Magnuson Moss Warranty Act - Demand letter, responsibility?

[justalayman]

Ok, so how has the service provider breached the contract? Have they not provided service when you needed it per the contract? Have they refused to repair anything that is listed in the contract?

You have two separate issues and you’re trying to tie them into a single issue. The sale of the vehicle is a separate issue than the service contract. Unless you have some action against the dealership based on the original sale, the dealership is out of the picture. Your issue would then be between you and the service contract provider and so far, it would appear they are complying with the terms of the contract even if it was delayed during the time of the engine replacement.

Whether a new, rebuilt or used engine would be acceptable will likely be found in the terms of the service contract. Does it state a brand new engine will be installed in the situstion an engine is needing to be replaced?

 

[bthrasher99]

Ok, so how has the service provider breached the contract? Have they not provided service when you needed it per the contract? Have they refused to repair anything that is listed in the contract?

You have two separate issues and you’re trying to tie them into a single issue. The sale of the vehicle is a separate issue than the service contract. Unless you have some action against the dealership based on the original sale, the dealership is out of the picture. Your issue would then be between you and the service contract provider and so far, it would appear they are complying with the terms of the contract even if it was delayed during the time of the engine replacement.

Whether a new, rebuilt or used engine would be acceptable will likely be found in the terms of the service contract. Does it state a brand new engine will be installed in the situstion an engine is needing to be replaced?

I appreciate you responding, thank you. However they are not providing a repair. They are to fix the car and it is not getting fixed. M & M act states that I only need to give them reasonable attempts to do so. I believe we have surpassed that by far. We are doing our part by taking it to where they want us to (GMC Service Dept.) yet it still remains inoperable. Not to mention that we've surpassed the amount of days they need to return the vehicle(30 days). They only provide alternate transportation for 10 days and then we are back to renting a vehicle,ugh.
It does not specify whether it has to be new parts or not, in fact, I believe it says "like" parts. This isn't uncommon, insurance companies do this all the time. However, I am a little concerned when I request any certs. or literature on the engine being installed it for some reason can't be provided. This I also do not agree with but most likely they haven't done "wrong" here.
According to the actual lemon law, for new cars, you only have to endure 4 attempts of failed repairs. Magnuson Moss only requires that your give reasonable attempts. You can not sell me a vehicle that doesn't run. My implied warranty is endorsed when I entered a service agreement.

 

[justalayman]

I belive you are wrong since the service contract does not bind the dealer but the third party provider of the service agreement.

https://library.nclc.org/new-magnuson-moss-rules-aid-consumer-warranty-litigation

Clarification as to When Service Contract Sale Prevents Disclaimers of Implied Warranties. According to the new rules, if a dealer sells a service contract that obligates the dealer to perform under the contract, the dealer cannot disclaim implied warranties. The rules also say that if a dealer does not offer a written warranty, it can disclaim implied warranties if it “merely” is an agent selling someone else’s service contract. Many dealers though do more than merely act as an agent, so these dealers should not be able to disclaim implied warranties. See NCLC’s Consumer Warranty Law § 2.3.2.2 (online version).

 

[bthrasher99]

I belive you are wrong since the service contract does not bind the dealer but the third party provider of the service agreement.

https://library.nclc.org/new-magnuson-moss-rules-aid-consumer-warranty-litigation

Exactly!! This kinda brought it back to a full circle. Seeing as the Ford dealership has also sold me the Ford Service contract I would have to safely then assume that it is the dealership I am to focus my attention on. They were to sell me a running vehicle and they have not yet done so, it is not running as it's intended purpose. There were also no written "as is" type literature at the time of purchase. WA. state is also one of the states that does not recognize the "as is" claim. I believe there are only a few that do this. From my understanding, they can put this on a vehicle but you still have an implied warranty. However, this is not my focus rather reciting the M & M act to provide the vehicle as it's intended use. Thoughts?
This is NOT a third party service agreement.

 

[bthrasher99]

I know this is a bit confusing, especially when being typed in a forum. I want to be very clear. This is a GMC bought through Ford w/ a Ford bumper to bumper service agreement. It IS to be serviced by GM techs. according to our service agreement, we have asked this question many, many times and have been told over the phone as well as stated in our agreement to do so as well. These type of "service contract" typically do NOT discriminate against each other and is a typical situation in WA. state.

 

[justalayman]

Exactly!! This kinda brought it back to a full circle. Seeing as the Ford dealership has also sold me the Ford Service contract I would have to safely then assume that it is the dealership I am to focus my attention on. They were to sell me a running vehicle and they have not yet done so, it is not running as it's intended purpose. There were also no written "as is" type literature at the time of purchase. WA. state is also one of the states that does not recognize the "as is" claim. I believe there are only a few that do this. From my understanding, they can put this on a vehicle but you still have an implied warranty. However, this is not my focus rather reciting the M & M act to provide the vehicle as it's intended use. Thoughts?
This is NOT a third party service agreement.

You didn’t read what I posted. The dealership most likely has no responsibility in your situation

You did NOT buy the car from Ford. You bought it from a privately owned dealership.

And yes, it is a third party service agreement. The dealership is not Ford. The dealership is not owned by ford.

And unless you can prove knowledge of a defect, it would appear the car was sold in good working condition. The law doesn’t say the seller has to warrantee the car other than at the time of the sale it meets the requirements imposed under the law.

Implied warranty: Merchantability; usage of trade.

(1) Unless excluded or modified (RCW 62A.2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.
(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as
(a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and
(b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and
(c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and
(d) run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and
(e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and
(f) conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.
(3) Unless excluded or modified (RCW 62A.2-316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
[1965 ex.s. c 157 § 2-314. Cf. former RCW 63.04.160(2); 1925 ex.s. c 142 § 15; RRS § 58

 

[bthrasher99]

You didn’t read what I posted. The dealership most likely has no responsibility in your situation

You did NOT buy the car from Ford. You bought it from a privately owned dealership.

And yes, it is a third party service agreement. The dealership is not Ford. The dealership is not owned by ford.

And unless you can prove knowledge of a defect, it would appear the car was sold in good working condition. The law doesn’t say the seller has to warrantee the car other than at the time of the sale it meets the requirements imposed under the law.

If that were the case then in the whole scheme of things nobody would be technically buying a car from ford. Seeing as all of them are franchise but just bear the Ford name? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. They have Ford in their name and they also provide Ford service and sell Ford service contracts. How are they not related to Ford? They all have Ford on their shirts and I would probably go as far as to say that the word Ford is on their paycheck somewhere.
Now, are you saying because they don't pay the service repairs directly from their place of business that they would be considered a "third party" service agreement? I am just trying to wrap my head around that..., I don't know of any cases where a person has bought from Ford directly, like walked right up to the doors of Michigan and made a purchase. Now I'm taking a stab at this, but I would think that once we entered into a service agreement with them, the Ford brand, it would be their responsibility.
We are not disputing that the repairs haven't been attempted. The Ford service contract has assumed every one of them. We are claiming the car is not repairable at this point and are returning a defective product. As far as proving that there was any known issues would be a stretch, however, once we pulled up a "detailed mechanical report" it displayed that the problem had occurred earlier in it's lifetime. This does not show up on the Carfax that was shown to us at the time of sale.
If no one is technically related to their branded service contract then who would buy anything ever. That seems to me to put everything in their hands with no recourse ever. So as long as the Ford service contract keeps assuming the bill, we are expected to own a vehicle that doesn't run?
Also, M & M act states that if you enter into a contract w/in 90 days that gives us special rights and have not waived any implied warranties. Therefore, the car is not sold "as is". It would seem to me that this would be a consumer product that is now defective and not working.
We appreciate the feedback and I know this is taking your time but you are raising a lot of avenues that we need to be aware of.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

If that were the case then in the whole scheme of things nobody would be technically buying a car from ford. Seeing as all of them are franchise but just bear the Ford name? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. They have Ford in their name and they also provide Ford service and sell Ford service contracts. How are they not related to Ford? They all have Ford on their shirts and I would probably go as far as to say that the word Ford is on their paycheck somewhere.

The dealer is not owned by Ford. They buy cars and trucks and parts from ford and sell them to you. Have you not noticed the dealerships name is actually something like Bob Smith Ford? You need to read your warranty and figure out the legal entity that it is tied to. And no, nobody there works for Ford Motor Compan.

 

[bthrasher99]

The dealer is not owned by Ford. They buy cars and trucks and parts from ford and sell them to you. Have you not noticed the dealerships name is actually something like Bob Smith Ford? You need to read your warranty and figure out the legal entity that it is tied to. And no, nobody there works for Ford Motor Compan.

Noted and acknowledged. Thank you

 

[justalayman]

If that were the case then in the whole scheme of things nobody would be technically buying a car from ford. Seeing as all of them are franchise but just bear the Ford name? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. They have Ford in their name and they also provide Ford service and sell Ford service contracts. How are they not related to Ford? They all have Ford on their shirts and I would probably go as far as to say that the word Ford is on their paycheck somewhere.
Now, are you saying because they don't pay the service repairs directly from their place of business that they would be considered a "third party" service agreement? I am just trying to wrap my head around that..., I don't know of any cases where a person has bought from Ford directly, like walked right up to the doors of Michigan and made a purchase. Now I'm taking a stab at this, but I would think that once we entered into a service agreement with them, the Ford brand, it would be their responsibility.
We are not disputing that the repairs haven't been attempted. The Ford service contract has assumed every one of them. We are claiming the car is not repairable at this point and are returning a defective product. As far as proving that there was any known issues would be a stretch, however, once we pulled up a "detailed mechanical report" it displayed that the problem had occurred earlier in it's lifetime. This does not show up on the Carfax that was shown to us at the time of sale.
If no one is technically related to their branded service contract then who would buy anything ever. That seems to me to put everything in their hands with no recourse ever. So as long as the Ford service contract keeps assuming the bill, we are expected to own a vehicle that doesn't run?
Also, M & M act states that if you enter into a contract w/in 90 days that givesspecial rights and have not waived any implied warranties. Therefore, the caris not sold "as is". It would seem to me that this would be a consumer product that is now defective and not working.inalds
We appreciate the feedback and I know this is taking your time but you are raising a lot of avenues that we need to be aware of.

You’re right; you don’t purchase a car from ford but it is not as simple as that. There is a warranty provided by Ford though. And guess what: the MMWA applies to Ford.

The dealers use the ford name and provide warranty service and such due to a contractual agreement,ent with ford. Have you ever noticed there is usually some guys name also as part of the business name? That is usually the name of the owner of the dealership.

The only reason Ford is somewhere on the employees paycheck is because Ford is in the name of the dealership. Like the employees of Bozo Ford (a made up name). It will say Bozo Ford on the employees paychecks.

Do you think McDonald’s owns all the McDonald’s restaurants? Most are owned by individual franchise owners. In those cases, macdonalds usually doesn’t appear on their paychecks because most McDonald’s are owned by a business and that business is the employer and those business names usually don’t include the name McDonald’s.

It’s a third party service agreement because you purchase it from Ford even though the dealership played middle man in that sale. Ford (ford motor company or whoever handles payment for them) pays claims against the service agreement. The sellling dealer doesn’t pay anybody and they recieve money from ford based on the service agreement only if they provide service under the service contract.


And no, people cannot buy directly from ford (new cars anyway) because there are laws in place that prohibit that.


You’ll have to show me where the MMWA prohibits as is sales. I don’t believe it does.

 

[quincy]

For reference, here is a link to the Act:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=80e6fdfbcdc5239a06ce86a15fd34cf9r&ty=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=pt16.1.700
I don't think your original statement of demands of the dealership are all that unreasonable, given the problems you have had with the vehicle - but I don't see that the dealership has any legal duty to you to meet those demands.

 

[bthrasher99]

You’re right; you don’t purchase a car from ford but it is not as simple as that. There is a warranty provided by Ford though. And guess what: the MMWA applies to Ford.

The dealers use the ford name and provide warranty service and such due to a contractual agreement,ent with ford. Have you ever noticed there is usually some guys name also as part of the business name? That is usually the name of the owner of the dealership.

The only reason Ford is somewhere on the employees paycheck is because Ford is in the name of the dealership. Like the employees of Bozo Ford (a made up name). It will say Bozo Ford on the employees paychecks.

Do you think McDonald’s owns all the McDonald’s restaurants? Most are owned by individual franchise owners. In those cases, macdonalds usually doesn’t appear on their paychecks because most McDonald’s are owned by a business and that business is the employer and those business names usually don’t include the name McDonald’s.

It’s a third party service agreement because you purchase it from Ford even though the dealership played middle man in that sale. Ford (ford motor company or whoever handles payment for them) pays claims against the service agreement. The sellling dealer doesn’t pay anybody and they recieve money from ford based on the service agreement only if they provide service under the service contract.


And no, people cannot buy directly from ford (new cars anyway) because there are laws in place that prohibit that.


You’ll have to show me where the MMWA prohibits as is sales. I don’t believe it does.

Okay I'm starting to come around on it not being the dealer. Sorry it took such a big club..., but it is sinking in. So if the service agreement is not getting the vehicle repaired there should be some responsibility there, right? I also want to add that in both instances it was the ford service contract that supplied the motor for GMC through a third party, of course.
In the first engine replacement I didn't scrutinize too much because I thought it would be "the fix" at that time. However, on the second engine w/in a three days of it in my possession having the same exact problem it got my attention and was very clear to the technicians to pay very close attention to what is provided by the service contract. After a couple days they called me up and said that there was no way that they in good conscience put the engine in as it was received. They did have brittle wire etc. Another 1200.00 in making it "up to par". I am still waiting for the final receipts as they said they were putting it all together. Needless to say the check engine light is already going off with three codes. This will literally be the 18th time in the repair shop. We have not seen our car for six months.
Is the general consensus that we have no recourse whatsoever? We trade it in to have some other sucker buy it?
I can't recall how I might have worded it but I wasn't referring to the MMWA as prohibiting "As Is" but rather WA. state has specific rules to As Is and that everyone has an implied warranty. If you buy a washing machine it is to act like one unless it is disclosed otherwise.

 

[quincy]

You can return the vehicle to the dealership for another vehicle or recover your purchase price of the vehicle, based on Washington's implied warranty law.

 

[justalayman]

Please believe me, I have great sympathy for you. I think your situation and those like yours are the basis for many of the lemon laws and mandatory implied warranties (washington isn’t the only state that has imposed similar legislation) I feel blessed each time I read of situations such as yours and see I have not had to deal with anything nearly as problematic as the car you are dealing with.

The problem: I think your options are limited, it you have any real options other than having the car repaired under the service warranty.



You may try contacting the state attorney general. Most states ag’s have a consumer issues department. It may result in nothing but it’s free to try. They may be able to offer you more info on the states implied warranty issue.

 

[justalayman]

You can return the vehicle to the dealership for another vehicle or recover your purchase price of the vehicle, based on Washington's implied warranty law.

But is it applicable? I didn’t find that it had a set length of coverage and as it appears, the issues were not present at the time of the sale.