Guys (Don, Dennis, willyscj),
I don't want to beat the proverbial dead horse here, but you're still missing the point. You are all obviously staunch E-M supporters, as am I, and I would enjoy getting together with any or all of you at any time to extol the virtues of E-M's fine product and nice people, but this thread has nothing to do with E-M's quality, craftsmanship, design, personal courtesy or kindness to animals. It has everything to do with standing by a customer, no matter what the legal obligation is. Santiago has never said that E-M should be held responsible for what Cavaliere did to his car, nor has anyone else suggested that either. What it all comes down to is that Santiago turned to E-M for some help to use their leverage against Cavaliere in order to make things right. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but that seems like a perfectly legitimate thing to ask of the manufacturer since it would have involved E-M minimally and perhaps could have affected an amicable solution.
Had E-M done nothing more than investigate Santiago's claims, maybe made a few phone calls on his behalf and then eventually determine that they could offer no more help, I think Santiago would have been satisfied that at least they tried to help to some degree and we would not be having this discussion. Instead, E-M would not even return his calls and refused to take any action on his part whatsoever. That in itself speaks volumes about the character and integrity of the people involved.
My 10 cents worth (inflation),
Mike