3 ms·

> ...put the car and the Mercedes network admins in a strange position of trying to decide which legal claim to believe. Mercedes has lawyers as well as networ

> ...put the car and the Mercedes network admins in a strange position of trying to decide which legal claim to believe. Mercedes has lawyers as well as network admins, and the fact that the victim had a court-issued restraining order is not the sort of thing that one can simply choose to believe in or not. If the law currently supports Mercedes' response, it's time for the law to be updated to recognize the increasing scope for this sort of abuse. The husband forfeited a certain amount of freedom of action through the behavior that earned him the restraining order, and neither Mercedes' interest in the car as security on a loan nor the many other advantages of tracking a vehicle necessitate, let alone justify, Mercedes' response.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I fully disagree. This isn't about Mercedes' interest in the car, but the legal owner's interest in the car. This whole article is misleading in that it refers to it as "her car" while it simply wasn't. Replace it with "his car" and everything makes sense. >Mercedes has lawyers as well as network admins, and the fact that the victim had a court-issued restraining order is not the sort of thing that one can simply choose to believe in or not. It has nothing to do with belief in a restraining order. A restraining order says nothing about transferring the car title.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  > This isn't about Mercedes' interest in the car, but the legal owner's interest in the car. I anticipated this response, but apparently I didn't make it clear enough: The husband forfeited a certain amount of freedom of action through the behavior that earned him the restraining order. At this point in the divorce proceedings, where continued use of the car has been granted to one of the spouses pending a final resolution, and there is also a restraining order in effect on the other, there is no justification for the other spouse having a right to track the vehicle. If it had been stolen (which is not the case) and he was unable to track it himself, that would just be a consequence hehad brought on himself through his bad behavior. If Mercedes did not have any interest in tracking the car, then that just removes one possible justification for its inaction. > A restraining order says nothing about transferring the car title. And this issue is nothing to do with transferring the car title.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I fully disagree. This isn't about Mercedes' interest in the car, but the legal owner's interest in the car. This whole article is misleading in that it refers to it as "her car" while it simply wasn't. Replace it with "his car" and everything makes sense. >Mercedes has lawyers as well as network admins, and the fact that the victim had a court-issued restraining order is not the sort of thing that one can simply choose to believe in or not. It has nothing to do with belief in a restraining order. A restraining order says nothing about transferring the car title.

mannykannot 3y ago
> This isn't about Mercedes' interest in the car, but the legal owner's interest in the car. I anticipated this response, but apparently I didn't make it clear enough: The husband forfeited a certain amount of freedom of action through the behavior that earned him the restraining order. At this point in the divorce proceedings, where continued use of the car has been granted to one of the spouses pending a final resolution, and there is also a restraining order in effect on the other, there is no justification for the other spouse having a right to track the vehicle. If it had been stolen (which is not the case) and he was unable to track it himself, that would just be a consequence hehad brought on himself through his bad behavior. If Mercedes did not have any interest in tracking the car, then that just removes one possible justification for its inaction. > A restraining order says nothing about transferring the car title. And this issue is nothing to do with transferring the car title.