Reality is also expensive.

 

In this case, the person saying it is a lawyer.

If a company refuses to honor the agreement you have with them, suing them can be your only option.

 

What would you say the likely success rate would be suing an auto manufacturer for breach of contract (not honoring the warranty)? Now factor in whatever data they bring in to show the court that the car was used for racing/competition/misused (i.e., data logs), all things that the warranty expressly denies coverage on.

Hint: You lose and waste your clients money.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus...s_Warranty_Act

If you bring a suit under this you can seek attorney fees.


"Under the terms of the Act, ambiguous statements in a warranty are construed against the drafter of the warranty."

"Likewise, service contracts must fully, clearly, and conspicuously disclose their terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language."

To me that sounds like they actually have to spell out what you can't do. They can't use vague language like "If you abuse the car your warranty is void" Etc. They would have to spell out exactly what constitutes "Abuse". I'm not a lawyer though, and i haven't looked at any case law.

 

Good to see that you fancy yourself an expert on my job too.

There is no blanket success rate; each case turns on the facts.

 

Do you have access to U.S. Cases? If so can you run a search on Magnuson cases involving autos and how they where ruled ?

 

An expert? No. But I do have a J.D. and I can read a contract. If a warranty expressly denies coverage for certain uses, and they can show you used the product in that way, then any damage reasonably related to that activity is not going to be covered.

Maybe things are different in Canada.

 

And it's a basic, common-law principle that ambiguities in a contract are interpreted against the drafter. Yes, if the warranty clearly states there will be no coverage for damage caused by express events or activities, your case is doomed.

However, if the warranty uses vague terms, and the damage was caused by reasonable use, like towing a trailer, you have a case.

Or people can just go with your general eeyore-like philosophy of simply giving up without trying.

 

Realistically, however much in the right I might be the amount is too small. For non-lawyers.

 

Background info in GM's Hiper strut,

http://wardsauto.com/news-analysis/g...son-suspension

 

when can we expect the full instrumented tests for this car

 

At-near redline for 10+ minutes... Have you ever towed, anything, up a long hill? lol


ECU's don't store data like that. Some manufacturers have permanent codes for over rev and over heat, but stock ECU's don't store datalogs.


The dealer has to prove misuse. And has been previously posted, Magnuson allows for the recoupment of attorney fees. And as with lemon law cases, there are attorneys who specialize in cases like what we are discussing.

 

True. In some places, like my state for instance, you get to use binding arbitration for such disagreements in which case no lawyers are involved and the dealer/manufacturer has to pay for the arbiter.

 

Which also means there is a risk that the arbitrator will side with the dealer/manufacturer simply as a good business practice.

 

Modern cars track more than you would think. If a manufacturer denies warranty work because they say the damage was related to racing/competition/misuse, odds are they have some data that supports that decision. http://www.crashforensics.com/automo...arecorders.cfm