FFS Let's all stop referencing the Magnussen Moss Act......

WOW! I had no idea that amount of spying / trolling was going with manufacturers. YEARS ago I worked at a Ford dealer, this guy would come in with a Mustang SVO. Four bald Goodyear NCT's, getting warranty work done on trannies & diffs every month. He would unbolt the roll cage! No one knew? (ahem)..

 

No.

I bought the Tampax Pearl edition.

 

Given the warranty is a performance contract between the owner of the vehicle and the manufacturer...one of the provisions of that agreement is mediation which is non binding on the owner but binding on the manufacturer...that’s what you should have done first to be in compliance with the performance contract...if you want to go to court you must go with “clean hands”. The judge made the right call your lawyer was not skilled in the tasks assigned to him and the court decision reflects that.

 

If this is Subaru's official policy on racing, it's actually quite reasonable. Run an autocross a couple times = no big deal. Race every weekend = no warranty.

 

Given the warranty is a performance contract between the owner of the vehicle and the manufacturer...one of the provisions of that agreement is mediation which is non binding on the owner but binding on the manufacturer...that’s what you should have done first to be in compliance with the performance contract...if you want to go to court you must go with “clean hands”. The judge made the right call your lawyer was not skilled in the tasks assigned to him and the court decision reflects that.

This is horribly incorrect. The manufacturer sponsored arbitration agreements are set up to favor the manufacturers and tend to rule in their favor a vast majority of the time. Sure, the decision is non-binding on the owner, BUT, the manufacturer is allowed to bring in the arbiter's decision as evidence in any court case you start afterwards. Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you to AVOID the manufacturer-sponsored arbitration, sorry.

Here are the reviews for the arbitration board that Toyota offers:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...rd=0x8824dddb8f031d05:0xb0fe3363a9587a12,1,,,

1.1 stars average.

 

Good read OP, thanks for sharing!

 

Bravo OP, been trying to explain this countless times and the TW keyboard warriors keep claiming otherwise and pushing the whole its as simple as saying MM act, blah, blah, blah. I vote for a sticky on this.

 

More curious then anything... But could you comment on a partner only owning one suit?

Nevermind.

 

Subaru would void for autox as well. When the transmission in my 2.5RS needed a full rebuild at 27k miles they luckily found internal assembly tolerances completely off the mark; otherwise I would of been on the hook for repairs, as a result of just a few autox events. This is why people remove license plates, cover VINs and give fake registration names at such events.

 

He covered it on pg 2

 

Well the OP’s tried it that way and lost... the judge relied on the interpretation of the performance contract which is the agreement that governs the relationship between the parties...it’s the judges job to decide as to wether those provisions are enforceable or not. An attorney may not agree with that but it’s tough shit it’s not his call to make most warranty agreements are written by some of the smartest lawyers in the world and the language is iron clad when it comes to the law doesn’t matter who right the better argument always wins.

 

Op’s like

 

I like it. Cautionary tale for those who aren't willing to spend years fighting over $1,000.

A movie Ive always liked (damn, it's been 10 years) is called "Flash of Genius".

I really really wish that this stuff doesn't happen to me, because I hate letting things go when I'm absolutely sure I'm right. I'm going to be the asshat spending 6 years and $90,000 fighting over a $1,500 repair.

I'm also supposed to stop talking about my Ford lemon on my lawyers suggestion.... Ooops.

 

Hey look, it's F. Lee Bailey!

Binding mediation was not mandated by procedural rule. Non-binding mediation was ordered after a suggestion from the manufacturer (who originally asked for the enforcement of an illegal binding mediation clause) as a stalling tactic and a way to out-expense and out-wait me.

My counsel argued it and appealed it, and noted that it was not mandated procedurally and that a complaint under the M-M Act by law and definition of the Act was not subject to mediation. He cited a ruling in which ” reference within a written warranty to any binding, non-judicial remedy is prohibited by the Rule and the Act.” The judge agreed and instead ordered non-binding mediation as a way to cut the baby down the middle.

Non-Binding was up for interpretation, however there was no implied non-binding agreement in any contract between myself and the manufacturer. The manufacturer had instead attempted through all of their contracts to demand binding arbitration on both parties...which is not allowed under the MMWA.

My lawyer argued that this showed a disregard for the statures set forth in both he word and spirit of the Federal Law and that an attempt to mandate non-binding mediation where it was never agreed to in contract would be tantamount to having the manufacturer "starve" me out through needless costs.

Nonetheless we went forward with the non-binding mediation in good faith and they offered nothing but more mediation. We could have gone back to the Court and pointed out the cynicism and bad faith in their move but decided it wasn't worth it.

Similar moves have been made by lower courts and appealed to the Circuit courts where they have been summarily overturned. Shame on me for not spending another $50K appealing my $1400 claim to the 9th circuit court so they could rein in a dipshit judge for the umpteenth time.

 

Spot on. Unless you have done battle in court, paid thousands for lawyer fees and then find out winning is not as easy and like to do it over and over again, read this warning carefully.

 

What happened with Falken?

 

Great story and thanks for posting. I would say that the MM Act does motivate dealers. I blew the transmission on my 1994 Impala SS and brought it in about 200 miles under the extended warranty period. When they saw the 6 point racing harnesses, aftermarket exhaust, wheels, tires, shocks, sway bars, lowering springs, big brakes, brake coolers, power steering cooler, etc. They said they couldn't cover the transmission clause I had aftermarket parts. I threw out the MM warranty act and asked to to please provide their decision in writing explaining how the aftermarket parts affected the transmission. They wouldn't do that. For a whole week (7 days) I called and requested the owner of the dealership (I never talked to BTW) requesting them to provide a written warranty decline letter so I could give it to my attorney. After that week, they begrudgingly replaced my broken transmission with a new one. Funniest part is two weeks later I yanked the auto and put in a manual T56.

I feel for the OP, however I would bet his dealer thinks twice about declining in the future as it cost them much more than just repairing his car in the first place.

 

Unsupd

 

Upon more reflection. I don't think its proper to bash the MM Warranty Act, when the real trouble is with BMW and the judicial system and not the Act. It doesn't make sense to say the MMWA is just a piece of paper. Heck, all laws are just pieces of paper.

I filed a suit against my home builder and output about $70k to get through the process. I won in the end and was fully compensated, including my attorneys fees and $ for pain and suffering. I had to move out of my house for 10 months, it was a low point for me. But, I don't blame the construction defect laws for my woes as they are just a piece of paper. My woes were caused by my building contractor not taking on his legal responsibility and the juridical system for is slow and costly process.

 

You sued the manufacturer to enforce the provisions of the performance contract i.e. the warranty. The very contract thought to raise and limit your actions. The judge ordered non binding arbitration because that was a requirement of that contract. Wether that provision of the performance contract is enforceable is immaterial because it’s not binding on the aggrieved party. By not following the provisions of the warranty agreement your lawyer actually gave the defense the necessary evidence to dismiss your claim. I bet they were dancing under the table.