quote:Originally posted by ADFD1:
Gosh - here's a real life example of what I've often touted about the misconceptions of the M/M Warranty act. In a nutshell, I can summize.
If you use the prescribed fluids in the prescribed manner, then the burden of proof is upon the OEM to show that your actions somehow caused the failure of the product in question. If you have good, solid evidence to show that you followed warranty parameters, then most OEMs won't even argue with you. If you use alternative materials and/or methods for maintenance, then the burden of proof is upon you to show that your selections did not cause the failure. It's that simple on the surface; use their specs and they have to show it's not their fault - use your stuff and it's up to you to show it's not your fault.
You are right. That statement is a misconception of the M/M Warranty Act. Even if you use "alternative materials and/or methods for maintenance" the burden of proof is still upon the manufacturer that your selections caused the failure. They can easily prove it with oil and parts analysis.
Again GM says:
“The New Vehicle Warranty would not be void simply because an owner failed to use proper engine oils or did not perform maintenance at the prescribed intervals. Warranty applicability is contingent upon the cause of failure.”
Service Policies and Procedures Department,
General Motors Corporation “