Honda Car Forum

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:19:16 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

>What I am trying to get you to understand is the warranty is NOT with the
>customer, as apparently many of you believe!!

That is total nonsense. The warranty is to the CUSTOMER. Refer to
Federal Law of you need clarification on that.

>NO dealer is required to work
>on cars that were not sold by that dealership.

That would be an issue between the manufacturer and his franchises.
Dealers are independent but must meet certain requirements in order to
maintain that franchise agreements. Every manufacturer I know of
requires their franchised dealers to perform warranty work. Warranty
work pays half of what retail work pays and many dealers would refuse
to do it at all if it was not required by the agreement with the
manufacturer.

Your ignorance is astounding.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:26:53 -0800 (PST), Jeff <jeff.utz@gmail.com>
wrote:

>If the warranty is to the dealer, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
>requires this fact to be stated in the warranty documents. It isn't.

I think the Mike Hunter Act is more amusing than the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

me wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:00:35 -0500, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
> wrote:
>
>> What does that have to do with a complaint to the manufacture? The point
>> of the thread was that the manufacturers warrant the vehicles to their
>> dealerships. Try to keep up, WBMA
>
> No they don't. The warranty is to the consumer who purchases the car.
> That's Federal Law.

That's a very important fact to understand, not so much for cars (where
retail distribution is tightly controlled), but for other products where
there may be an attempt to use the "authorized dealer" routine to deny
warranty service. As long as the product isn't gray market, the
manufacturer is required to provide service no matter where the product
was purchased. If the manufacturer of a high end product is dumping
excess inventory through other channels, that merchandise still has a
warranty, even though the reseller might not be "authorized." It's up to
the manufacturer to control distribution, not up to the consumer to
figure out if the retailer is "authorized" or not.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 > § 2307 of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent any warrantor from
designating representatives to perform duties under the written or
implied warranty: Provided, That such warrantor shall make reasonable
arrangements for compensation of such designated representatives, _but
no such designation shall relieve the warrantor of his direct
responsibilities to the consumer or make the representative a cowarrantor._

Mike Hunter wrote:
> You are free to believe whatever you wish. I cold not care less what anybody
> in a NG chooses to believe but here is the way it is, the manufacturer
> warrants the vehicle to its dealers, for a specific time and mileage,
> period.

This is untrue. It would violate federal law if the manufacturer tried
to do this. Read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and learn.

In article <qoWdnWm0Ss7x7ffUnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@ptd.net>,
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

> What I am trying to get you to understand is the warranty is NOT with the
> customer, as apparently many of you believe!! NO dealer is required to work
> on cars that were not sold by that dealership.

Bullshit.

You keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. It's fun to watch.

In article <nc1lm4h5krkr95f0oq9gd5f76chcuds30r@4ax.com>,
me <noemail@nothere.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:19:16 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>
> >What I am trying to get you to understand is the warranty is NOT with the
> >customer, as apparently many of you believe!!
>
> That is total nonsense. The warranty is to the CUSTOMER. Refer to
> Federal Law of you need clarification on that.
>
> >NO dealer is required to work
> >on cars that were not sold by that dealership.
>
> That would be an issue between the manufacturer and his franchises.
> Dealers are independent but must meet certain requirements in order to
> maintain that franchise agreements. Every manufacturer I know of
> requires their franchised dealers to perform warranty work. Warranty
> work pays half of what retail work pays and many dealers would refuse
> to do it at all if it was not required by the agreement with the
> manufacturer.
>
> Your ignorance is astounding.

My Cunter keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper--and even though
people are warning him, he ignores the warnings and keeps digging.

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Like I said you are free to believe whatever you wish. I could not care less
> what anybody
> in a NG chooses to believe but here is the way it is, the manufacturer
> warrants the vehicle to its DEALERS, for a specific time and mileage,
> period.

The way it actually works is that the manufacturer designates
representatives to perform warranty work. For vehicles, it's generally
any dealer of that specific make, though there are exceptions such as
when a make is discontinued (i.e. Oldsmobile, Plymouth, etc) then the
manufacturer designates a different representative.

You really need to read up on how limited warranties work, specifically
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. You can start here,
"http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch50.html". Pay close attention to
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 > § 2307,

"Designation of representatives by warrantor to perform duties under
written or implied warranty,"

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent any warrantor
from designating representatives to perform duties under the written or
implied warranty: Provided, That such warrantor shall make reasonable
arrangements for compensation of such designated representatives, but no
such designation shall relieve the warrantor of his direct
responsibilities to the consumer or make the representative a cowarrantor."

For vehicles, the warrantor is the manufacturer, the representative is
the dealer, and the consumer is the purchaser of the vehicle.

In article
<f5196638-5084-426b-85f5-4fdb0ee8e51e@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jeff <jeff.utz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 4:44*pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
> > I never said that, did you miss the "Normally" that someone quoted from the
> > warranty manual?
> >
> > The manufacture warrants the vehicle to it dealer(s.)
>
> Then why does the warranties talk about transferring the warranty to
> new owners of the car or truck? Why would there be any need to
> transfer the warranty? And, if you were correct, wouldn't the wording
> of the warranties reflect that the warranty is to the dealers?
>
> And why does the Chrysler warranty have this language? "You are
> covered by the Basic Limited Warranty if
> you are a purchaser for use of the vehicle."
>
> And where does it say that the dealer is warranted here?
>
> "In the United States (We Include U.S.
> Possessions and Territories as Part of
> the United States for Warranty Purposes):
> Warranty service must be done by an authorized
> Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep dealer. We strongly
> recommend that you take your vehicle to your
> Selling Dealer. They know you and your vehicle
> best, and are most concerned that you get
> prompt and high quality service. If you move
> within the United States, warranty service may
> be requested from any authorized Chrysler,
> Dodge or Jeep dealer."
>
> If the selling dealer is warranted, don't you think that that would be
> stated in the warranty manual?
>
> And GM says that if you buy a GM car, *you* get a 100,000 mi
> powertrain warranty. Not your dealer.
>
> Get a clue, if you can old man.

My Cunter still hasn't addressed the issue of how Ford or GM can decide
to reimburse the owner DIRECTLY if the owner paid for repairs out of
pocket and GM or Ford later decided that those repairs are covered under
warranty.

How can Ford and GM reimburse the owner DIRECTLY if the warranty
relationship isn't with the owner? How can Ford and GM reimburse the
owner DIRECTLY if the warranty relationship is between manufacturer and
dealer?

The DEALER would have to make the choice to reimburse, and then
reimburse, the owner. How is it that GM can write checks to owners
DIRECLTY?

My Cunter keeps ignoring this, because he knows he doesn't have a clue.
Yet he keeps peddling his shit, hoping people will buy.

"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:jr1lm4lmg9fcrhqg6m80f0moajccl2rjb4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:26:53 -0800 (PST), Jeff <jeff.utz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>If the warranty is to the dealer, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
>>requires this fact to be stated in the warranty documents. It isn't.
>
> I think the Mike Hunter Act is more amusing than the Magnuson-Moss
> Warranty Act.
>
>

I've had less and less tolerance for Mike since he called me a hillbilly.
He's one of those that since he has the gold, he can make the rules, so he
thinks.

He thinks all my ancestors were barbarian invaders. Well I know one of them
is (6 times over). Rollo of Normandy was a barbarian invader. But he's
also the direct ancestor of William the Conqueror and most of the people who
have sat on the throne of Britain since that day. The 'royal line' had to
start somewhere.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:26:50 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

>Ya right! A warranty is a contract with the dealer, with specific language.
>A dealer can repair you gas engine if you mistakenly use diesel fuel, but
>the manufacturer will tell you your warranty was voided when you did that
>and they will not reimburse the dealer.

The contract is not with the dealer, it's with the owner. Why else
would the manufacturer go to the trouble and expense of printing the
warranty conditions in the owner's package? You really need to get
your head out of your ass about the dealer. The dealer is the
manufacturer's representative and agent when it comes to warranty
repairs, nothing more.