Lexus IS250 4GR-FSE Engine Carbon Build-up (merged threads)
12-10-10, 12:55 PM
#406
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...-scenario.html
Kinda hard to say anything about that situation or if the MMA has much bearing on it without knowing what the actual situation was though...
In any event, here's a nice paper explaining why binding arbitration should not be enforceable under the MMA
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/res...rgMagnuson.pdf
(I'm unaware of this having been settled by the US supreme court though, and I'm not a lawyer, so YMMV)
12-10-10, 05:44 PM
#407
I assume you mean the issue you refused to describe in the 5 page thread?
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...-scenario.html
Kinda hard to say anything about that situation or if the MMA has much bearing on it without knowing what the actual situation was though...
In any event, here's a nice paper explaining why binding arbitration should not be enforceable under the MMA
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/res...rgMagnuson.pdf
(I'm unaware of this having been settled by the US supreme court though, and I'm not a lawyer, so YMMV)
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...-scenario.html
Kinda hard to say anything about that situation or if the MMA has much bearing on it without knowing what the actual situation was though...
In any event, here's a nice paper explaining why binding arbitration should not be enforceable under the MMA
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/res...rgMagnuson.pdf
(I'm unaware of this having been settled by the US supreme court though, and I'm not a lawyer, so YMMV)
The dealer, and corporate both refused even though it is a known issue and many folks over here have had it fixed under warranty. I even asked Corporate to give that to me in writing and they did, but refused to provide the reason. When I pushed them to give me the reason in writing, they very curtly told me to file for arbitration.
12-10-10, 07:01 PM
#408
That is correct Kurtz. That is the right incident.
The dealer, and corporate both refused even though it is a known issue and many folks over here have had it fixed under warranty. I even asked Corporate to give that to me in writing and they did, but refused to provide the reason. When I pushed them to give me the reason in writing, they very curtly told me to file for arbitration.
The dealer, and corporate both refused even though it is a known issue and many folks over here have had it fixed under warranty. I even asked Corporate to give that to me in writing and they did, but refused to provide the reason. When I pushed them to give me the reason in writing, they very curtly told me to file for arbitration.
Anyway, to MIA LEX who is having the current refusal issue, give my suggested course of action a try and see what happens.
12-10-10, 08:35 PM
#409
And given you insist it's an issue everyone else gets fixed under warranty there pretty much has to be something you're not telling us... but since you're not telling us, well, we can't really speak to it. But I think the proper federal agency if you'd like to speak to them about enforcing the MMA would be the FTC.
Anyway, to MIA LEX who is having the current refusal issue, give my suggested course of action a try and see what happens.
Anyway, to MIA LEX who is having the current refusal issue, give my suggested course of action a try and see what happens.
Anyways, what I was trying to say is that the dealers/corporate are getting nasty nowadays. They would rather say no and save money on the warranty expense because they know many are not going to go to arbitration.
But I have my ways and will get it fixed under warranty. I just have not had the time to take my car back to the dealership since then.
That said, I just wanted to give a heads up to folks out here to be careful.
12-10-10, 11:53 PM
#410
Kurtz let me ask you this, since you seem to be well aware of the ways the stealerships operate. If the car is registered under my gf's name for example, and i take it in for some work thats covered under warranty, would it still be covered considering I took the car in and not my gf?
Because thats what happend, i took my car in and ended up getting charged for something that was supposed to be covered under warranty, so when i found out i called llexus corporate and they told me that since i took the car in and not the person it was registered to im screwed and they're not going to refund me.
Because thats what happend, i took my car in and ended up getting charged for something that was supposed to be covered under warranty, so when i found out i called llexus corporate and they told me that since i took the car in and not the person it was registered to im screwed and they're not going to refund me.
12-11-10, 12:56 AM
#411
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm very interested in this subject.
I'm pretty sure if you put a Chevy engine in your Lexus and take it in for service, they will tell you to get stuffed and so would the supreme court. I'd love for you to prove me wrong though.
12-11-10, 05:11 AM
#412
Kurtz let me ask you this, since you seem to be well aware of the ways the stealerships operate. If the car is registered under my gf's name for example, and i take it in for some work thats covered under warranty, would it still be covered considering I took the car in and not my gf?
Because thats what happend, i took my car in and ended up getting charged for something that was supposed to be covered under warranty, so when i found out i called llexus corporate and they told me that since i took the car in and not the person it was registered to im screwed and they're not going to refund me.
Because thats what happend, i took my car in and ended up getting charged for something that was supposed to be covered under warranty, so when i found out i called llexus corporate and they told me that since i took the car in and not the person it was registered to im screwed and they're not going to refund me.
Lexus is trying to save money on warranty work however they can, whenever they can, aggressively.
I guess the recalls with lost sales has hurt them a lot.
12-11-10, 06:42 AM
#413
MBTC, if u put a chevy engine and your paint starts peeling off on the trunk, it would still be under warranty. The dealer will try to not cover it though given the cost saving whip from corporate.
12-11-10, 10:01 AM
#414
I'm not debating that the laws for software (intellectual property) and tangible goods are different, I'm even not doubting what you're proposing...in fact I hope it's true. But as far as I can tell from a very cursory level, the Mangunson Moss Act is intended to cover replacement parts and does not provision any responsibility on behalf of the dealer to make their parts work in conjunction with those of another vendor.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm very interested in this subject.
I'm pretty sure if you put a Chevy engine in your Lexus and take it in for service, they will tell you to get stuffed and so would the supreme court. I'd love for you to prove me wrong though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm very interested in this subject.
I'm pretty sure if you put a Chevy engine in your Lexus and take it in for service, they will tell you to get stuffed and so would the supreme court. I'd love for you to prove me wrong though.
Ok, you're wrong.
If you put a chevy engine in your lexus your warranty would remain in force for any problem not caused by the chevy engine.
The paint example is a good one... or your trunk release latch failing or something.
An unrelated parts change can not void a warranty as a whole is the entire point here.
SEMA is a huge defender of MMA related enforcement for this very reason, because it means aftermarket mod vendors can sell their stuff without worrying about inherently voiding warranties.
12-11-10, 11:13 AM
#415
Well your response makes me want to learn more about the issue but still doesn't prove me wrong. Just to clarify, I am not challenging you to prove me wrong in a defiant sort of way...I would LIKE to be proven wrong in the sense that I genuinuely hope I am wrong, but would like to see proof that I am.
The problem with the notion of "unrelated parts change" would come down to the definition of related. A change in one area of any complex mechanical device can have effects elsewhere. Putting an engine in a car that the car has not been tested with by the manufacturer would have unlimited opportunities for affecting parts of the car other than those directly engine related. Among other things, the weight distribution and vibration dynamics would change. Those two factors alone can have infinite side effects.
It would make sense that aftermarket vendors would have huge legal teams working on this subject, so what you've said about that makes fair enough sense to me, I would just like to read something a bit more official that clearly explains, for example the legal definition of "unrelated parts change" or something of similar tangibility.
The problem with the notion of "unrelated parts change" would come down to the definition of related. A change in one area of any complex mechanical device can have effects elsewhere. Putting an engine in a car that the car has not been tested with by the manufacturer would have unlimited opportunities for affecting parts of the car other than those directly engine related. Among other things, the weight distribution and vibration dynamics would change. Those two factors alone can have infinite side effects.
It would make sense that aftermarket vendors would have huge legal teams working on this subject, so what you've said about that makes fair enough sense to me, I would just like to read something a bit more official that clearly explains, for example the legal definition of "unrelated parts change" or something of similar tangibility.
12-11-10, 04:57 PM
#416
And given you insist it's an issue everyone else gets fixed under warranty there pretty much has to be something you're not telling us... but since you're not telling us, well, we can't really speak to it. But I think the proper federal agency if you'd like to speak to them about enforcing the MMA would be the FTC.
Anyway, to MIA LEX who is having the current refusal issue, give my suggested course of action a try and see what happens.
Anyway, to MIA LEX who is having the current refusal issue, give my suggested course of action a try and see what happens.
Thank you sir. I definitely will
12-11-10, 06:18 PM
#417
Well your response makes me want to learn more about the issue but still doesn't prove me wrong. Just to clarify, I am not challenging you to prove me wrong in a defiant sort of way...I would LIKE to be proven wrong in the sense that I genuinuely hope I am wrong, but would like to see proof that I am.
The problem with the notion of "unrelated parts change" would come down to the definition of related. A change in one area of any complex mechanical device can have effects elsewhere. Putting an engine in a car that the car has not been tested with by the manufacturer would have unlimited opportunities for affecting parts of the car other than those directly engine related. Among other things, the weight distribution and vibration dynamics would change. Those two factors alone can have infinite side effects.
It would make sense that aftermarket vendors would have huge legal teams working on this subject, so what you've said about that makes fair enough sense to me, I would just like to read something a bit more official that clearly explains, for example the legal definition of "unrelated parts change" or something of similar tangibility.
The problem with the notion of "unrelated parts change" would come down to the definition of related. A change in one area of any complex mechanical device can have effects elsewhere. Putting an engine in a car that the car has not been tested with by the manufacturer would have unlimited opportunities for affecting parts of the car other than those directly engine related. Among other things, the weight distribution and vibration dynamics would change. Those two factors alone can have infinite side effects.
It would make sense that aftermarket vendors would have huge legal teams working on this subject, so what you've said about that makes fair enough sense to me, I would just like to read something a bit more official that clearly explains, for example the legal definition of "unrelated parts change" or something of similar tangibility.
The provider of the warranty is the one who is required to prove that your aftermarket part caused the problem.
So they can claim whatever they want as a "related" part but unless they are able to prove it caused the problem they are not legally allowed to deny warranty coverage of that problem. Not "say" it caused it, prove it caused it.
It's as simple as that.
12-11-10, 10:31 PM
#418
Let me make it simple then-
The provider of the warranty is the one who is required to prove that your aftermarket part caused the problem.
So they can claim whatever they want as a "related" part but unless they are able to prove it caused the problem they are not legally allowed to deny warranty coverage of that problem. Not "say" it caused it, prove it caused it.
It's as simple as that.
The provider of the warranty is the one who is required to prove that your aftermarket part caused the problem.
So they can claim whatever they want as a "related" part but unless they are able to prove it caused the problem they are not legally allowed to deny warranty coverage of that problem. Not "say" it caused it, prove it caused it.
It's as simple as that.
Great. So if I have a legal dispute, I can print out your post and the courts will accept it as law according to Kurtz. Wonderful. Thanks for the proof.
12-12-10, 05:42 AM
#419
From the Horse's Mouth
With some exceptions, Section 102 (c) of the Act prohibits you from including a tie-in sales provision in your warranty.
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.
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.
12-12-10, 08:52 AM
#420
And thanks for the link, I will do some reading.