Dealership lying?
Super Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
c63
While you're right that you wouldn't get anywhere until you got to court, however, the burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove that the modification is what caused said failure. Most vehicles can run +/- size wheels and tires. Even on my AMG that has 18's, it is recommended that I run a much smaller tire for the winter (17x7.5 IIRC) with 235/45/17's. Note this is assuming that the aftermarket wheels have the proper offset.
It's next to impossible that an aftermarket wheel can cause suspension damage, provided the fitment is correct for the application. Even if you have WAY negative offset (wheel sticks out past the fender), the most it would cause is accelerated bearing wear since the load isn't centralized on bearing anymore.
Regardless, if the dealer recommends an outside source for work (not warranty or outsourced) they assume NO responsibility since they didn't touch the vehicle physically.
Now if they outsource the work (in or out of warranty) and the DEALER charges you for it (you'll never even know they outsourced it), THAT's when the dealer assumes responsibility.
It's next to impossible that an aftermarket wheel can cause suspension damage, provided the fitment is correct for the application. Even if you have WAY negative offset (wheel sticks out past the fender), the most it would cause is accelerated bearing wear since the load isn't centralized on bearing anymore.
Regardless, if the dealer recommends an outside source for work (not warranty or outsourced) they assume NO responsibility since they didn't touch the vehicle physically.
Now if they outsource the work (in or out of warranty) and the DEALER charges you for it (you'll never even know they outsourced it), THAT's when the dealer assumes responsibility.
its all about the "reasonable person" test. if a "reasonable person" is recommended to bob the mechanic by MB dealer and bob does a number on "reasonable person's" c63 later causing major mechanical damage or personal injury, do you really think that recommending MB dealer won't be sued? lawyer would likely argue there was an implied warranty in that recommendation that caused the plaintiff to incur injury/damage/etc. whether they are excused or not based on technical information etc realized during the trial is irrelevant.
also, this is not necessarily the case for OP. the guy might have been an idiot
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 2
From: California
06 C55, 09 E350
No matter what Mr Parts manager service advisor/director or fixed operations says. There can always be a legal issue with anything in the car industry . At our dealer we cannot patch tires or sublet it to an outside tire company because of this. We don't sublet the repairs because WE are liable if we send a car to another company to do the work. Even if something arises and it's not even our fault customers will always sue deep pocketed dealers simply because courts usually decided in favor on the client or the dealer settles due to the fact that they don't want to deal with the expenses of fighting the cases. I have seen it many times over the years and even had conversations with customers that bring the court cases against the dealer simply to recoup their repair costs.
http://www.dbbc.com/index2.php?optio...do_pdf=1&id=69
I know master techs that have worked for dealers for 20 years+ that got their own shops and I cannot recommend them simply because the fact that if anything goes wrong rest assured that customer will come back to the dealer demanding some compensation for my bad advice getting me fired. Also would I recommend a tire shop that likely has some undocumented worker that makes 5 bucks an hour working on your 100k vehicle? I think not.. Why? I deal with these shops all the time and when they damage the customers cars or break something they come down to buy the damaged parts from the dealer and when they go to pay the cashiers they don't even have licenses to show to write the CDL on the checks and can barely speak English. This is my personal opinion as well so you can imagine what an on-duty opinion would be.
http://www.dbbc.com/index2.php?optio...do_pdf=1&id=69
I know master techs that have worked for dealers for 20 years+ that got their own shops and I cannot recommend them simply because the fact that if anything goes wrong rest assured that customer will come back to the dealer demanding some compensation for my bad advice getting me fired. Also would I recommend a tire shop that likely has some undocumented worker that makes 5 bucks an hour working on your 100k vehicle? I think not.. Why? I deal with these shops all the time and when they damage the customers cars or break something they come down to buy the damaged parts from the dealer and when they go to pay the cashiers they don't even have licenses to show to write the CDL on the checks and can barely speak English. This is my personal opinion as well so you can imagine what an on-duty opinion would be.
Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: Michigan, USA
2000 E55 AMG
i agree w/ you on a personal level. you are making a lot of sense. however....
its all about the "reasonable person" test. if a "reasonable person" is recommended to bob the mechanic by MB dealer and bob does a number on "reasonable person's" c63 later causing major mechanical damage or personal injury, do you really think that recommending MB dealer won't be sued? lawyer would likely argue there was an implied warranty in that recommendation that caused the plaintiff to incur injury/damage/etc. whether they are excused or not based on technical information etc realized during the trial is irrelevant.
also, this is not necessarily the case for OP. the guy might have been an idiot
its all about the "reasonable person" test. if a "reasonable person" is recommended to bob the mechanic by MB dealer and bob does a number on "reasonable person's" c63 later causing major mechanical damage or personal injury, do you really think that recommending MB dealer won't be sued? lawyer would likely argue there was an implied warranty in that recommendation that caused the plaintiff to incur injury/damage/etc. whether they are excused or not based on technical information etc realized during the trial is irrelevant.
also, this is not necessarily the case for OP. the guy might have been an idiot
Regardless, even if someone recommended Bob the mechanic, would it not be reasonable that the person do some research about Bob? In this age of information and technology, it is my belief, that ignorance and lack of investigation is unreasonable. However, this is what makes the "reasonable person" argument so arbitrary. Law is about semantics, so, most likely, the attorneys would argue the definition of "reasonable."
No matter what Mr Parts manager service advisor/director or fixed operations says. There can always be a legal issue with anything in the car industry . At our dealer we cannot patch tires or sublet it to an outside tire company because of this. We don't sublet the repairs because WE are liable if we send a car to another company to do the work. Even if something arises and it's not even our fault customers will always sue deep pocketed dealers simply because courts usually decided in favor on the client or the dealer settles due to the fact that they don't want to deal with the expenses of fighting the cases. I have seen it many times over the years and even had conversations with customers that bring the court cases against the dealer simply to recoup their repair costs.
http://www.dbbc.com/index2.php?optio...do_pdf=1&id=69
I know master techs that have worked for dealers for 20 years+ that got their own shops and I cannot recommend them simply because the fact that if anything goes wrong rest assured that customer will come back to the dealer demanding some compensation for my bad advice getting me fired. Also would I recommend a tire shop that likely has some undocumented worker that makes 5 bucks an hour working on your 100k vehicle? I think not.. Why? I deal with these shops all the time and when they damage the customers cars or break something they come down to buy the damaged parts from the dealer and when they go to pay the cashiers they don't even have licenses to show to write the CDL on the checks and can barely speak English. This is my personal opinion as well so you can imagine what an on-duty opinion would be.
http://www.dbbc.com/index2.php?optio...do_pdf=1&id=69
I know master techs that have worked for dealers for 20 years+ that got their own shops and I cannot recommend them simply because the fact that if anything goes wrong rest assured that customer will come back to the dealer demanding some compensation for my bad advice getting me fired. Also would I recommend a tire shop that likely has some undocumented worker that makes 5 bucks an hour working on your 100k vehicle? I think not.. Why? I deal with these shops all the time and when they damage the customers cars or break something they come down to buy the damaged parts from the dealer and when they go to pay the cashiers they don't even have licenses to show to write the CDL on the checks and can barely speak English. This is my personal opinion as well so you can imagine what an on-duty opinion would be.
While sure, they may come after the dealership, these people's attorneys obviously proved that there was a link.
And while YOUR dealership may not outsource, a lot of them do. I've worked at several and we had outsourced TONS of stuff. Granted none of them were actual mechanical repairs, we would outsource certain sensor replacements, such as the pass. seat weight sensor to certain other shops and bodywork.
While the customer may come back at you, it would be difficult for them to prove or sue you for anything since you never touched the car. Their case wouldn't hold any water and would be thrown out.
Think about it. You're in court and your argument is: I went to the dealer and the price was too high. SO I asked the service advisor if he could recommend a shop. He recommended x. They did some work on my car and now it's messed up. the MB dealer is responsible. How so exactly? You didn't want to get the work done there and decided to go elsewhere. They screwed it up and now you want the dealer to pay. The judge would laugh and say GTFO.
There's no liability there.
Member
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 233
Likes: 23
From: Texas Hill Country
2020 AMG GTR
Well let's see here. First, I am a certified mechanic. Second, I have worked as a service adviser, parts manager and have managed a few shops. I have worked for dealerships and independent shops since I was 14 (in my 30's now).
So this is what qualifies me to make these statements.
I'm a genius too buddy boy. I have an IQ of 143. And no, this wasn't taken by some BS online thing either.
It is NOT against the law for a dealership to outsource anything, including labor.
If it's warranty work, the parts do have to be genuine, but the person installing said parts DOES NOT have to even be employed by the manufacturer as long as they are qualified to do the repairs. i.e certified mechanic, bodyman, etc.
See above.
I'll give you an example. In the 90's, Chevrolet put a Mobil 1 emblem under the hood of its Corvettes that stated that if you use any other oil besides Mobil 1, you would void the warranty.
They were sued and they lost. The ruling stated that if the consumer is required to use a certain product and cannot use an alternative brand that meets the minimum spec, Chevrolet was obligated to provide the product and the service free of charge. Hence they stopped installing that emblem.
Mobil 1 is crap compared to most other synthetics. Even Castrol Syntec (edge as I believe it's called now), beat's it hands down. It's not as good as Redline, Amsoil or Royal purple, but it's damn close and is $5 cheaper than the racing brands.
The only legal ramification that would be present in the original posters statement was that he was BLATANTLY LIED to.
So this is what qualifies me to make these statements.
I'm a genius too buddy boy. I have an IQ of 143. And no, this wasn't taken by some BS online thing either.
It is NOT against the law for a dealership to outsource anything, including labor.
If it's warranty work, the parts do have to be genuine, but the person installing said parts DOES NOT have to even be employed by the manufacturer as long as they are qualified to do the repairs. i.e certified mechanic, bodyman, etc.
See above.
I'll give you an example. In the 90's, Chevrolet put a Mobil 1 emblem under the hood of its Corvettes that stated that if you use any other oil besides Mobil 1, you would void the warranty.
They were sued and they lost. The ruling stated that if the consumer is required to use a certain product and cannot use an alternative brand that meets the minimum spec, Chevrolet was obligated to provide the product and the service free of charge. Hence they stopped installing that emblem.
Mobil 1 is crap compared to most other synthetics. Even Castrol Syntec (edge as I believe it's called now), beat's it hands down. It's not as good as Redline, Amsoil or Royal purple, but it's damn close and is $5 cheaper than the racing brands.
The only legal ramification that would be present in the original posters statement was that he was BLATANTLY LIED to.
since you have not owned an actual car dealership (yes, owning a shop is not even close) then you are not qualified to make statements regarding a dealers perspective on exposure, plain and simple.
and if you must know, you and I have similar backgrounds, and ages, except for the my family owns 20 car dealerships and I live and breathe the real thing every day from age 1.
and no, I do not work at one of my families stores. I am pursuing my own path in this life. yay, personal information! please now that I know your iq, tell me your height and weight too!
the people who are posting and explaining these things to you are correct and you are not. yet you insist on refuting their claims. I guess your 143 iq (which is not genius level, btw) also makes you know in advance what a judge will decide in court, even though highly experienced trained lawyers get surprised everyday.
laughable. at best.
Last edited by Higgs Boson; Jan 26, 2013 at 10:47 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
c63
Ahh the ol' damn "reasonable person" thing. What the hell is a reasonable person? The definition of this is so arbitrary and vague that even the biggest idiot can be deemed "reasonable."
Regardless, even if someone recommended Bob the mechanic, would it not be reasonable that the person do some research about Bob? In this age of information and technology, it is my belief, that ignorance and lack of investigation is unreasonable. However, this is what makes the "reasonable person" argument so arbitrary. Law is about semantics, so, most likely, the attorneys would argue the definition of "reasonable."
The case you linked is obviously a negligence case. Whether it be on the tech that performed the repair due to lack of training, or the dealer which didn't provide the training, it's still negligence.
While sure, they may come after the dealership, these people's attorneys obviously proved that there was a link.
And while YOUR dealership may not outsource, a lot of them do. I've worked at several and we had outsourced TONS of stuff. Granted none of them were actual mechanical repairs, we would outsource certain sensor replacements, such as the pass. seat weight sensor to certain other shops and bodywork.
While the customer may come back at you, it would be difficult for them to prove or sue you for anything since you never touched the car. Their case wouldn't hold any water and would be thrown out.
Think about it. You're in court and your argument is: I went to the dealer and the price was too high. SO I asked the service advisor if he could recommend a shop. He recommended x. They did some work on my car and now it's messed up. the MB dealer is responsible. How so exactly? You didn't want to get the work done there and decided to go elsewhere. They screwed it up and now you want the dealer to pay. The judge would laugh and say GTFO.
There's no liability there.
Regardless, even if someone recommended Bob the mechanic, would it not be reasonable that the person do some research about Bob? In this age of information and technology, it is my belief, that ignorance and lack of investigation is unreasonable. However, this is what makes the "reasonable person" argument so arbitrary. Law is about semantics, so, most likely, the attorneys would argue the definition of "reasonable."
The case you linked is obviously a negligence case. Whether it be on the tech that performed the repair due to lack of training, or the dealer which didn't provide the training, it's still negligence.
While sure, they may come after the dealership, these people's attorneys obviously proved that there was a link.
And while YOUR dealership may not outsource, a lot of them do. I've worked at several and we had outsourced TONS of stuff. Granted none of them were actual mechanical repairs, we would outsource certain sensor replacements, such as the pass. seat weight sensor to certain other shops and bodywork.
While the customer may come back at you, it would be difficult for them to prove or sue you for anything since you never touched the car. Their case wouldn't hold any water and would be thrown out.
Think about it. You're in court and your argument is: I went to the dealer and the price was too high. SO I asked the service advisor if he could recommend a shop. He recommended x. They did some work on my car and now it's messed up. the MB dealer is responsible. How so exactly? You didn't want to get the work done there and decided to go elsewhere. They screwed it up and now you want the dealer to pay. The judge would laugh and say GTFO.
There's no liability there.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 2
From: California
06 C55, 09 E350
Ahh the ol' damn "reasonable person" thing. What the hell is a reasonable person? The definition of this is so arbitrary and vague that even the biggest idiot can be deemed "reasonable."
Regardless, even if someone recommended Bob the mechanic, would it not be reasonable that the person do some research about Bob? In this age of information and technology, it is my belief, that ignorance and lack of investigation is unreasonable. However, this is what makes the "reasonable person" argument so arbitrary. Law is about semantics, so, most likely, the attorneys would argue the definition of "reasonable."
The case you linked is obviously a negligence case. Whether it be on the tech that performed the repair due to lack of training, or the dealer which didn't provide the training, it's still negligence.
While sure, they may come after the dealership, these people's attorneys obviously proved that there was a link.
And while YOUR dealership may not outsource, a lot of them do. I've worked at several and we had outsourced TONS of stuff. Granted none of them were actual mechanical repairs, we would outsource certain sensor replacements, such as the pass. seat weight sensor to certain other shops and bodywork.
While the customer may come back at you, it would be difficult for them to prove or sue you for anything since you never touched the car. Their case wouldn't hold any water and would be thrown out.
Think about it. You're in court and your argument is: I went to the dealer and the price was too high. SO I asked the service advisor if he could recommend a shop. He recommended x. They did some work on my car and now it's messed up. the MB dealer is responsible. How so exactly? You didn't want to get the work done there and decided to go elsewhere. They screwed it up and now you want the dealer to pay. The judge would laugh and say GTFO.
There's no liability there.
Regardless, even if someone recommended Bob the mechanic, would it not be reasonable that the person do some research about Bob? In this age of information and technology, it is my belief, that ignorance and lack of investigation is unreasonable. However, this is what makes the "reasonable person" argument so arbitrary. Law is about semantics, so, most likely, the attorneys would argue the definition of "reasonable."
The case you linked is obviously a negligence case. Whether it be on the tech that performed the repair due to lack of training, or the dealer which didn't provide the training, it's still negligence.
While sure, they may come after the dealership, these people's attorneys obviously proved that there was a link.
And while YOUR dealership may not outsource, a lot of them do. I've worked at several and we had outsourced TONS of stuff. Granted none of them were actual mechanical repairs, we would outsource certain sensor replacements, such as the pass. seat weight sensor to certain other shops and bodywork.
While the customer may come back at you, it would be difficult for them to prove or sue you for anything since you never touched the car. Their case wouldn't hold any water and would be thrown out.
Think about it. You're in court and your argument is: I went to the dealer and the price was too high. SO I asked the service advisor if he could recommend a shop. He recommended x. They did some work on my car and now it's messed up. the MB dealer is responsible. How so exactly? You didn't want to get the work done there and decided to go elsewhere. They screwed it up and now you want the dealer to pay. The judge would laugh and say GTFO.
There's no liability there.
The link was provided to show you why we do not sublet tire repairs. From what I heard from this story it was a sublet to a tire center as well and not done at the dealer. So regardless of the training we don't want the risk. We got sued by a customer that asked one of our techs to do work on the side. The tech agreed and did the work and there turned out to be some issue with the quality of work or so he said. This customer who we came to find out sues multiple dealers frequently for frivolous reasons went to our service manager demanding free work to be done on his car because of this. We declined, the tech was fired and the client sued us and we settled to not deal with the case. Even though the customer had no docs no repair order he still won and comes to brag like it's some kind of trophy. This type of crap happens all the time.
Super Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
From: SoCal, Orlando/Miami FL USA, Japan
2012 C63 AMG BS, 2010 DUCATI 1198S
lets all keep this in perspective. there are many things a dealership employee knows but cannot say or recommend for legal reasons. mercedes Benz as well as the dealerships independent owners have the potential for legal trouble if an employee recommends or endorses things like aftermarket parts, be they wheels or DVD player enabling devices while driving etc..... no one at a dealership will say to install something non mercedes. it doesn't mean they don't know or they really think on a personal level you will mess up your car. they are obligated to stick to the book.
people come on forums and talk bad about the dealers but rest assured, the same dealer employee has hre wheels and has an enabled DVD player on the highway, lol. hell, a supercharger, too, why not.....
food for thought.
people come on forums and talk bad about the dealers but rest assured, the same dealer employee has hre wheels and has an enabled DVD player on the highway, lol. hell, a supercharger, too, why not.....
food for thought.
Member
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 233
Likes: 23
From: Texas Hill Country
2020 AMG GTR
of course, with Michael Schumacher as the sales manager, anything is possible!!
haha!
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 1
2012 C63 coupe
Any of us that intelligent wouldn't feel the need to be bragging about it online. The fact that you had the "BS online thing" defence already lined up tells me you have quoted and been challenged on this before IQ does not equal knowledge and this discussion has little to do with IQ. I suspect someone with an IQ that high they would get that and, therefore, not quote their IQ
It actually is a genius level IQ. Depending on the source, something like better than 99.5% of the population. Obviously there are different scales. Someone with a 143 IQ would easily qualify for Mensa membership if they were so inclined.
With all of the geniuses on this forum, the rest of us common folks are feeling very insecure.
Last edited by gthal; Jan 27, 2013 at 09:31 AM.
Member
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 233
Likes: 23
From: Texas Hill Country
2020 AMG GTR
actually is a genius level IQ. Depending on the source, something like better than 99.5% of the population. Obviously there are different scales. Someone with a 143 IQ would easily qualify for Mensa membership if they were so inclined.
With all of the geniuses on this forum, the rest of us common folks are feeling very insecure.
With all of the geniuses on this forum, the rest of us common folks are feeling very insecure.
I don't put a lot of stock in an iq score. you can get a better education just from living, if you pay attention.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 7
2017 Mini Cooper S Clubman ALL4 - British Racing Green
aside from the my dick is bigger then your dick argument going on, you are incorrect on a number of things. The MM act does not put the onus on the dealer to prove anything, it is on the owners shoulders. All the dealer has to do is verify that a authorized non dealer part was installed, and was involved, and they can stop the work right there. They (the dealer) will then tell you to take your vehicle to whomever you had the part installed and get them to cover the costs, or out of your own pocket.
All the MM act does provide for, is that a warranty cannot be voided using third party products, except for when said products are the cause of damage.
At which point, you may have to get a lawyer involved if you really want to push the issue with the dealer, and that could be far more costly then an out of pocket repair.
Also, heavier or lighter wheels will not affect the suspension in any way, as the suspension holds the weight of the vehicle, not the wheels. There would be extra wear and tear on the drive train though.
All the MM act does provide for, is that a warranty cannot be voided using third party products, except for when said products are the cause of damage.
At which point, you may have to get a lawyer involved if you really want to push the issue with the dealer, and that could be far more costly then an out of pocket repair.
Also, heavier or lighter wheels will not affect the suspension in any way, as the suspension holds the weight of the vehicle, not the wheels. There would be extra wear and tear on the drive train though.
