Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Warranty - parts or labour
-
02-09-2011 02:40PM#1Bought a used car through a dealer a few weeks ago and find it's got a problem drinking oil - it's not leaking. I'm envisaging major problems trying to source and correct.
Warranty from the dealer says parts or labour. I've said I'm only paying whichever is the lower. How do I ensure he's not going to hick up chrages to cover the other?
Is it acceptable to get another garage carry out the work and give the bill to the dealer?
Help!
0
Comments
-
Gloomtastic! wrote: »Bought a used car through a dealer a few weeks ago and find it's got a problem drinking oil - it's not leaking. I'm envisaging major problems trying to source and correct.
Warranty from the dealer says parts or labour. I've said I'm only paying whichever is the lower. How do I ensure he's not going to hick up chrages to cover the other?
Is it acceptable to get another garage carry out the work and give the bill to the dealer?
Help!
In my opinion if warranty from dealer says "part or labour" it means they have to cover both.
From logic point of view, "A or B" means that there are three possible options:
1) A
2) B
3) A and B
I can see other problem though.
If drinking oil is the only problem, that dealer might not accept is as a fault. Usually car manufacturers specify the acceptable amount of oil that can be burnt at levels like 1l per 1000km or similar.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
kermitpwee wrote: »You are missing the point I am entitled to either a Yorkie or Twix but not both. Your logic is flawed otherwise you don't understand what 'or' actually means. Simple as that.
The op is entitled to either parts or labour not both. You are saying that 'or' can mean both when it obviously can't.
Do you understand the meaning of the word or?
Did you look at the link I provided earlier?
(that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_disjunction)In logic and mathematics, a two-place logical connective or, is a logical disjunction, also known as inclusive disjunction or alternation, that results in true whenever one or more of its operands are true. E.g. in this context, "A or B" is true if A is true, or if B is true, or if both A and B are true. In grammar, or is a coordinating conjunction. In ordinary language "or" sometimes has the meaning of exclusive disjunction.
In logic "or" means as described above, which is the way I was saying.
In ordimnary language it might be exclusive disjunction. (described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_disjunctionThe logical operation exclusive disjunction, also called exclusive or (symbolized by the prefix operator J, or by the infix operators XOR, EOR, EXOR, ⊻ or ⊕,
/ˌɛks ˈɔr/ or /ˈzɔr/), is a type of logical disjunction on two operands that results in a value of true if exactly one of the operands has a value of true.[1] A simple way to state this is "one or the other but not both."
Here's a little dispute from above wikipedia page:Exclusive "or" in English
The Oxford English Dictionary explains "either ... or" as follows:
The primary function of either, etc., is to emphasize the indifference of the two (or more) things or courses ... but a secondary function is to emphasize the mutual exclusiveness, = either of the two, but not both. The exclusive-or explicitly states "one or the other, but not neither nor both."
Following this kind of common-sense intuition about "or", it is sometimes argued that in many natural languages, English included, the word "or" has an "exclusive" sense. The exclusive disjunction of a pair of propositions, (p, q), is supposed to mean that p is true or q is true, but not both. For example, it might be argued that the normal intention of a statement like "You may have coffee, or you may have tea" is to stipulate that exactly one of the conditions can be true. Certainly under many circumstances a sentence like this example should be taken as forbidding the possibility of one's accepting both options. Even so, there is good reason to suppose that this sort of sentence is not disjunctive at all. If all we know about some disjunction is that it is true overall, we cannot be sure that either of its disjuncts is true. For example, if a woman has been told that her friend is either at the snack bar or on the tennis court, she cannot validly infer that he is on the tennis court. But if her waiter tells her that she may have coffee or she may have tea, she can validly infer that she may have tea. Nothing classically thought of as a disjunction has this property. This is so even given that she might reasonably take her waiter as having denied her the possibility of having both coffee and tea.
(Note: If the waiter intends that choosing neither tea nor coffee is an option i.e. ordering nothing, the appropriate operator is NAND: p NAND q.)
In English, the construct "either ... or" is usually used to indicate exclusive or and "or" generally used for inclusive. But in Spanish, the word "o" (or) can be used in the form p o q (exclusive) or the form o p o q (inclusive). Formalists may contend that any binary or other n-ary exclusive "or" is true if and only if it has an odd number of true inputs, and there is no word in English that can conjoin a list of two or more options has this general property. For example, Barrett and Stenner contend in the 1971 article "The Myth of the Exclusive 'Or'" (Mind, 80 (317), 116–121) that no author has produced an example of an English or-sentence that appears to be false because both of its inputs are true, and brush off or-sentences such as "The light bulb is either on or off" as reflecting particular facts about the world rather than the nature of the word "or". However, the "barber paradox" -- Everybody in town shaves himself or is shaved by the barber, who shaves the barber? -- would not be paradoxical if "or" could not be exclusive (although a purist could say that "either" is required in the statement of the paradox).
Whether these examples can be considered "natural language" is another question. Certainly when one sees a menu stating "Lunch special: sandwich and soup or salad", one would not expect to be permitted to order both soup and salad. Nor would one expect to order neither soup nor salad, because that belies the nature of the "special", that ordering the two items together is cheaper than ordering them a la carte. Similarly, a lunch special consisting of one meat, french fries or mashed potatoes and vegetable would consist of three items, only one of which would be a form of potato. If one wanted to have meat and both kinds of potatoes, one would ask if it were possible to substitute a second order of potatoes for the vegetable. And, one would not expect to be permitted to have both types of potato and vegetable, because the result would be a vegetable plate rather than a meat plate.
So as you can see it's not so black and white.
I'm not sure how Law treats cases like that, and what exactly "or" means in Law contracts.
But this is the question for lawyers. Maybe OP should ask at Law forum.
One thing I know is that from logic point of view A or B might mean A, B, A and B.
From language point of view it's not 100% clear.
That's why OP should take a proper check on it.0 -
-
-
So as you can see it's not so black and white.
Isn't it interesting that the original master of black or white, yes or no, 0 or 1, the groundlayer of computing, George Boole, was a professor of mathematics in - yes - Ireland
Lotus Elan turbo for sale:
https://www.adverts.ie/vehicles/lotus-elan-turbo/35456469
My ads on adverts.ie:
0 -
Isn't it interesting that the original master of black or white, yes or no, 0 or 1, the groundlayer of computing, George Boole, was a professor of mathematics in - yes - Ireland
Good to knowIt was not until his successful establishment of a school at Lincoln, its removal to Waddington, and later his appointment in 1849 as the first professor of mathematics of then Queen's College, Cork in Ireland (now University College Cork, where the library, underground lecture theatre complex and the Boole Centre for Research in Informatics[3] are named in his honour)0 -
-
Advertisement