They don’t have a reasonable expectation of buying a surveillance-safe new car because one does not exist.
Other than that I hear you. You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head but I’m talking about the possibility even existing in the marketplace. I guess you could argue maybe the reality of the market is trumped by the opinion of a person as to the reality of the market. I’m not sure that makes sense (or that ut doesn’t).
I guess you’re saying “they do have that expectation” while I’m saying “regardless of anyone’s expectation, car manufacturers have all addressed the market in a way that makes the expectation false and therefore unreasonable.”
> You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head
The legal concept of a person's "reasonable expectation" is literally this. But it doesn't really matter legally, because these systems are explicitly disclosed in the documentation that automakers provide.
That’s not correct: both the objective and subjective reasonable expectation are implicated. If the objective standard was not relevant, why would it matter if the manufacturer made the disclosure you mentioned?
Other than that I hear you. You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head but I’m talking about the possibility even existing in the marketplace. I guess you could argue maybe the reality of the market is trumped by the opinion of a person as to the reality of the market. I’m not sure that makes sense (or that ut doesn’t).
I guess you’re saying “they do have that expectation” while I’m saying “regardless of anyone’s expectation, car manufacturers have all addressed the market in a way that makes the expectation false and therefore unreasonable.”