Defective Tire

[alexandrianaz]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? AZ

I purchased a used tire two weeks ago and then went on vacation and got back yesterday. (So I have driven on the tire a total of 3 days) Tonight the outside of the tire kind of exploded off the tire and when this happen it bent my wheel well back. Is the tire place responsible for getting my wheel well fixed? The tire came with a 30 day warranty if that matters.

 

[racer72]

What does the warranty say, especially the part about exclusions?

 

[davew128]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? AZ

I purchased a used tire two weeks ago and then went on vacation and got back yesterday. (So I have driven on the tire a total of 3 days) Tonight the outside of the tire kind of exploded off the tire and when this happen it bent my wheel well back. Is the tire place responsible for getting my wheel well fixed? The tire came with a 30 day warranty if that matters.

What happened when you called them and asked?

 

[xylene]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? AZ

I purchased a used tire two weeks ago and then went on vacation and got back yesterday. (So I have driven on the tire a total of 3 days) Tonight the outside of the tire kind of exploded off the tire and when this happen it bent my wheel well back. Is the tire place responsible for getting my wheel well fixed? The tire came with a 30 day warranty if that matters.

You need to be on them like glue.

Don't ask them.

You have a warranty.

Demand that they fix your car.

This is the reason why most tire shops hate dealing with used tires.

 

[Zigner]

You need to be on them like glue.

Don't ask them.

You have a warranty.

Demand that they fix your car.

This is the reason why most tire shops hate dealing with used tires.

Why should they (necessarily) fix the car? The tire? Absolutely! The car? Not so clear without knowing the terms & exclusions of the warranty

 

[Antigone*]

Does the fact that she purchased a used tire mean anything

 

[xylene]

Why should they (necessarily) fix the car? The tire? Absolutely! The car? Not so clear without knowing the terms & exclusions of the warranty

There are safety standards and legislation in place with tires. This tire was sold with a warranty - i.e. as safe and fit for use. They can't disclaim consequential damages, no matter what the warranty exclusions might or might not say.

This is why the the poster should phrase his request to be compensated as a demand. She how they react to that.

Firestone-gate was only a few years ago. People in the tire industry are well aware of the liabilities involved in their product.

If the poster doesn't let em pull the wool, they are very likely to pay directly for the damages or otherwise try to placate the poster over this. (like 4 new radials...)

But act fast.

 

[You Are Guilty]

They can't disclaim consequential damages, no matter what the warranty exclusions might or might not say.

The Legislature of AZ (and most other states) seems to disagree with you:

47-2719. Contractual modification or limitation of remedy

A. Subject to the provisions of subsections B and C of this section and of section 47-2718 on liquidation and limitation of damages:

1. The agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this chapter and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this chapter, as by limiting the buyer's remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of non-conforming goods or parts; and

2. Resort to a remedy as provided is optional unless the remedy is expressly agreed to be exclusive, in which case it is the sole remedy.

B. Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this title.

[highlight]C. Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable but limitation of damages where the loss is commercial is not[/highlight].

Zig is correct.

 

[xylene]

The Legislature of AZ (and most other states) seems to disagree with you:

The section you point out is exactly why the poster has a sound case.

 

[Zigner]

The section you point out is exactly why the poster has a sound case.

There was no "injury to the person".

 

[You Are Guilty]

Really? You mean the same statue that says a seller CAN disclaim consequential damages supports the OP who wants the seller to pay for them?

I guess you have a copy of the warranty that came with the tire and it has no such disclaimer then?

 

[xylene]

It is unconscionable. That is why the law supports the poster

Really? You mean the same statue that says a seller CAN disclaim consequential damages supports the OP who wants the seller to pay for them?

I guess you have a copy of the warranty that came with the tire and it has no such disclaimer then?

There is no warranty document exclusion that is going stand.

You can't sell a critical motor vehicle safety item sold with a promise of fitness (the warranty) and then insert language that disclaims liability for obvious and foreseeable damages directly resulting from failure due to unfitness, not within the warranty period.

Safety defects in tires are serious business. The poster may be also able to get satisfaction from the manufacturer, although that case is less sound, since it seems the warranty is from the retailer.

He bought a warrantied tire. - check
The tire failed within the warranty. - check
The failure was catastrophic. - critically important and proving unfitness.
He sustained damages as a result (note: to his private property, and not in context of a commercial vehicle or business...)

There is not one way that law does not support his case, no matter what the warranty says.

 

[Zigner]

There is no warranty document exclusion that is going stand.

You can't sell a critical motor vehicle safety item sold with a promise of fitness (the warranty) and then insert language that disclaims liability for obvious and foreseeable damages directly resulting from failure due to unfitness, not within the warranty period.

Safety defects in tires are serious business. The poster may be also able to get satisfaction from the manufacturer, although that case is less sound, since it seems the warranty is from the retailer.

He bought a warrantied tire. - check
The tire failed within the warranty. - check
The failure was catastrophic. - critically important and proving unfitness.
He sustained damages as a result (note: to his private property, and not in context of a commercial vehicle or business...)

There is not one way that law does not support his case, no matter what the warranty says.

Xylene, you're ASSuming a LOT. For example...how can you even show the tire was "defective" and not damaged?
Also, damage to a wheel-well from a blow-out of the tire is NOT necessarily a reasonably foreseeable consequence. In fact, I would say that damage to the wheel-well in a blow-out is probably pretty rare.

 

[xylene]

Xylene, you're ASSuming a LOT. For example...how can you even show the tire was "defective" and not damaged?
Also, damage to a wheel-well from a blow-out of the tire is NOT necessarily a reasonably foreseeable consequence. In fact, I would say that damage to the wheel-well in a blow-out is probably pretty rare.

User Damage - Well, if I was the shop, and this wasn't a 500 dollar case I would be arguing exactly that... But a blow out (tread separation type) is typical of an internal tire problem. Unseen by the consumer but exactly what is supposed to be checked rigorously by a tire shop (used or otherwise...)

Wheel well damage - Tire here, 6 inches away wheel well. Perfectly reasonable, and not rare except so much as catastrophic tire failure itself is rare. The tire damaged the car it was on. The relationship is straightforward. It didn't cause damages because someone missed a non-refundable airplane flight.

 

[Zigner]

User Damage - Well, if I was the shop, and this wasn't a 500 dollar case I would be arguing exactly that... But a blow out (tread separation type) is typical of an internal tire problem. Unseen by the consumer but exactly what is supposed to be checked rigorously by a tire shop (used or otherwise...)

Wheel well damage - Tire here, 6 inches away wheel well. Perfectly reasonable, and not rare except so much as catastrophic tire failure itself is rare. The tire damaged the car it was on. The relationship is straightforward. It didn't cause damages because someone missed a non-refundable airplane flight.

OP never mentioned tread separation...the sidewall blew out. In fact, from the vagueness of the post, I picture the OUTSIDE side wall (ie: the side facing out) was where the blow-out occurred. This sounds like damage to the tire and NOT a defective tire.

We are of differing opinions - perhaps we need to leave it at that