Latest news with #641
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Kia offers a killer lease deal on EV6 GT with up to $20,000 in rebates
Kia's sleek EV6 comes in a few different flavors, but the performance-focused EV6 GT is arguably the most intriguing to enthusiasts. Now, with serious manufacturer backed rebates, you can save up to $20,000 on remaining 2024 model year EV6 GTs. The offer almost entirely offsets the $21,000 delta between the base model and the range-topping GT, meaning now's the time if you're looking to score an EV6 GT on the (relative) cheap. View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article As originally reported by CarsDirect,a new dealer bulletin indicates savings of up to $20,000 when leasing a 2024 Kia EV6 GT. The largest savings is only available when you select a 24-month lease, and mileage restrictions aren't mentioned, but we're thinking they're low. For what it's worth, Kia's lowest mileage lease is 10,000 miles per year. Thankfully, you still have options outside the restrictive two-year term, as those who opt to lease for 36 months will still enjoy $18,500 off. This isn't the first time we've seen substantial savings on Kia's flagship performance EV6, either. Back in February, when 2025 model year cars were first beginning to hit dealer lots, Kia offered a similar $19,050 lease cash offer. What's most surprising is that the Korean automaker is also running competitive lease cash promotions for the current model year EV6 GT. Customers can enjoy $12,500 in lease cash when they choose a 24-month lease. Those opting for more traditional 36-month terms can get $10,000 off, which is still a pretty decent chunk of change on a car that costs just a couple grand over $60,000. Notably, the 2025 model gets a few tweaks that might make it more enticing, despite the diminished savings. For one, it makes up to 641 horsepower in Launch Mode, up 65 ponies from the 2024 a refresher on the Kia EV6 GT? It's based on the same platform that underpins the enthusiast's EV of choice, the Hyundai Ioniq 5N, and the 2024 model makes 576 horsepower and 545 pound-feet of torque. All-wheel drive comes standard, contributing to the car's lightning-quick performance figures. Instrumented testing over at Road and Track revealed that zero to 60 mph takes just 3.2 seconds. The EV6 GT completed the quarter mile in 11.4 seconds at 120 mph, which isn't bad for a car that weighs over 4,800 pounds. The EPA claims the car will get 218 miles of range on a full charge. As of this writing, there are 28 2024 Kia EV6 GT examples sitting on lots in the US, according to Autotrader. We reckon there's a few more than that floating around, but we wouldn't say there's a surplus. As long as you can overcome the somewhat middling range, the 2024 Kia EV6 GT is an excellent choice for enthusiasts looking to go electric. The value is even better when you consider the $20,000 on the hood. Besides, if you don't like it, you give it back in two years. Talk about a no-brainer.
Gulf News
19-04-2025
- Business
- Gulf News
UAE: Man overpays loans by Dh338,000, wins case against bank
Fujairah: The Federal Court in Fujairah has ordered a bank to refund Dh338,641 to a customer after it was revealed he had paid far more than what was actually owed on his loans and credit facilities. The court also instructed the bank to unfreeze his salary—held since November last year—and awarded him Dh10,000 in compensation for the emotional and financial stress he endured. Additionally, the bank must issue a clearance letter confirming he has no outstanding debts and cover all related court fees and expenses. The case began when the man, a salaried employee, noticed that his monthly salary—regularly deposited into his account—had been suddenly frozen by the bank. This was despite having no active debts at the time. According to the plaintiff, he had been a long-time customer of the bank before it merged with another institution. During that time, he received various financial facilities and paid them off diligently, with installments automatically deducted from his salary. No clear explanation Things took an unexpected turn when, after settling all his dues, the bank froze his salary without any clear explanation. To make matters worse, the bank asked him to sign new documents claiming he still owed money—something he firmly denied. Wanting clarity, the customer requested the court to assign an independent financial expert to review his banking history from the very beginning of his relationship with the institution up until the day the lawsuit was filed. The court agreed and brought in a banking expert. After a thorough review of the accounts and supporting documents, the expert confirmed that the customer had paid off all his loans and credit card balances—and had actually overpaid by more than Dh 338,000, including the withheld salary. The report also confirmed that the last deduction from his salary was made in October 2024 and that no remaining debts existed that could justify withholding his income. The bank's legal team tried to dismiss the case, arguing that the law did not allow such claims under regulations related to current accounts. But the court disagreed, ruling that this was not about correcting an account—it was about returning money that had been wrongfully taken. The case, it concluded, should be handled under general civil law. Emotional damage The court made it clear: if someone pays money they don't legally owe, they have every right to get it back. And if someone receives money they weren't entitled to, they're obligated to return it. In this case, the bank's actions—particularly freezing the man's salary—were unjustified and amounted to a mistake that warranted compensation. The court acknowledged the damage done went beyond the financial. By denying the man access to his income, the bank caused unnecessary stress and hardship—emotionally and financially. For that, the court awarded an additional Dh10,000 in damages, plus 9% annual interest on the excess amount paid, calculated from the date the claim was filed. Interest will also be applied to the compensation amount once the ruling becomes final.
Gulf Insider
19-04-2025
- Business
- Gulf Insider
UAE: Man Overpays Loans By Dh338,000, Wins Case Against Bank
The Federal Court in Fujairah has ordered a bank to refund Dh338,641 to a customer after it was revealed he had paid far more than what was actually owed on his loans and credit facilities. The court also instructed the bank to unfreeze his salary—held since November last year—and awarded him Dh10,000 in compensation for the emotional and financial stress he endured. Additionally, the bank must issue a clearance letter confirming he has no outstanding debts and cover all related court fees and expenses. The case began when the man, a salaried employee, noticed that his monthly salary—regularly deposited into his account—had been suddenly frozen by the bank. This was despite having no active debts at the time. According to the plaintiff, he had been a long-time customer of the bank before it merged with another institution. During that time, he received various financial facilities and paid them off diligently, with installments automatically deducted from his salary. Things took an unexpected turn when, after settling all his dues, the bank froze his salary without any clear explanation. To make matters worse, the bank asked him to sign new documents claiming he still owed money—something he firmly denied. Wanting clarity, the customer requested the court to assign an independent financial expert to review his banking history from the very beginning of his relationship with the institution up until the day the lawsuit was filed. The court agreed and brought in a banking expert. After a thorough review of the accounts and supporting documents, the expert confirmed that the customer had paid off all his loans and credit card balances—and had actually overpaid by more than Dh 338,000, including the withheld salary. The report also confirmed that the last deduction from his salary was made in October 2024 and that no remaining debts existed that could justify withholding his income. The bank's legal team tried to dismiss the case, arguing that the law did not allow such claims under regulations related to current accounts. But the court disagreed, ruling that this was not about correcting an account—it was about returning money that had been wrongfully taken. The case, it concluded, should be handled under general civil law. The court made it clear: if someone pays money they don't legally owe, they have every right to get it back. And if someone receives money they weren't entitled to, they're obligated to return it. In this case, the bank's actions—particularly freezing the man's salary—were unjustified and amounted to a mistake that warranted compensation. The court acknowledged the damage done went beyond the financial. By denying the man access to his income, the bank caused unnecessary stress and hardship—emotionally and financially. For that, the court awarded an additional Dh10,000 in damages, plus 9% annual interest on the excess amount paid, calculated from the date the claim was filed. Interest will also be applied to the compensation amount once the ruling becomes final.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
‘Our food is literally killing us': FL lawmakers propose warning labels for certain foods
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WFLA) — Concerns around ultra-processed foods and synthetic dyes have state lawmakers pushing legislation to ban chemical additives and require stronger warning labels. Florida lawmakers are demanding change in the food found in schools and what you buy in grocery stores. In a bipartisan move, lawmakers at the statehouse have filed several bills to tackle concerns around harmful chemicals found in Floridians' everyday diets. One bill looks to make nutrition labels a little bit more like warning labels, highlighting the negative impacts it has on children. Fired workers return to federal agencies — but are put on paid leave 'We cannot continue to ignore the truth about what is found in our food,' said State Rep. Debra Tendrich, D-Lake Worth. In a step toward a healthier Florida, lawmakers across chambers have several bills aimed at holding businesses accountable in the food industry and protecting the health of all Floridians.'Let's just be real, it's time we clean up our food system here in Florida,' said State Representative Lindsay Cross, D-St. Petersburg. Senate Republicans are diving into the chemicals found in our food, while House Democrats are fighting for transparency on food labels. House Bill 641 seeks to require clear warning labels on food and beverages containing harmful dyes and also looks to task the state's department of agriculture and consumer services with inspections to ensure compliance.'Our food is literally killing us, but it's a slow tortured death that first robs us of you, of your health… And then eventually robs you of your life span, which is, by the way, shorter than it's ever been in our history,' said Todd Wagner, Co-founder of FoodFight USA. Florida could ban these chemical additives in foods by 2028 if bill passes The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently banned the use of red dye No. 3, and as food additive concerns rise on the federal stage, some Florida lawmakers are asking, 'What's the rush to speed past those efforts here on the state level?''Should we wait until the federal government completes their work so there's a uniform regulation?' said State Senator Darryl Ervin Rouson, D-St. Petersburg. In response, State Senator Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, said, 'I think waiting on the federal government has proven to be not beneficial to Floridians in a number of respects.' In a separate bill, Senator Martin's efforts to ban chemical additives in foods by 2028 passed out of its first committee, which gives lawmakers across the chamber hope that their bill will do the advocates and lawmakers note major food companies have reformulated their products for other countries, while it remains unclear if they will do that here at home in the Sunshine State. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
