Motors blows after Annual Service - dealer refuses to honor warranty

Maybe im reading some of this wrong and chiming in late, but the $20K in costs that he is out of may only be a part of the money he may recoup. Did the car get sold for current market value?(doubtful) and is there damages from diminished sales value of the car that he may be entitled to? It could end up being in the 40-50K range after all? Where in the range did the car sell for?

 

I think the main issue could be with FoFL installing a part that was already known to be sub-par/defective?

 

Well, OK then. So you claim that the above email saying they told you the part was not new and they showed you the "used" part is false.

Do you have the invoice that says it's a new part or used? Is there anything on the invoice that says "no warranty on used parts"?

If the invoice you signed does not call this out, you have a solid case.

It may not be a new part but if they told you it's new and the invoice says it's new, it's the same thing.

I can tell you a lot of times in my shop, I would not even charge for a used part because I didn't want the hassle of it being returned. So, I would just put N/C and "used part - no warranty" in the invoice. I can't tell you how many turbo's I did that with when people didn't want to rebuild them but just wanted to sell the car or get through emissions.

This email though means nothing. It's what's on the invoice that matters. People say "new" all the time when they are replacing stuff. That doesn't mean it's unused. The person writing it may not even know. It's what's on the invoice that matters.

And, what about the part where they said they showed you the used part and you accepted it?

 

I'm willing to put any amount of my $ on the fact that your understanding of 'new' vs what they implied was 'new' are two different things. I'm sure they meant 'new' = 'replaced' and you thought 'new' = brand new parts...

Do you have references from them where they explicitly state that the parts are brand new, etc. or could they have informed you even over the phone that they would be using a 'used' (but 'new to your car') part which is no longer available from Ferrari?

 

Well, then you have a great case against them. Even if they screwed up and forgot to tell you or wrote the invoice wrong, there's no excuse for saying after the fact that it's used when you paid for new.

But, they claim they actually showed you the used part and explained it to you. Did that not happen?

What as the price they charged just for this gear on the invoice?

To me, if this is true, FoFl is in the wrong here and I really do not understand why they would say differently.

I do think though that the 1/2 engine repair offer was FAIR. After all, a complete rebuild is more than just the valve train. It's a fresh engine at one-half the price. It's unfortunate but not a bad offer from my perspective.

 

But that's not the invoice. That's just an ad.

What does the invoice you signed say?

 

Guys I get that there is alot of vetting going on here... to which I know James and that he's straight up. Again, per my quote about not believing Sasquatch. I haven't seen what's written on the invoice.. but even if there is a "new gears used" on the invoice there are still going to be those incredulous on this site. Per what's been presented so far that an email server will have an IP address and timestamp BTW:

1) FOFl instructed him in email writing to take it to FCI as it is in the dealership network.
2) They sent the client an email stating in writing that new gears were used. They did not state "new used gears". "New gears". If he was not present for the work, we all have jobs and don't visually inspect every shingle that gets put on, etc. etc. I see how being emailed a picture of two gears, unless being told in writing with the picture that this exact gear presented is used and will be installed.. one has absolutely no reason to even know what they're looking at. New gear in writing means "New Gear". Not old.

Regardless of what's on the invoice and what's there in writing, there is some means to argue for misrepresentation here IMHO. Bad things happen, its how you manage them that angers the customer. In this case, it sounds like things could have been managed much much more smoothly on the part FOFl IMHO.

 

Bob, that's not the point. He ALREADY spent thousands before to fix this problem... that was insufficiently repaired and then wouldn't honor their written warranty.

 

sunk cost.


questions is wouldn't you have created more value by at least going along with the 1/2 cost split vs selling a non op car....................

 

+1 …It's ultimately what's on the contract (work order) and warranty statement that matters.

The garage always has an advantage and expertise over their customers as they are in business to specify the work, perform the work, know the risks and issue warranties that they can live with.

IMO, it is the responsibility of the service provider to inform the customer and to obtain a sign-off on any exceptions to their warranty if they need to indemnify themselves because of any limitations to the work they provide. The service provider must make sure there is written proof that the customer explicitly understands and agrees to any exceptions to the company's normal warranty.

INDEMNITY: security against or exemption from legal responsibility for one's actions.

 

Here's a question:

Who ended up buying the car for sub $20k? Would it be of the two dealers involved, by chance?

 

This is not true at all. I had a client with a VW Beetle that had a headgasket let go. She had someone else do the work. The cam was removed for head resurfacing. The way the 2.0 motors are, is you have to install the cam first, then the cam gear. No way around it. The person who put the motor back together did not torque the cam gear bolt down. The client then drove the car from Connecticut to Colorado and back again. It was only after driving it around in stop and go when back in CT, that the engine started to make noise. It only lasted about 60 miles until the car jumped time and smashed valves. Upon taking off the cam gear you can clearly see that the gear was allowed to move and had worn down until it was able to just fold over.

This is 100% installation error.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

No, what's on the invoice IS the issue. One miss written email does not prove anything.

And, how do you explain the dealer's email saying they explained to the OP it was used, showed it to him, and got his permission to use it?

That is either a bold faced lie or the truth. There is no middle ground here.

If the OP did not see the used part, did not acknowledge that it's used or give his permission to use it, and if the OP signed an invoice and paid for a new part and then later claimed was used, then FoFl has a serious problem.

If not, then FoFl is probably correct in not following through on a warranty for a used part when they said it would not be warranted.

 

No, warranty work has nothing to do with sunk costs.

Your suggestion that the OP's warranty claim should be considered sunk cost is like saying fixing damage caused by a bad repair job that has a warranty is something that all customers have to undertake at their own cost anyway.

I really don't see the logic in your suggestion.

I believe the OP lost all confidence in FoFL at that point. It's completely understandable if he had been lied to several times and had to fork out for a "diagnostic" that FoFL should have done themselves.

 

Right... it's a conspiracy between two dealers to steal this guy's car.

Makes perfect sense because we all know that 355's are going to be the next "Dino's".

 

If that's correct, an expert witness, a lawyer, $50K and at least a year (around here), and you have a shot at getting back ~$100K give or take depending on out of pockets, time, and diminished value.

 

The logic is that vrsurgeon hates all "stealerships" and if there's any issue between customer and "stealerships", the "stealership" must be wrong.

Coming from the other side of the fence, I like to see what is causing this because I don't believe FoFl is inherently dishonest if I were to read what I read here sometimes. But, there MUST BE a rectification of the idea that the dealer said they showed the OP the part, said it was used, and got his permission. Either that did or did not happen.

That to me is everything. If that did not happen, the dealership loses all credibility.


And, I think this "stealership" tried to figure a way all parties could find some agreement and accept some loss in the 1/2 price engine rebuild to settle it.

"The scum" -- how dare they.

 

+ 1000-

This entire thing boils down to proving if it was explained the part was used or not.

 

Yep -- well sort of. They could have put the old part back in as it's no longer available. That would have been used too. The question is did the OP believe it was used or new when it was installed and paid for. And, the dealer "claims" the OP saw it personally (ie: "inspected"), accepted it as used, and permitted it to be installed.

Either that happened or it's a lie.

And, did the OP pay for a new part on the invoice when it was later claimed by the dealer to be known to be used.

If it's a lie, the dealer has some explaining to do. Selling a used part as new is fraud, plain and simple. The question is, what's on the invoice.

 

Please. I am not *that* much of a conspiracist. But in my experience, money vectors and behavior go hand in hand and while it doesn't explain things, it is another piece of the whole picture. I highly doubt a dealer would care much either way but I am curious.

Whether or not a 355 would be the next Dino is ridiculous anyways because it's not like dealers keep cars long enough for any appreciation. They deal in $5k to $20k immediate margins (depending on the level of the car's pricing).

 

I understand and agree with your assessment and I am not necessarily vilifying FoFL. I am saying that if the OP has written documentation that supports his claims then these are the relevant arguments that would logically follow.

A lot of this case is hearsay on this forum so opinions and advice can only be considered under stated assumptions. So if the assumption is that the work order and warranty did not include any indemnifications from FoFL and FoFL actually agreed with the findings from FCI, then FoFL is logically responsible for covering the repairs because of their warranty.

IMO, there is a possibility an SA, foreman or even the shop manager was sloppy in not making sure the OP was properly informed of the used part, its risks and consequences as well as documenting the OP's consent to resulting limitations in the FoFL warranty.

Ultimately, as I said, the garage always has an advantage (provided they diligently perform their duty, like making sure the customer is informed and get written consent) before they undertake any work. But most business people these days are incredibly sloppy with issuing receipts and proper paperwork. But it's no excuse for covering their a$$ later.

 

For an old 355 both dealers are going to risk losing their licenses? Come on... let's be real.

You know, FNA can terminate their contract at any time. Lambo just did it last year to a dealer in Chicago.

The reason the OP gave up on the car is that it's not worth investing any more money in it. There's no money here "to steal".