3 ms·
It's a merchantability problem in my eyes. Immobilizers were so common on cars by 2015 that it was an expected feature. By omitting this feature, Kia knew tha
by mywittyname 4y ago
It's a merchantability problem in my eyes. Immobilizers were so common on cars by 2015 that it was an expected feature. By omitting this feature, Kia knew that the likelihood of theft would skyrocket. Vehicles with high theft rates are uninsureable and in almost all states, cars are required to carry insurance in order to operate on the public road.
Thus, Kia knew they were selling a vehicle that might not be fit for market.
There are lots of ways that an item could be "legal" to sell, but trigger a recall or class action lawsuit. Say the gas cap was found to not hold up in an accident and cause an explosion: the gas cap could have met all legal standards at the time of production, but Kia could be forced to recall and fix the issue after the fact.
It would be easy to prove negligence in this instance.
- kube-system 4y agoI think that's a much more solid argument -- that the vehicles are unmerchantable under existing law, rather than there being a reason ex post facto require immobilizers.