This is why we have courts is to decide the interpretation of the law not what people on the internet think it is. The only way to find out if you are within your rights if you are denied warranty is take them to court. Keep in mind all the auto manufacturers will fight you if you have a lemon as well and most of the time you need to hire a attorney to get them to follow the law. So in the end if you feel like you are in the right then take them to court.
Interesting yes.
I don't read what he believed to be true, but either he did not prove it, or I missed where he proved it.
I'm not sure if this shows the Mag Act does not mean aftermarket parts like we are referring to have to be proved to be the fault of the damage to the part before warranty can be voided.
He says in his write up, "this shows an OEM can deny a warranty claim or outright void the related warranty, in the event of modification or abuse of the product, damage caused by the consumer, or failure of the consumer to properly maintain the product."
I don't see where JUST modding is in this clause and proves his point. He seems to put the modification part in there. I see the damaged caused by consumer or failure of the consumer to properly maintain it... I dont see where it says modification. I also am not reading this to the meaning that he is saying it means.. I'm reading this to almost enforce the Mag act as we understand it.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting this somehow and he is right?
I am not trying to argue on this. I would just like to know IF in fact the Mag Act was somehow misunderstood by so many. I just could not find where it meant air boxes only etc. like he said.