Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmo
El Presidente, I'm not an attorney but from reviewing Magnuson-Moss claims progress on several auto forums, a claim invoking M-M becomes a vicious cycle that almost always wears down the claimant financially and worse.
All manufacturers including Toyota use about the same verbiage in the owner's manuals saying that non-OEM parts of equivalent quality may be used.
Then it's up to the claimant to prove the non-OEM part was equivalent meaning documenting to the arbitrator's satisfaction that the part was designed, manufactured, tested and certified to perform at least equal to the OEM part.
Then if it is proven, the manufacturer's expert witness could blame the non-OEM and demand the claimant pursue the non-OEM manufacturer as co-warrantor and the process repeats.
This assumes the claimant can first prove no abuse occurred, an almost impossible task.
Most will fold the tent and move on with nothing to show but attorney's fees exceeding what would've been the cost of repair.
|
In reality, you are paying your lawyer for each minute while the manufacturer has a legal department and engineers on staff... and they can write off their legal expense against taxes, you can't. The odds are stacked in their favour. Sure there is a chance you can pull it off but it's like playing blackjack against the house in Vegas.