14 Nov
2022
14 Nov
'22
3:09 p.m.
>> It's a lot less effort to tell them the
sticker was illegal to begin with.
>> ;)
> . . . and have him have to escalate it to somebody authorized to make
> exceptions, or argue with tandy lawyers?
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, geneb via cctalk wrote:
Nope. You point out that the state attorney(sp)
general would love to watch
Tandy flail against the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. ;)
I encountered a lot of entities who would not willingly comply with
Manuson-Moss. (I was doing auto repair in the 1970s) Although it was
enacted in 1975, it took a long time for word to get around. And many
companies openly failed to comply, not just coming up with bizarre
scenarios to claim that the modification in some extremely roundabout way
caused the problem.
For example, they could legally get away with claiming that adding a
trailer hitch to your car meant that you were towing, and stressing the
engine more than intended. Even if you CLAIMED that the hitch was for a
bike rack, or a flag for the local sports team. In theory, burden of
proof that a modification caused the problem would be on the dealer; but
in actuality, . . . And, of course, they would extrapolate that to
anything of the running gear of the car. But, when they deny warranty
coverage of the windshield wiper motor, then they were flagrantly
violating the act.
In the EARLY years of the TRS80, Tandy actually believed that they could
void the warranty if you opened the case. Eventually, their lawyers
explained to them about Magnuson-Moss. Sometimes, it is GREAT to have
your adversary lawyer-up, since they will listen to their lawyer, even if
they won't believe you.
YES, you would be legally correct, but trying to get that through to the
droids in the store could be difficult. And, the state attorney general
didn't always consider such to be a high priority.
So, it was easier just to reseal the case.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com