- Report: #4793
Complaint Review: VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE - Lexington Kentucky
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE
501 Darby Creek Rd #37 East Point Lexington, 40509 Kentucky, U.S.A.
Phone:
859-357-2525
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE REPAIRS Screwed up my car *REBUTTAL *EDitor's Comment
In november i had my jeep in for an oil change and the person changing the oil screwed my check plug all the way into my transmission, they tried to fix the problem but it leaked a few days later.
I took my car to have it fixed and F.C.(Rick)Gilliland IV refused to pay me for getting my jeep fixed and was very rude to me. I have not been back to valvoline since after being a loyal customer to valvoline for years.
I took my car to have it fixed and F.C.(Rick)Gilliland IV refused to pay me for getting my jeep fixed and was very rude to me. I have not been back to valvoline since after being a loyal customer to valvoline for years.
1 Updates & Rebuttals
I see that you allow anyone to post -- evidently do not investigate the allegations *EDitor's Comment to this REBUTTAL
#20
Mon, January 07, 2002
They filed the following rebuttal to the above Rip-Off Report:
Their email: [email protected]
Their name: A Long-Time, Loyal Customer
Their relationship to the company: Supporter
Rebuttal:
Rebuttal Comments Re: This Rip-off Report
I see that you allow anyone to post -- evidently do not investigate the allegations, however true or false -- and allow people to list someone's name in the process - this, by definition of the law, is libel and slander.
This issue is over a year old, was someone trying to get
"something-for-nothing," when they did not have a valid claim in the first place -- as was verified by an independent, licensed, qualified mechanic who inspected the vehicle and determined that Valvoline was not at fault - therefore, the area manager refused to succumb to the idle, without merit, threats and did not pay for something that the company had nothing to do with - the person did not have any recourse since it would not have stood
up in a court of law because the incident was not the company's fault - so, instead, they resort to libel and slander on the Internet.
And, your website allows, promotes and condones libel and slander - I suggest you take a look at the following:
libel \'li-bel\ n
2a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b1: a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt
b2: defamation of a person by written or representational means
slander \'slan-der\ n
1: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2: a false and defamatory oral statement about a person
You may want to consider revising, editing or deleting this post - at least to the point of removing the individual's name mentioned in the rant or, I'm afraid, you might be found libel of slander yourself.
Signed -- A Loyal VIOC Customer
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
EDitor's Comment to the above REBUTTAL
This is obviously a lavatory lawyer. His/her advice is worth exactly what you pay for it. If this person had done the homework, instead of just repeating definitions, they would be aware of that the Communications Decency Act immunizes this web site from liability for the statements made by people who post to the web site. Additionally, the statements are protected speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Also, there is nothing wrong with identifying an individual that has done something wrong, if it is true. Remember, the truth is the perfect defense against libel and slander suits.
Finally, you are right that we allow anyone to post. If a consumer believes that they have been harmed by the conduct of a business, they have a right to post it. If the business disagrees, the business has the right to post a rebuttal. That is how the process works.
I would hasten to point out that it could not be both libel and slander, since websites deal with the written, not the spoken word. It would only be libel, if you had a case, which you do not. Get a life!
