Quote:
Originally Posted by sbutler
I think Kempy311 has a good case. Yes he did drag the car, but as has been said, this in no way can put undue stress on the SC as its running all the time just like the engine. So how would dragging the car have anything to do with the SC?
8000Ks is also a point, you can [under the law], expect a product to perform its intended task for a reasonable period. As this isn't drive line related. In this case 8000Ks in not beyond a reasonable period.. 180,000 then yes you have your moneys worth.
I would go on with this. I dont think its unreasonable to expect your car to last more than 8000Ks.. The sticking point would be the drag strip/motorsport issue. But if you can get an engineer to attest to the fact that dragging the car hasn't caused the damage, I think your on solid ground..
Just my opinion...
|
This is pretty good advice moving in the right direction. Thinking about your situation a little further, I think you may have some prospects under the statutory fit for purpose Federal/State legislation, despite my earlier comment.
1. Check the ford warranty, look for the exclusions regarding motorsport, etc, you need a good litigation solicitor who deals with insurance matters/commercial contract matters to interpret the clauses to see if Ford can rely on the motorsport/improper use clauses to wriggle out of their warranty.
2. Your strongest case (assuming the Ford warranty has a motorsport exclusion) would be to pursue the entity you purchased the vehicle from for unfit for purpose under the Australian Competition and Consumer Act, and depending on your state, the state legislation -"sales of goods act' etc, which also implies fit for purpose/merchantable quality into the contract.
You need an expert mechanical engineer (not just mechanic) to assess the supercharger, and give an expert opinion to the effect that operating it at a dragstrip x 3 runs given the revs and duration (are within the specs and design parameters of the Eaton- supercharger - lets assume you get this opinion) and if the expert says that it failed due to the bearings/etc and the bearings or whatever were defective, then it was not the use of the vehicle, which the Eaton has been designed for, but simply that the product was not fit for purpose and failed and was not merchantable.
You would then sue the person you purchased the vehicle from (by contract) as supplying a vehicle that was not fit for purpose under the Competition Consumer Act/Sales of Goods Act or whatever your State equivalent is, pleading contract and the implied federal and statutory implied warranties.
Assuming you get the expert evidence, you would have pretty good prospects of achieving a judgment, but it would not be cheap- ie expert fees, filing fees, legal costs.
But, assuming you did not tune it or do other mods and only did 3 runs at a drag, in all the circumstances it is bad form in terms of the dealer you bought the car from/Ford not managing the dealer. They are also trying to shift what is required in an evidentiary sense.
You do not have to prove a design fault or manufacturing fault, simply that it was not fit for purpose- and you do this as I detailed above, ie usage that the product was designed to do, failure not caused by modifications taking it out of the design usage parameters, and evidence that it failed - ie due to bearings failing etc- and was not fit for purpose, by expert opinion.
That is all that is required for the Court to determine product not fit for purpose.
But really, given what you say about no tune/engine mods, the dealer you bought it from should make good given the implied warranties for fit for purpose that will be implied into your purchase contract.
If you were revving the engine to 7,300 revs beyond the design parameters of the Eaton, and the excessive revolutions of the engine/super was causative of the failure, then the contracting dealer would be or more solid ground to reject, but if you were revving the engine and keeping the Eaton spinning within the Eaton specs, the dealer should make good.
Good luck.