It would have to depend on the make, model (therefore, the actuarial expected frequency of breakdown expected for your purchase) as well as the reputation and listed insurer and re-insurer behind the third party service contract company.
Since it is not regulated, there are many uninsured third party service contract companies out there who should be out of business at best and jailed at worst.
On the other hand, if you were purchasing a different make and model that does not have the reputation of JD, and the third part service contract provider was insured by an "A" rated company (and freely provided proof), and had a good reputation and price, it may be worth considering. In the automotive business, it is generally the fool who spends twice as much or more to purchase the "factory" service contract when a quality, often times better insured, third party service contract can provide the same or better service for half of the price of the "factory" contract.
The statements that all third party service contract providers are bad is obviously based upon flawed logic. It is logic going from the general to the specific, which is flawed and not accepted as a prudent or intelligent method of comparison or debate. One can argue from the specific to the general with more chance of success.
By saying that all third party providers are bad because someone had one that was bad, would be like saying that all pickup trucks are bad because I purchased one that is bad.
By arguing specific to general, one shows more logic and intellect. Such as, I purchased a Yugo 4 door sedan and it was bad. Several of my friends have purchased a Yugo 4 door sedan and they were bad. Therefore, it seems that most Yugo 4 door sedans are bad.
However, in that same argument if you simply said that you purchased a car and it was bad. your friends purchased cars and they were bad. Therefore, all cars are bad, that would be flawed and poor logic
To make sense and be credible, you must argue specifics. By the original poster simply saying that they were offered a third party service contract, it is not possible to reasonably argue that it would be a bad decision and that all third party service contract providers are bad. To state such is based upon incomplete and flawed logic. If names, insurance companies, specific incidents, and specific contract variables were given, it may be more possible to argue the merits. Is the contract a named peril contract or an exclusionary contract? We don't know. Is it insured? We don't know. What is the reputation of the selling company? We don't know. Who accepts and will honor whe service contract? We don't know.
Simply put, there is not enough information to make an informed and intelligent reply based upon the information given. Sorry for the lecture, but in debate and business, sooner or later you will get in a compromising position and become the fool by using faulty logic to argue your case. Okay, sorry, my lecture is over. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
