In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:06:27 -0600, dpb
wrote:

On 3/8/2019 9:04 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 03/08/2019 02:18 AM, micky wrote:
But the guy who suggested this might have been making fun of someone
looking for a carwash.* I came across the thread because I need a
carwash.* Yes, the rental company will wash it, but the rims are so
muddy, it looks like I've been driving off the highway in violation of
the rental agreement.** They may charge me for cleaning and if there is
damage for some other reason they may decide that the insurance
shouldn't have to pay.

If only driving on pavement is part of the rental agreement I never read
that far. I expect my own car to go wherever it physically can and I
don't treat rentals any different.


"14.Prohibited Use of the Car. Certain uses of the car and other things
you or a driver may do, or fail to do, will violate this Agreement
and, in addition to anything else may cause us to cancel your
enrollment in Avis Preferred.

A VIOLATION OF THIS PARAGRAPH, WILL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE YOUR RENTAL,
and IS AN EXCLUSION TO AND VOIDS ALL LIABILITY PROTECTION AND ANY
OPTIONAL SERVICES THAT YOU HAVE ACCEPTED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
ADDITIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, PERSONAL ACCIDENT
INSURANCE, PERSONAL EFFECTS PROTECTION, EXTENDED ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE,
EMERGENCY SICKNESS PROTECTION AND LOSS DAMAGE WAIVER OR PARTIAL DAMAGE
WAIVER. IT ALSO MAKES YOU LIABLE TO US FOR ALL PENALTIES, FINES,
FORFEITURES, LIENS AND RECOVERY AND STORAGE COSTS, INCLUDING ALL RELATED
LEGAL EXPENSES, FEES AND COSTS THAT WE MAY INCUR. It is a violation of
this paragraph if:

a. You use or permit the car to be used: 1) by anyone other than an
authorized driver, as defined in paragraph 5; 2) to carry passengers
or property for hire; 3) to tow or push anything; 4) to be operated
in a test, race or contest, or on unpaved roads; 5) while the driver
is under the influence of alcohol and/or a controlled substance;
6) for conduct that could be charged as a crime such as a felony or
misdemeanor, including the transportation of a controlled substances
or contraband; 7) recklessly or while overloaded; or 8) if the car is
driven into Mexico without our expressed permission.
..."

It's been a long time since I soujourned in law school, and I wasn't a
good student and didn't graduate, so I forget what this reminds me of.
And I don't know how to phrase what follows without it looking like this
example, rather than the place which I forget but where I'm sure it
applied 45 years ago.

But in some cases, in the USA, violating a rule, including one they
have every right to insist on, would not have all the negative
consequences they promise unless there was a cause and effect
relationship. For example clause 1, you let an unauthorized driver
drive. but later you're driving when you have an accident. Violating
"1" didn't cause the damage. So why should you lose your insurance?

OTOH, if you're violating 7 recklessly while the accident happens, it's
a good chance you're being reckless was a major, or even minor, cause of
the accident,.

I'm not even in the US so I'm in no position to fight their refusal to
pay, even if I had a case. I can't imagine this has not been tested in
the USA however since there are so many rentals, etc.


Directly from AVIS preferred customer agreement document.

Just think how they treat the non-preferred customers!

While aware of the restriction, sometimes "ya just gotta do what ya
gotta do!". While servicing the online ash meters I routinely took
rental cars to coal mines far back into the mountains in E KY and W VA
and they come back "black as coal"...

I never actually had the rental company come back at me, but by all
rights they could have and it's probably a lot more likely today than
was back then they would. I would _NOT_ rent a vehicle for such
business these days on the personal credit card like was common then.

--dpb

On 3/10/19 4:16 AM, micky wrote:
But in some cases, in the USA, violating a rule, including one they
have every right to insist on, would not have all the negative
consequences they promise unless there was a cause and effect
relationship. For example clause 1, you let an unauthorized driver
drive. but later you're driving when you have an accident. Violating
"1" didn't cause the damage. So why should you lose your insurance?

OTOH, if you're violating 7 recklessly while the accident happens, it's
a good chance you're being reckless was a major, or even minor, cause of
the accident,.

I'm not even in the US so I'm in no position to fight their refusal to
pay, even if I had a case. I can't imagine this has not been tested in
the USA however since there are so many rentals, etc.

Insurance companies write contracts filled with language designed to **** their customers.Â* For example, you buy $500,000 coverage on your house and $250,000 on contents.Â* Couple months later a tornado rips through your house and totally destroys it.Â*
You'd think that they'd cut you a check for $750,000, right?

Nope, they send out a trained liar that starts depreciating the value of everything you lost.Â* At the end of the day, you get a check for say $600,000.

WTF?Â* You were paying for $750,000 of coverage, why did they chisel you down to $600,000?Â* If they only pay $600,000 for total loss, why were they charging you premiums for $750,000 coverage? Now obviously in this case it would benefit the homeowner to
hire an attorney to recover the other $150,000 from the insurance company but in many cases it's not worth it.

My first thought was oldie. Tractor Data says 550s were made all
the way to
1975. The last real Oliver was the 2255, last made in 1976. Olivers
were never
that popular in central Nebraska. Deeres and IHCs were the most
popular. I want to
say Fords were next but I don't know for sure. There were some ACs
around.
Combines were Deere, IHC, and Gleaners.
I worked for the cockshutt / white dealer at the time and we has a
used 550 as a yard tractor (along with an old Norseman and a JD with a
boom on it) Around here Cockshutt and JD were the big movers,
followed by Massey, case,IH and AC.Also a smattering of Ford.

Had a lot to do with who the dealers were.

Combine-wise White/cockshutt was number one with massey , gleaner, and
JD tagging along. Klaas started eating white's lunch when a good
dealer started pushing them locally as well.

Things soon changed when the local Massey dealer closed down,Case and
International joined, Ford got out of the buisiness becoming
NewHolland, and all kinds of other changes came in - liike masseys
being built in Japan, Kubota taking a big bite out of the small
tractor market, etc.


Ours was an Avery - just like the 10th - 11th photos here :

http://bfavery.com/wp/2018-summer-show/

.... except for the clean & shiny :-)

John T.

On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 6:22:46 AM UTC-4, devnull wrote:
On 3/10/19 4:16 AM, micky wrote:
But in some cases, in the USA, violating a rule, including one they
have every right to insist on, would not have all the negative
consequences they promise unless there was a cause and effect
relationship. For example clause 1, you let an unauthorized driver
drive. but later you're driving when you have an accident. Violating
"1" didn't cause the damage. So why should you lose your insurance?

OTOH, if you're violating 7 recklessly while the accident happens, it's
a good chance you're being reckless was a major, or even minor, cause of
the accident,.

I'm not even in the US so I'm in no position to fight their refusal to
pay, even if I had a case. I can't imagine this has not been tested in
the USA however since there are so many rentals, etc.

Insurance companies write contracts filled with language designed to **** their customers.Â* For example, you buy $500,000 coverage on your house and $250,000 on contents.Â* Couple months later a tornado rips through your house and totally destroys it.Â*
You'd think that they'd cut you a check for $750,000, right?

Nope, they send out a trained liar that starts depreciating the value of everything you lost.Â* At the end of the day, you get a check for say $600,000.

WTF?Â* You were paying for $750,000 of coverage, why did they chisel you down to $600,000?Â* If they only pay $600,000 for total loss, why were they charging you premiums for $750,000 coverage? Now obviously in this case it would benefit the homeowner to
hire an attorney to recover the other $150,000 from the insurance company but in many cases it's not worth it.

And on the other side are many shyster homeowners who have an old couch
and think it's still worth the $3000 they paid for it 20 years ago.
And so it goes.....

On 3/10/2019 8:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 6:22:46 AM UTC-4, devnull wrote:
On 3/10/19 4:16 AM, micky wrote:
But in some cases, in the USA, violating a rule, including one they
have every right to insist on, would not have all the negative
consequences they promise unless there was a cause and effect
relationship. For example clause 1, you let an unauthorized driver
drive. but later you're driving when you have an accident. Violating
"1" didn't cause the damage. So why should you lose your insurance?

OTOH, if you're violating 7 recklessly while the accident happens, it's
a good chance you're being reckless was a major, or even minor, cause of
the accident,.

I'm not even in the US so I'm in no position to fight their refusal to
pay, even if I had a case. I can't imagine this has not been tested in
the USA however since there are so many rentals, etc.

Insurance companies write contracts filled with language designed to **** their customers.Â* For example, you buy $500,000 coverage on your house and $250,000 on contents.Â* Couple months later a tornado rips through your house and totally destroys it.
You'd think that they'd cut you a check for $750,000, right?

Nope, they send out a trained liar that starts depreciating the value of everything you lost.Â* At the end of the day, you get a check for say $600,000.

WTF?Â* You were paying for $750,000 of coverage, why did they chisel you down to $600,000?Â* If they only pay $600,000 for total loss, why were they charging you premiums for $750,000 coverage? Now obviously in this case it would benefit the homeowner to
hire an attorney to recover the other $150,000 from the insurance company but in many cases it's not worth it.

And on the other side are many shyster homeowners who have an old couch
and think it's still worth the $3000 they paid for it 20 years ago.
And so it goes.....


Maybe not a shyster, just ignorant of how things work.
That is why some companies offer replacement value. though at a higher
premium. It may be depreciated but will cost full value to replace it.
To Joe Sixpack, he just wants a new sofa.

"devnull" wrote in message
...
On 3/10/19 4:16 AM, micky wrote:
But in some cases, in the USA, violating a rule, including one they
have every right to insist on, would not have all the negative
consequences they promise unless there was a cause and effect
relationship. For example clause 1, you let an unauthorized driver
drive. but later you're driving when you have an accident. Violating
"1" didn't cause the damage. So why should you lose your insurance?

OTOH, if you're violating 7 recklessly while the accident happens, it's
a good chance you're being reckless was a major, or even minor, cause of
the accident,.

I'm not even in the US so I'm in no position to fight their refusal to
pay, even if I had a case. I can't imagine this has not been tested in
the USA however since there are so many rentals, etc.

Insurance companies write contracts filled with language designed to ****
their customers. For example, you buy $500,000 coverage on your house and
$250,000 on contents. Couple months later a tornado rips through your
house and totally destroys it.

You'd think that they'd cut you a check for $750,000, right?

Nope, they send out a trained liar that starts depreciating the value of
everything you lost. At the end of the day, you get a check for say
$600,000.

Its more complicated than that. If they didnt do that, some would
deliberately
insure for more than its worth to make a profit in a total loss situation.

WTF? You were paying for $750,000 of coverage, why did they chisel you
down to $600,000?

See above.

If they only pay $600,000 for total loss, why were they charging you
premiums for $750,000 coverage?

Because it isnt feasible to send someone around to your
place to work out what they would pay in a total loss
situation, every time someone buys a new policy.

Now obviously in this case it would benefit the homeowner to hire an
attorney to recover the other $150,000 from the insurance company but in
many cases it's not worth it.

And they wont necessarily get the $150K anyway.

And it works the other way too. If say you only insure that
place for $400K and it isnt a total loss, you will in fact only
get 2/3 of your actual loss, because you under insured.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 6:22:46 AM UTC-4, devnull wrote:
On 3/10/19 4:16 AM, micky wrote:
But in some cases, in the USA, violating a rule, including one they
have every right to insist on, would not have all the negative
consequences they promise unless there was a cause and effect
relationship. For example clause 1, you let an unauthorized driver
drive. but later you're driving when you have an accident. Violating
"1" didn't cause the damage. So why should you lose your insurance?

OTOH, if you're violating 7 recklessly while the accident happens, it's
a good chance you're being reckless was a major, or even minor, cause
of
the accident,.

I'm not even in the US so I'm in no position to fight their refusal to
pay, even if I had a case. I can't imagine this has not been tested in
the USA however since there are so many rentals, etc.

Insurance companies write contracts filled with language designed to ****
their customers. For example, you buy $500,000 coverage on your house
and $250,000 on contents. Couple months later a tornado rips through
your house and totally destroys it.
You'd think that they'd cut you a check for $750,000, right?

Nope, they send out a trained liar that starts depreciating the value of
everything you lost. At the end of the day, you get a check for say
$600,000.

WTF? You were paying for $750,000 of coverage, why did they chisel you
down to $600,000? If they only pay $600,000 for total loss, why were
they charging you premiums for $750,000 coverage? Now obviously in this
case it would benefit the homeowner to
hire an attorney to recover the other $150,000 from the insurance company
but in many cases it's not worth it.

And on the other side are many shyster homeowners who have an old couch
and think it's still worth the $3000 they paid for it 20 years ago.
And so it goes.....

Some of ours have new for old forever policys which pay for
a replacement with a new one regardless of how old it is. Of
course they arent the cheapest insurers of houses and contents
but it is what most actually want in a total loss situation.

I was a bit tempted to put a sign on my big patio door that
is my front door saying I would be away for 4 weeks but
decided that if that did see the place looted everything
so I could buy a whole new set of toys, that someone
might well tell the insurance assessor that I had done that.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 04:37:58 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

04:37 am in Australia???? Did you sleep in today, senile idiot? Are you sick
or what? LOL

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 05:08:12 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH psychopathic senile troll****


--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 07:58:11 -0400, wrote:


My first thought was oldie. Tractor Data says 550s were made all
the way to
1975. The last real Oliver was the 2255, last made in 1976. Olivers
were never
that popular in central Nebraska. Deeres and IHCs were the most
popular. I want to
say Fords were next but I don't know for sure. There were some ACs
around.
Combines were Deere, IHC, and Gleaners.
I worked for the cockshutt / white dealer at the time and we has a
used 550 as a yard tractor (along with an old Norseman and a JD with a
boom on it) Around here Cockshutt and JD were the big movers,
followed by Massey, case,IH and AC.Also a smattering of Ford.

Had a lot to do with who the dealers were.

Combine-wise White/cockshutt was number one with massey , gleaner, and
JD tagging along. Klaas started eating white's lunch when a good
dealer started pushing them locally as well.

Things soon changed when the local Massey dealer closed down,Case and
International joined, Ford got out of the buisiness becoming
NewHolland, and all kinds of other changes came in - liike masseys
being built in Japan, Kubota taking a big bite out of the small
tractor market, etc.


Ours was an Avery - just like the 10th - 11th photos here :

http://bfavery.com/wp/2018-summer-show/

... except for the clean & shiny :-)

John T.

Became part of MM in 1951 and then White Farm Equipment in 1963 and
Agco in 1991
No Avery designed tractors were ever sold with the MM name to my
knowlege. The Avery tractors were all 40HP or less -.

I believe a few Avery tractors were sold in Canada by George White
and Sons (manufacturer of threshing equipment) of London Ontario - no
corporate relation to the later White Motors (both of which at one
time produced steam engines) and White Farm Equipment

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 17:57:06 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 07:58:11 -0400, wrote:


My first thought was oldie. Tractor Data says 550s were made all
the way to
1975. The last real Oliver was the 2255, last made in 1976. Olivers
were never
that popular in central Nebraska. Deeres and IHCs were the most
popular. I want to
say Fords were next but I don't know for sure. There were some ACs
around.
Combines were Deere, IHC, and Gleaners.
I worked for the cockshutt / white dealer at the time and we has a
used 550 as a yard tractor (along with an old Norseman and a JD with a
boom on it) Around here Cockshutt and JD were the big movers,
followed by Massey, case,IH and AC.Also a smattering of Ford.

Had a lot to do with who the dealers were.

Combine-wise White/cockshutt was number one with massey , gleaner, and
JD tagging along. Klaas started eating white's lunch when a good
dealer started pushing them locally as well.

Things soon changed when the local Massey dealer closed down,Case and
International joined, Ford got out of the buisiness becoming
NewHolland, and all kinds of other changes came in - liike masseys
being built in Japan, Kubota taking a big bite out of the small
tractor market, etc.


Ours was an Avery - just like the 10th - 11th photos here :

http://bfavery.com/wp/2018-summer-show/

... except for the clean & shiny :-)

John T.

Became part of MM in 1951 and then White Farm Equipment in 1963 and
Agco in 1991
No Avery designed tractors were ever sold with the MM name to my
knowlege. The Avery tractors were all 40HP or less -.

I believe a few Avery tractors were sold in Canada by George White
and Sons (manufacturer of threshing equipment) of London Ontario - no
corporate relation to the later White Motors (both of which at one
time produced steam engines) and White Farm Equipment


We always called it incorrectly a White Avery.
probably had the George White sticker - shown as a close-up
on some photos in the Avery web site.
It was late 1940s. 4 cyl gas. 3 speed.
My older brothers rigged a rear-mount cultivator from a chopped-up
old wheeled unit - to work from the center-hydraulics.
And a front-mount snow plow - made from an old galvanized
water heater tank - cut in half lenghtwise, then re-joined
end-to-end - again worked from the center hydraulics.
John T.

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...



On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 15:50:01 -0500, wrote:


Try repairing the apron chain on a ****-spreader in February - - -



.. did you remember to un-hitch the team first ? :-)

John T.
Dragged it in behind the 550 Oliver after backing it into the carwash
and hosing off as much as I could. Didn't make much difference when I
hit it with the "blue-tipped wrench" to get it apart and the rest
started to melt - - - - -

You are just a country boy at heart.

--
Tekkie

devnull posted for all of us...



On 3/8/19 2:06 PM, dpb wrote:
a. You use or permit the car to be used: 1) by anyone other than an authorized driver, as defined in paragraph 5; 2) to carry passengers *** or property for hire; 3) to tow or push anything;


Is it ok to rent a Lowes Depot flatbed truck to pull tree stumps?

Sure, why not? They are expensive, no? What is the rate?

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 16:15:36 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...



On Sat, 09 Mar 2019 15:50:01 -0500, wrote:


Try repairing the apron chain on a ****-spreader in February - - -



.. did you remember to un-hitch the team first ? :-)

John T.
Dragged it in behind the 550 Oliver after backing it into the carwash
and hosing off as much as I could. Didn't make much difference when I
hit it with the "blue-tipped wrench" to get it apart and the rest
started to melt - - - - -

You are just a country boy at heart.
You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the
country out of the boy

On 3/12/19 4:21 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
devnull posted for all of us...


On 3/8/19 2:06 PM, dpb wrote:
a. You use or permit the car to be used: 1) by anyone other than an authorized driver, as defined in paragraph 5; 2) to carry passengers *** or property for hire; 3) to tow or push anything;

Is it ok to rent a Lowes Depot flatbed truck to pull tree stumps?
Sure, why not? They are expensive, no? What is the rate?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uURV6al-syI