Hacker News Reader

Comment by DonbunEf7 | Hacker News Reader

In short, yes.

An analogy with cars, where the same law already is being applied, will work. (Do we still do car analogies in 2018? And on sites which aren't Slashdot?) Suppose you get your brakes changed at some place which is well-known for brake repair. Then, later, your engine dies but the manufacturer's warranty should still be valid. Then, if the manufacturer wants to claim that the third-party brake repair is the cause of the engine failure (and thus that the warranty is invalidated), the burden of evidence is on them.

View on HN

In general, yes, however - the manufacturer is unfortunately the one who is responsible for both producing and validating the burden of evidence. I know someone with a very expensive car(Audi RS6) who had an aftermarket exhaust and in year 2 of ownership the engine died - Audi refused warranty repair, saying that the modified exhaust could have changed the outgoing pressure of the gasses and caused the engine failure....and they are not wrong, but at the same time the character of the failure made it really obvious the issue was elsewhere. But the manufacturer says that it's caused by something you did so that's that. The whole case is being decided by the court right now, but it's anyone's guess which way it will go - and I suspect it will be ruled in favour of Audi.

Nah.. expert witnesses will show it was a failure elsewhere. Also the aftermarket exhaust will have design specs within tolerances of the OEM. You can run an engine with no exhaust just fine. It will be expensive to litigate that though, maybe more than the cost of the engine repair itself. They should probably include the aftermarket exhaust manufacturer in the suit as well. They have a vested interest in Audi not winning. After market parts have a long history of litigation especially with insurance company repairs. If they are effectively within spec your friend should be fine.

Yes, an independent expert will show that, but the issue here is that the cost if litigation is not zero, and the whole case could take months in courts - all while you're making payments for a car you can't drive at all. And yes, you can produce a witness that will say "this damage wasn't caused by the aftermarket exhaust" and Audi will produce a written statement by their engineering team in Ingolstadt staying "this damage was caused by the aftermarket exhaust" - and which side will the judge side with? The makers of the engine, or an independent expert? I have no doubt that Audi would lie(or at least make statements which are not false but are not necessarily applicable in this situation) about it to get out of replacing an engine for an RS6. I agree that involving the manufacturer of the exhaust would have been a good idea.

Unless Audi has more than "well that could have caused it" they will lose...

They will need to prove the failure was more likely than not caused directly by aftermarket part, I am actually surprised they are taking it that far instead of of just offer some kind of fractional settlement, i.e covering 80% of the repair or something.

Car warranties some times also requires that you follow the service interval and that it was done at authorized dealer giving you that shiny sticker in your service book

Reply on news.ycombinator.com