P
PeterD
Guest
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:25:59 -0400, "Eisboch" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> The INJECTORS were covered by the 200000 mile warranty. Injectors only,
>> nothing else. Doesn't matter that the injectors MAY have caused the
>> engine failure, only the injectors are covered.
>>
>
>This is the part where they may be hope for the OP. An argument can
>certainly be made that due to the failure of the injector .... that is
>warrantied for 200k miles .... further engine damage occurred.
>
>Eisboch
>
The term for this is consequential damage. You can be sure there is an
express exclusion to this in the warranty, and hence though ****ed
off, the original poster really has no legal leg to stand on.
Of course that doesn't prevent trying a 'good will' approach (he may
have burned that bridge already, however), or a threat approach ('Hi,
I'm Attorney X, representing Mr. OP, and we're filing a lawsuit ').
The threat approach has virtually no chances of success (for so many
reasons!) and can cost an arm and a leg.
I did get a car maker to replace an engine at 85K miles (was a 3/36
warranty) but it took some really sweet talking, and that was an
unusual case.
wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> The INJECTORS were covered by the 200000 mile warranty. Injectors only,
>> nothing else. Doesn't matter that the injectors MAY have caused the
>> engine failure, only the injectors are covered.
>>
>
>This is the part where they may be hope for the OP. An argument can
>certainly be made that due to the failure of the injector .... that is
>warrantied for 200k miles .... further engine damage occurred.
>
>Eisboch
>
The term for this is consequential damage. You can be sure there is an
express exclusion to this in the warranty, and hence though ****ed
off, the original poster really has no legal leg to stand on.
Of course that doesn't prevent trying a 'good will' approach (he may
have burned that bridge already, however), or a threat approach ('Hi,
I'm Attorney X, representing Mr. OP, and we're filing a lawsuit ').
The threat approach has virtually no chances of success (for so many
reasons!) and can cost an arm and a leg.
I did get a car maker to replace an engine at 85K miles (was a 3/36
warranty) but it took some really sweet talking, and that was an
unusual case.