Quote:
Originally Posted by Opie
I was referring to the earlier mention of the Magnussen-Moss Act that keeps getting brought up, this Act refers to the use of aftermarket replacement parts and their effect on warranty coverage, none of which applies to this case from what I've read since no one is denying warranty due to a replacement part.
Correct, assuming it's a manufacturing defect. If this were the case, I doubt Subaru wouldn't waste the time fighting it.
|
The Magnusson-Moss WARRANTY Act goes far beyond that...jeezus, just stop posting, lol
Further, manufacturers fight recognizing and admitting to manufacturing, design, and assembly defects all the time...look up the Ford Pinto and the Firestone tire fiasco...looks like another swing and a miss
By the way, I am a licensed attorney unlike 99% of the people here...(pssst, that means you)