View Single Post
Old 08-07-2013, 08:39 PM   #31
DoomsdayJesus
In Autobahn withdrawl
 
DoomsdayJesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Drives: 2015 BRZ Limited Man., WRB
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 718
Thanks: 286
Thanked 281 Times in 169 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezoris View Post
Burden of proof is on you. Point is you have to pay up front which is thousands in court costs and legal fees that you may lose, when either the OEM shows up to court of the dealer. Huge risk, lot of stress, and money just to file and start the process.

Not as easy as empty threats, most car owners are not going to park their car broken and waste half a year taking a manufacturer to court over a 1k repair bill.
No it is not. Burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove that the fault was caused by your modification. That's explicitly stated in the law. Stop spreading BS.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...ty-intact.html
Quote:
No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused. Under the Magnuson-Moss Act, a dealer must prove, not just vocalize, that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before it can deny warranty coverage. If the dealer cannot prove such a claim — or it proffers a questionable explanation — it is your legal right to demand compliance with the warranty. The Federal Trade Commission administers the Magnuson-Moss Act and monitors compliance with warranty law.
DoomsdayJesus is offline   Reply With Quote