Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

*
DODGE MOTORS

“Certain changes that you might make to your truck do not, by themselves, void the warranties described in this booklet. Examples of some of these changes are: installing non-Chrysler parts, components, or equipment.” – 1997 Warranty Information supplement to Dodge

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

“If a Chevrolet part fails due to a defect in material or workmanship not related to (on aftermarket products) or the labor to install it. Chevrolet would be responsible for covering the failed part.” – Chevrolet Customer Assistance Center

FORD MOTOR COMPANY

“Installation of a non-genuine Ford item does not, in and of itself, render warranty void.” – Ford Owner Relations Division



They have a great layout placed as a sticky at the top of these boards, where I also sourced the above, and also seen/have completed in practice.
http://www.mustangforums.com/m_1524512/tm.htm

kensteele

You are arguing a different point. I don't think anyone in here is saying that installing aftermarket parts will void your warranty. I think you're just trying to make a connection with the Act that simply isn't there. Go back and read post #22....

Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

So as to clear up confusion, post #22 ask me to refer to the portion of the act which supports what I've been reinforcing, as I orginally stated in post #11, quoted below.

If they can prove that the modification you did, caused a premature malfunction, it will void the warranty. However, it can be a tedious battle, and some mods are easier to argue than others when it comes to failure.~ShinX

Bichon attempted to challenge what I stated, by saying that dealers do not have to "prove" anything, in order to void a warranty, based on the excuse of a given modification exceeding a vehicles design spec- which is only half true, mainly due to passiveness or ignorance on part of the consumer. He further used the Magnuson-Moss warranty act to try and support his stance, however, just to the contrary the same act is used to protect an individuals warranty claim in the very situation we speak of, if there is any dispute based on lacking or weak evidence, as many have experienced. Dealers, aftermarket companies/suppliers, shops/installers, and car manufactureres alike have verified/honored what was stated in the act, based on the translation I quoted previously, and as such, those liable will notify the consumer if the part they provide will void warranty, or proclaim clearly, "for off road use only", or some other variation.

You stated, "That's not what that means. You should go back to "law" school lol."

I honestly don't mind if you have make comments in jest, but any established connection to the act, is not one I have made personally. If there exist no link to what I have posted previously, with regard to article 15 U.S.C. 2302(C) of the act, would you be able to provide both an easy to understand explanation of what the contents refer to, and why aftermarket makes have used the same act to defend warranty claims which were not rendered void via part modification?

kensteele

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/...#Magnuson-Moss

Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

Having read through the contents, your link does not apply to the question I have asked. "What is", "how-to", and "do and don't", type information for how to build/present a warranty for the upcoming businessman is great, but it does not refer to the act I previously quoted; article 15 U.S.C. 2302(C)*.

*
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if—

(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)).



^^ Since you maintain the stance that I, dealers, and the aftermarket have interpreted the above incorrectly, what does it actually translate into (or if you may- quote a piece from your above link, should it apply, as that is fine as well)?

kensteele

hey i just posted the facts, that's all. you need to keep up with the post in the mustangforum instead of just repeating what he says. he's already taking back some of what he said lol. and just to ask your question since you've already asked twice, the section of the Act that you reference means translates to this:

remainder of post copied from ftc link above:

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions
Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.

In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.

While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.

Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition.

Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

“Tie in sales” exist as a marketing ploy used strictly to dissuade the consumer from purchasing competing aftermarket products, instead of OEM products, such as brake pads or clutches. It is not a means to void a warranty, based on the unrelated malfunction of one part as a result of another, or furthermore a product that may not even exist OEM. You have the two confused…

“Tie-in sales” are furthermore illegal, which is why they are referred to in the fashion they are during your quoted article: ”While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision”

Click here for a brief description of tie-in sales

So as the put an end to this, and clear up what covers what under the act, I figure it wouldn't hurt to include definitive meaning and simplified wording of terms, as dictated by thesaurus, to decipher what the act actually states.



No “warrantor” [dealer] of a “consumer product” [car or car part] may “condition” [alter the warranty to be based on an uncertain future cause] his written or implied warranty of such “product” [car or car part] on the consumers using, in connection with such product [car or car part], any article [aftermarket part] or service [installation work] (“other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty”) [any part or work already covered by the dealer under warranty] which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name; except [unless] that the "prohibition of this subsection" [exclusion of this law] may be waived [abandoned] by the Commission if—

(1) the “warrantor” [dealer] “satisfies” [proves] to the Commission that the "warranted product" [part malfunctioning] will function properly only if the "article" [aftermarket part] or "service" [installation] so identified is "used in connection"[connected] with the "warranted product" [part that saw malfunction], and

(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)).

kensteele

http://www.enjoythedrive.com/content/?id=8128

kensteele

You have so missed the point LOL

Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

What point have you made? Bluffing does not dismiss what has been established since post 17, that tie-in sales, which you quoted, have no relation to the subject, lol. Fact is, article 15 U.S.C. 2302(C), which you did not decipher, reinforces the claim, that a dealer must prove a given part caused the problem...and so you don't have issue with me personaly, it is not I who have established such a conclusion.

Bichon

What you say makes no sense. First you say that tie-in sales has no relation to the subject. Then you refer us to 2302(c), which is the section of federal code that prohits tie-in sales.

I think we agree on the point that the provision does not apply if the third party product is responsible for the damage. What we disagree on is your assertion that Magnusson-Moss makes it the warrantors burden to establish proof that a part caused damage. In fact, Magnusson-Moss doesn't address that point at all, instead, the terms and conditions under which the warranty can be voided are found in the text of the warranty itself.

Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

Sorry if I may have confused you, but I say "tie-in sales" have no relevance, because they are generally illegal. However, the question still stands of which portion of the law, dictates that the a dealer may void warranty, only if they may prove an aftermarket part caused malfunction? It has been recognized as section 15 U.S.C. 2302, titled Rules governing contents of warranties, and part (C) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission, of the M-M Act, outlined below, which if I understand your point correctly, also would prohibit illegal tie-in sales.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html

^^ As I have presented the evidence, I have not seen a counter-point thus far which deciphers what the contents in the link have stated, which according to your logic, should debunk what has long been recognized (again, not by my association) by the industry(s). Kensteele stated, "thats not what it means", but an empty statement such as that does not explain what it does mean, if he is in dispute.

100% But this does not just exist in theory- there is a law which must be applied, in order for what we agree to, to stand in any court. Which law, brings us back to the question above.

Yes- the only thing I will add, is that I will in no way credit myself for such an assertion. It is one reinforced by many branches of the automotive industry. I honestly ask how you can say there is no link present, when individuals using the very act, have had their warranty honored based on its contents?

PhilipMSPT

iTrader: (5)

I do mods 'cause they're cool!!!

Why donate that money for a good cause when I can have rhinestone rims?!?

kensteele

well, we are going to have to agree to disagree.