



That's why the best protection for avoiding being snared into a
contract with hidden clauses is NOT TO READ IT and, preferably, have
tangible evidence that you can present to the court that you didn't
read the contract, let alone understood it.

My business law professor repeatedly emphasized in the course I took
that this is the best protection an ordinary consumer has against this
type of nefarious contract.

- Peter

Peter Lawrence wrote:

"Arthur L. Rubin" wrote in message ...

However, LEGALLY, the contract is binding regardless of whether specific
provisions are initialed or noticed, unless specifically altered by
law.


WRONG.

Cite?



In California, a written contract is not considered legally binding
unless it can be proven, to the satisfaction of the court (jury or
judge - depending on the type of trial), that all parties involved in
the contract had read AND UNDERSTOOD the contract before entering into
the contract.

However, if one party has received a benefit from the contract
(rental of the car, in this case), he is bound by the contract,
regardless of whether he has read or understood it. (There are
some exceptions for mutual mistake, but THAT's the general rule
unless specifically overriden by law.)

I just don't buy it.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.

On 22 Jan 2004 18:56:20 -0800, (Peter Lawrence)
wrote:


In California, a written contract is not considered legally binding
unless it can be proven, to the satisfaction of the court (jury or
judge - depending on the type of trial), that all parties involved in
the contract had read AND UNDERSTOOD the contract before entering into
the contract.


And do you have a cite for this, or is that why you didn't read your
books for that class?

Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
TNSAF wrote:


I would hope the onus would be on the business to prove they gave the verbal
warning with a clearly marked disclaimer and the renters initials. This is
what all is done here when getting regular car insurance, the insurance
broker has to say "...and please initial here as proof I explained this too
you."


The article doesn't specify whether he DID initial by the location
restrictions, either.

However, LEGALLY, the contract is binding regardless of whether specific
provisions are initialed or noticed, unless specifically altered by
law.


That's not true, and that's why they ask you to initial it.



John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven