|
rob85635 -> RE: Pulstar Plugs? (6/15/2007 9:36:02 AM)
|
Another chat about the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. There are many websites that talk about the Act. I got the interpretation and parts of the actual act from the website below. After my thoughts and the thoughts of others, you really should check into as many sources about this Act as you can.
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2669.html
In this particular case of these spark plugs, I read the manufacturers site. The maker claims in their FAQ:
"Q: Will the installation of Pulstar™ affect the warranty on my car?
A: No. The 1975 Magnuson Moss Act prevents a manufacturer from voiding a warranty based on a customer's selection of parts that the dealer does not offer."
I think there statement is dangerous. Actually not only dangerous but in my opinion it could open the company to litigation if their product is ever found to damage an engine. If they KNOW their product is safe, then their statement would be ok, but are they 100% sure it will not damage an engine? Is anyone ever 100% sure of anything? No, companies recall stuff all the time. I am not trying to degrade the product, I actually want to find out if it works as advertised without adverse effects because if it does, I would buy them for my H3.
Yes, the Act allows a consumer to use aftermarket parts not from a dealer, HOWEVER, (read below) if the dealer can prove the aftermarket part caused damage to your vehicle it can void that part of the warranty. I would not buy these plugs until you can either 1. Contact GM and talk to them about this particular item and see if they give you a go or no go, 2. Talk to the manufacturer and get a guarantee that the plugs will not cause any damage to your engine, or 3. Do some better research on these plugs to see if they have ever damaged any engines (this is the worst of my three recommendations because I do not know how long this product has been out.
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (another interpretation) from the site I listed above:
"Further, under the act, aftermarket equipment that improves performance does not automatically void a vehicle manufacturer's original warranty, unless the warranty clearly states the addition of aftermarket equipment automatically voids your vehicle's warranty, or if it can be proven that the aftermarket device is the direct cause of the failure.
Specifically, the rules and regulations adopted by the FTC to govern the interpretation and enforcement of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 16 - Commercial Practices, Chapter I - Federal Trade Commission, Subchapter G - Rules, Regulations, Statements and Interpretations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Part 700 - Interpretations under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Contained within these rules and regulations is Section 700.10, which states:
No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or dama
|
|
|
|
