Originally Posted by davegow
This topic comes up periodically. There's 2 main reasons why not. First, the tactical difficulty of establishing percentages of failure and corporate liability for products whose warrentees are long over. Second and probably more important, most people feel that for issues as trivial as a TV, all these actions do is make wealthy lawyers even richer. But if that's what you want to do, be my guest.
First, thank you for the reply
I don't care who gets rich, if I did, I could never buy anything, lawyers, like any other business man simply provide a service, of which under the right circumstances, I'm quite sure you would not hesitate to avail yourself of. The only reason I ask is because of the whole Sony thing http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1254481
, although we may never recuperate our losses, public light needs to be shed on this situation. If the publicity that the suit would draw caused any fiscal harm, then that in it's self is a small victory. I think it's pretty sad when my toaster and my $3000 tv carry the same warranty
Best Regards; Menace