cowboydoc
Super Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Messages
- 6,725
- Tractor
- JD 8320 MFWD, JD 6415 MFWD, FEL, and cab, John Deere MFWD 4600, John Deere 4020, John Deere 4430, John Deere 455 mower, Deutz, and Gehl 4610 perkins skidsteer
<font color="red">The burden of proof is onthe dealer/OEM to prove that your modification caused the failure.
</font>
The Magnuson Moss Act DOES NOT protect you for items specifically spelled out in your warranty contract. Don't take my word for it call any corporate lawyer. If the warranty says do not modify this engine, ROPS, transmission, etc. and you do then the dealer doesn't have to prove anything. You modified the part and by modifying the part you voided the warranty yourself.
Indy is exactly right. You can't split hairs. It's either all or nothing. These guys that modify their transmission, engine, lift kits, etc. and then want the dealer to pay because they broke their vehicle. NO way and I applaud the dealers for denying warranty in these cases. They made the vehicle, tractor, etc. to perform as they delivered it to you.
The MMA was enacted to allow you to put in other filters and oils and not have to specifically have that mfg. oil or filters. It was never meant to cover performance modifications and alteration of original equipment. It doesn't have to render the design inoperable, it just has to change the original design. I would suggest everyone read the actual act. What it says and what people interpret are two different things.
Actual act:
<font color="brown"> Magnuson Moss Act
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act, a vehicle manufacturer may not make its vehicle warranty conditional on the use of any brand of security system unless the manufacturer provides the system free of charge or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has specifically published that only the vehicle manufacturer’s product may be used. To challenge a false claim, ask the person to put it in writing, or request the vehicle manufacturer’s security system free of charge. If you are charged for the security system, or they refuse to give you a written statement, there may be a violation of Federal law.
This is the actual language of the act:
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer’s 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 sub-section may be waived by the Commission if
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
the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of any action brought by the Attorney General (in his capacity as such), or by the Commission by any of its attorneys designated by it for such purpose, to restrain (A) any warrantor from making a deceptive warranty with respect to a consumer product, or (B) any person from failing to comply with any requirement imposed on such person or pursuant to this chapter or from violating any prohibition contained in this chapter.
</font>
As you can see the Act does little or nothing to protect you against anything but having the mfg. require you to use their products to service the vehicle. BTW call one of these aftermarket suppliers and see what kind of help they actually give you in a court case. They write a letter. That's it. Yet they hide behind the MMA as the protection for consumers to modify their vehicle any way they choose. Doesn't happen and it shouldn't.
</font>
The Magnuson Moss Act DOES NOT protect you for items specifically spelled out in your warranty contract. Don't take my word for it call any corporate lawyer. If the warranty says do not modify this engine, ROPS, transmission, etc. and you do then the dealer doesn't have to prove anything. You modified the part and by modifying the part you voided the warranty yourself.
Indy is exactly right. You can't split hairs. It's either all or nothing. These guys that modify their transmission, engine, lift kits, etc. and then want the dealer to pay because they broke their vehicle. NO way and I applaud the dealers for denying warranty in these cases. They made the vehicle, tractor, etc. to perform as they delivered it to you.
The MMA was enacted to allow you to put in other filters and oils and not have to specifically have that mfg. oil or filters. It was never meant to cover performance modifications and alteration of original equipment. It doesn't have to render the design inoperable, it just has to change the original design. I would suggest everyone read the actual act. What it says and what people interpret are two different things.
Actual act:
<font color="brown"> Magnuson Moss Act
Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act, a vehicle manufacturer may not make its vehicle warranty conditional on the use of any brand of security system unless the manufacturer provides the system free of charge or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has specifically published that only the vehicle manufacturer’s product may be used. To challenge a false claim, ask the person to put it in writing, or request the vehicle manufacturer’s security system free of charge. If you are charged for the security system, or they refuse to give you a written statement, there may be a violation of Federal law.
This is the actual language of the act:
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer’s 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 sub-section may be waived by the Commission if
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
the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of any action brought by the Attorney General (in his capacity as such), or by the Commission by any of its attorneys designated by it for such purpose, to restrain (A) any warrantor from making a deceptive warranty with respect to a consumer product, or (B) any person from failing to comply with any requirement imposed on such person or pursuant to this chapter or from violating any prohibition contained in this chapter.
</font>
As you can see the Act does little or nothing to protect you against anything but having the mfg. require you to use their products to service the vehicle. BTW call one of these aftermarket suppliers and see what kind of help they actually give you in a court case. They write a letter. That's it. Yet they hide behind the MMA as the protection for consumers to modify their vehicle any way they choose. Doesn't happen and it shouldn't.
