Today,what I introduce to you is AllData 10.53, the newest version,it includes the most comprehensive vehicles’ data for 1982 to present vehicles and it update each quarter of year.It will help you boost garage performance and build customer loyalty as you repairing more vehicles efficiently and reducing comebacks.
2014 ALLDATA 10.53 focuses on collecting the electronic catalogue of Auto parts and repairing information .The vehicle models cover Europe,America,China and Korea,and include Autoxxxx ,BOSCH ESI ,BENZ WIS DAS EPC,BMW ERS,ELSA WIN KeyGen.With the help of AllData,you can get correct vehicle repairing information and parts’ electronic catalogue.And the catalogue includes detailed auto parts’ information,such as exploded view,OEM No and price,etc.The vehicle repairing data includes the information of repairment,maintenance,diagnosis,performance parameter,working hours and circuit diagram,also some other information which will help you repair vehicles is in it.
For one thing, it is highly unlikely that all 40 of the Defendants are guilty of every specific instance of misconduct. Case in point: Although Plaintiffs lumped every Defendant into every allegation, Plaintiffs were able to identify only a handful of Defendants who actually had entered alldata mitchell with any particular Plaintiff. Beyond this, some of the Defendants apparently informed the Court that they never even participated in a DRP with any repair shop. So you have the issue of group pleading, confusion and allegations that are – in some instances – blatantly false. For another, the Plaintiffs’ technique – adding the names of all the Defendants over and over again – resulted in the Amended Complaint being twice as long as the original. The Court was not happy. After laying out all of these problems, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to address these problems or face sanctions.
The other common law claims were similarly (or even more) untenable. Plaintiffs tried to assert a claim for “quasi estoppel”. But, as many of us know, there is no cause of action for “quasi estoppel” under Florida law (or any other state law, to my knowledge). The tortious interference claim failed because it did not identify the actual customers with whom Defendants supposedly interfered. The conversion claim failed because it made utterly no sense—- Defendants supposedly committed conversion because they did not pay the Plaintiffs more money for the repairs. You get the picture ALL Auto Repair Software.
Leave a Reply