3 ms·
Oh, I agree, my point was that the guarantee of "free repair" is contingent on terms not just a blanket statement. They are required to take it in under guaran
by Ntrails 10y ago
Oh, I agree, my point was that the guarantee of "free repair" is contingent on terms not just a blanket statement. They are required to take it in under guarantee to look at it but when they open it up and water starts leaking out they're going to stop and send you a bill.
The interesting part of it is how hard it would be to prove them wrong if they say it could have been caused by behaviour x. Eg, if I chip my car and run it at non stock settings - the manufacturer can probably attribute almost any issue at all to that and I'd be hard pressed to disprove that assertion.
- mikeash 10y agoGood to hear! I see a lot of people who don't understand the distinction and think that you can lose your entire warranty if you do something wrong, and I (incorrectly, obviously) thought you were talking like that. The question of proof is an interesting one. I guess that, like most things, it'll come down to who's willing and able to prove their case in court, or convince the other side they can't win. That's one reason I find this case to be interesting. Companies often try really hard to mislead customers about their rights, which seems to be why so many people think you can void your entire warranty by making a small change. They usually get away with it as long as they cave in when they encounter someone who actually knows their rights. But all those people who don't know get screwed over.