Factory Warranty void Mods
07-22-2008, 01:30 PM
#21
JK Super Freak
This kind of thread certinaly brings out alot of oppinions, and that is what has been posted mostly.
I hear so much about this MAGNUSON MOSS WARRANTY ACT, and read all these posts about the dealer has to do this and the dealer has to do that, but most of these posts lack one thing, and that's common sense. I wonder how many that have quoted this Act, have actually read the thing in it's entirity.
Having read the thing a few times, I'm still kind of confused, but I've also come to the conclusion that this act does in fact NOT give the warrantee carteblanc.
One of the paragraphs stuck out to me and I will quote here.
************************************************** ***********
(4). If the product (or a component part thereof) contains a defect or malfunction after a reasonable number of attempts by the warrantor to remedy defects or malfunctions in such product, such warrantor must permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement without charge of, such product or part (as the case may be). The Commission may by rule specify for purposes of this paragraph, what constitutes a reasonable number of attempts to remedy particular kinds of defects or malfunctions under different circumstances. If the warrantor replaces a component part of a consumer product, such replacement shall include installing the part in the product without charge.
(a) Remedies under written warranty; duration of implied warranty; exclusion or limitation on consequential damages for breach of written or implied warranty; election of refund or replacement. In order for a warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty to meet the Federal minimum standards for warranty -
(c) Waiver of standards
The performance of the duties under subsection (a) of this section shall not be required of the warrantor if he can show that the defect, malfunction, or failure of any warranted consumer product to conform with a written warranty, was caused by damage (not resulting from defect or malfunction) while in the possession of the consumer, or unreasonable use (including failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance).
After reading this I can see how easy it would be for the manufacturer to prove to the commission that since the warrantee chose to lift the vehicle, remove the stock 32" tires and install 37" tires, fully knowing that the new tires were larger and weighed much more than the factory installed tires, would put undue stress and premature wear and tear on the driveline components, and that the failure was due to the warrantee installing this lift and tires rather than any manufacturers defect, therefore the warranty of the driveline components is null and void, and I would also believe common sense would also tell anyone reading this that the the warrantee would have one heck of a time proving to the commission that the modified suspension and tires did not cause the failure.
Now I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure most who have quoted this Act are not either, however I will add I think after 24 years in the military service and another 18 working as an industrial electrican in a printing plant has allowed me to obtain quite a few mechanical troubleshooting skills and at the least a great deal of common sense, and common sense tells me if I install a 4" lift on the wifes JK, then replace the factory tires with 37"'s of rubber, then go wheelin" I'm surly not going to the dealer if something breaks, play the fool and sing the blues when the dealer denies any repair under warranty.
I hear so much about this MAGNUSON MOSS WARRANTY ACT, and read all these posts about the dealer has to do this and the dealer has to do that, but most of these posts lack one thing, and that's common sense. I wonder how many that have quoted this Act, have actually read the thing in it's entirity.
Having read the thing a few times, I'm still kind of confused, but I've also come to the conclusion that this act does in fact NOT give the warrantee carteblanc.
One of the paragraphs stuck out to me and I will quote here.
************************************************** ***********
(4). If the product (or a component part thereof) contains a defect or malfunction after a reasonable number of attempts by the warrantor to remedy defects or malfunctions in such product, such warrantor must permit the consumer to elect either a refund for, or replacement without charge of, such product or part (as the case may be). The Commission may by rule specify for purposes of this paragraph, what constitutes a reasonable number of attempts to remedy particular kinds of defects or malfunctions under different circumstances. If the warrantor replaces a component part of a consumer product, such replacement shall include installing the part in the product without charge.
(a) Remedies under written warranty; duration of implied warranty; exclusion or limitation on consequential damages for breach of written or implied warranty; election of refund or replacement. In order for a warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty to meet the Federal minimum standards for warranty -
(c) Waiver of standards
The performance of the duties under subsection (a) of this section shall not be required of the warrantor if he can show that the defect, malfunction, or failure of any warranted consumer product to conform with a written warranty, was caused by damage (not resulting from defect or malfunction) while in the possession of the consumer, or unreasonable use (including failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance).
After reading this I can see how easy it would be for the manufacturer to prove to the commission that since the warrantee chose to lift the vehicle, remove the stock 32" tires and install 37" tires, fully knowing that the new tires were larger and weighed much more than the factory installed tires, would put undue stress and premature wear and tear on the driveline components, and that the failure was due to the warrantee installing this lift and tires rather than any manufacturers defect, therefore the warranty of the driveline components is null and void, and I would also believe common sense would also tell anyone reading this that the the warrantee would have one heck of a time proving to the commission that the modified suspension and tires did not cause the failure.
Now I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure most who have quoted this Act are not either, however I will add I think after 24 years in the military service and another 18 working as an industrial electrican in a printing plant has allowed me to obtain quite a few mechanical troubleshooting skills and at the least a great deal of common sense, and common sense tells me if I install a 4" lift on the wifes JK, then replace the factory tires with 37"'s of rubber, then go wheelin" I'm surly not going to the dealer if something breaks, play the fool and sing the blues when the dealer denies any repair under warranty.
07-22-2008, 01:56 PM
#22
JK Super Freak
I would like to add that in addition to thw wifes Jk, I have a 94XJ 5spd purchased new in 94. In 96, I installed a 6" lift and 33" tires among all the other things like an ARB front bumper, Warn 8000 rear Custom 4x4 with tire carrier, and alot of underplating. In the later part of 96 I developed a rear main oil seal leak. The dealer which I had good repour with had no problem repairing the leak under warranty, however he did have a problem with the front U-joints that went bad prior to the AA SYE.