Do I have a 98 B18C or 96 B18C? shop might have ripped me off...

[lil_foy]

possible to name shop so nobody else gets ripped off?

This is because of defamation.
If he openly names the forum the shop is free to come onto ozhonda and sue them for loss of sales and tbh I don't think you'll want to pay up for that.

To the op:
Go back to shop and show them it's a 96 spec.
Obviously you won't want the engine removed from the car because it's a hassle but try work out a deal.

[SHOGUNOVDDRK]

This is because of defamation.
If he openly names the forum the shop is free to come onto ozhonda and sue them for loss of sales and tbh I don't think you'll want to pay up for that.

To the op:
Go back to shop and show them it's a 96 spec.
Obviously you won't want the engine removed from the car because it's a hassle but try work out a deal.

True but he can Pm people or people can take those 30 seconds out of their lives to message him.

Exactly....Go work something out, worst case scenario department of fair trading would be interested in this depending on the conditions of sale.

Also kings springs are awesome, get some thrown in.

[string]

Good luck to a shop attempting to prove defamation against a poster who simply describes a sequence of events. Naming names is not defamation.

[lil_foy]

Good luck to a shop attempting to prove defamation against a poster who simply describes a sequence of events. Naming names is not defamation.

Plain and simple if I was to post the following

Bridgestone at ******* ****ed me over they are shit, etc etc etc etc etc useless people never go there again etc.

They can sue, anything that can alter sales/reputation in a negative way is defamation.

*please note bridgestone has done nothing of the type to myself.

If he was to say, this shop gave me a 96 spec rather then a 98 spec but we worked out a deal and they admitted negligance and have refunded a certain amount of the price.

Then it shouldn't still be defamation, although advertising that they did stuff up can also alter their reputation.

[vinnY]

Good luck to a shop attempting to prove defamation against a poster who simply describes a sequence of events. Naming names is not defamation.

tell that to ocau, zgeek and whirlpool

[bennjamin]

tell that to ocau, zgeek and whirlpool

110% right.

People dont get it....it really IS better safe than sorry. WE as Ozhonda have YOu as members in our best interests. Censorship is brought on by events and situations , from members. Its protecting YOU as a member

[string]

tell that to ocau, zgeek and whirlpool

Your argument does not follow.

Case 1: OCAU: "You are allowed to post messages which contain statements which you can prove in court are true". Post #27 agrees.

Case 3: WP: Defamation case on the basis of statements "that are both false and malicious". Irrelevant to this thread which pertains to a factual, truthful account of events.

And to quote a random legislation website: "Remember that just because a communication is insulting, annoying, false or damaging to someone’s business doesn’t meant that it is necessarily defamatory".

And to extend: The statement, "Bridgestone at ******* ****ed me over they are shit, etc etc etc etc etc useless people never go there again etc", is not necessarily defamatory either - as long as you include with the statement all the relevant facts (provable in court) which lead you to the opinion and you genuinely hold the opinion.

Since obviously, so few people have even read a single page about defamation legislation in Australia, I am in no way suggesting that the OP reveal the workshop at this time. It is however 100% false to suggest that defamation arises simply from describing a business transaction truthfully.

[bennjamin]

guys lets not dive too deep into this.

Fact is Ozhonda , will keep censoring possibly defaming comments now and forever to protect Our site and its members.

IF you want to know something...pm the OP. If you want to say something , add it as a post or your sig - for people to pm you.

[mocchi]

Your argument does not follow.

Case 1: OCAU: "You are allowed to post messages which contain statements which you can prove in court are true". Post #27 agrees.

Case 3: WP: Defamation case on the basis of statements "that are both false and malicious". Irrelevant to this thread which pertains to a factual, truthful account of events.

too bad this site is just cbf to deal with that stuff and prefer to play it safe.
if any.

i agree with you. defamation is only true when the statements are false and malicious. spoken or written.

[vinnY]

missing the point string, thread/replies posted by members of the forum and the owners get into strife
they'll just cry and say because of x members posting about my shop on x forums i've lost money and business over it

like benj says, better safe than sorry
if you wanna know about the shop pm the op otherwise it doesn't belong here

i think this thread can be closed before it gets any deeper, question answered and now it's up to the op to deal with the shop

[string]

missing the point string, thread/replies posted by members of the forum and the owners get into strife

If you intended to convey a message regarding forum owners getting in strife then your post should have looked much less like a rebuttal against mine. I can't miss a point that was never made.

missing the point string, thread/replies posted by they'll just cry and say because of x members posting about my shop on x forums i've lost money and business over it

If I say "I bought a computer from Bob's Computer shop and it arrived full of feces" and Bob loses business from my communication, then it is simply too bad for Bob - so long as I am fully capable of proving in court that my computer did indeed arrive filled with feces.

like benj says, better safe than sorry

I do not disagree.

if you wanna know about the shop pm the op otherwise it doesn't belong here

This I disagree with. If a post, sans identified parties, is defamatory in nature, or could be reasonably construed as defamatory (such as leaving out important information about the conclusions and opinions presented) then it is disgusting to condone it privately, but forbid it publicly simply to reduce the risk of legal liability. If the business was to [somehow] get hold of these private communications you've achieved nothing by publicly censoring identification.

Choose your words carefully, form logical and reasonable opinions and you avoid all problems in the first place.

i think this thread can be closed before it gets any deeper, question answered and now it's up to the op to deal with the shop

Indeed.

[UCNDRM]

i just hope the shop that did the conversion isnt one that comes highly recommended by other guys on here otherwise it would be a huge dissapointment....

but as long as everything is working really well and the job isnt dodgy, how much price dif would there be b/w a 96 and 98 model motor?