Burden of Proof
DucatiGuy said:
If they do deny you coverage, they must prove without a reason of doubt that the part you installed was the DIRECT cause of the problem in question. The dealer CAN NOT deny you the warranty work because you have an aftermarket exhaust on your bike. If he does, he has to prove to you, without a doubt, the exhaust is the cause of the problem.
DucatiGuy,
While your discussion of the Magnuson-Moss Act is basically accurate, allow me to add something to the discussion:
Warranty disputes are litigated in civil court. The issue is breach of contract. If the seller refuses to honor a warranty claim and the buyer believes the seller is contractually obligated to honor the warranty, then the buyer's recourse is to sue the seller in civil court for breach of the warranty contract.
In such a cause of action, the buyer would be the moving party, (Plaintiff), and the seller would be the Defendant. This being a civil cause of action alleging breach of contract, the burden of proof would not be, (as you cited in your post), "without a [reason of] doubt," but rather, "by a preponderance of the evidence." Put in layman's terms, a preponderance of the evidence is defined as, "more likely than not," or alternately, "more than 50%," (sometimes referred to as, "51%").
BTW, the burden you cited, "without a [reason of] doubt," exists nowhere in American Jurisprudence. The highest burden of proof required in our legal system is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." "Beyond a reasonable doubt," is explicitly defined to the jury as not being synonymous with "beyond all doubt", or to use your language, "without a [reason of] doubt." This highest burden that a fact in question be proven, "beyond a reasonable doubt," is reserved exclusively for criminal proceedings and is never required in a breach of warranty claim.
As the moving party, the burden would initially fall on the buyer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was in fact a valid warranty contract covering the motorcycle.
Then, depending on the jurisdiction the law suit was filed in and the particulars of a given trial/judge, either the Plaintiff/buyer would then have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the modification he made to the motorcycle was not the proximate cause of the malfunction/defect in question, or conversely, the burden would then switch to the Defendant/seller, who would have to affirmatively prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff's modification was the proximate cause of the malfunction/defect. In cases where the burden of proof shifts to the Defendant/seller to affirmatively prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff/seller's modification proximately caused the malfunction/defect, Defendant is not required to prove anything to the Plaintiff/buyer, but rather, to the finder of fact, (either the Judge or the Jury).
Finally, it's important to understand that neither the Magnuson-Moss Act nor the common law dealing with breach of warranty claims establish a bright-line test. A buyer is not free to make any and all modifications he wants without fear of voiding the warranty. Some modifications, (supercharging and turbocharging, for example), almost certainly void a warranty. Other modifications, (like properly installed aftermarket cans, for example), probably don't void a warranty. Still other modifications, (more radical cams and/or port work, for example), fall somewhere in the middle. Each case is judged on its merits. It does the readers a disservice to suggest that because of the Magnuson-Moss Act, aftermarket exhausts can be installed without fear of voiding the warranty. It's not that clear-cut or simple. The law never is.
A warranty hassle is just that: a hassle. If the dealer won't honor your warranty because you've installed aftermarket pipes, you're in for a fight. It's not just a simple matter of waiving the Magnuson-Moss Act in the dealer's face and then watching the dealer roll over and say, "You're right, my bad! Thanks for enlightening me. Let me now fix your bike!"
If you're going to modify you're bike with aftermarket products, proceed with caution. The safest course is to have your dealer install them. It will be presumed that dealer-installed aftermarket products do not void the warranty unless the dealer explicitly stated otherwise prior to installation. If you install them yourself or have a non-dealer mechanic install them, document the work carefully. That way, if there's an issue later on, you're more apt to prove your modification wasn't the proximate cause of the malfunction/defect in question.
Of course, if you go with termis, this will likely be a non-issue.
Elton
:yo: ANy one with similar experience?
