Buckeyefan 1 said:
Were you successful in your legal pursuit? Sounds like a mfg. really pi$$ed you off. Can you elaborate?
I think it's approximately $85-$120 to file a small claims suit (anything under $2000 - may be higher now).
No, no problems with any manf. Only SVS but I never completed that purchase. The price-fixing and warranty thing has turned into a pet peeve of mine. When I started to shop for ht goodies I immediately noticed the price-fixing, which I knew was illegal (both fed and state). Then when I started reading the manf notices about warranty restrictions I decided it had to be wrong too but I wasn’t sure how. That’s why I went to an atty before I started buying my ht toys. Btw, finding an atty that is versed in warranty issues other than Lemon-Law (cars) is very difficult. From that atty I also learned about something called an ‘adhesion contract’.
An adhesion contract is a contract you enter into but had no way of negotiating the terms of. How the heck does that apply to audio/ht goodies? Well, every purchase is a contract. You agree to give the seller your money, and the seller agrees to give you an item in return. A lot of fed laws and FTC rules are based on the principle that all purchases are contracts. As long as manfs restrict warranties to specific retailers that have agreed to sell that manf’s product at ‘approved pricing’, you can never negotiate a better price for a piece of ht equipment w/warranty. So even if a manf could legally control the retail distribution of their product, they are still vulnerable to a lawsuit based on a claim of an adhesion contract. I would not hesitate to go down this road with two defendants; a manfr and a retailer.
I decided I couldn’t live without a Denon 3910, A-stock, w/warranty. It didn’t take long before Denon/D&M Holdings became a target of my frustration. Yes, I am DIY for lawsuits. No, I have never lost, but then I would never take on something that wasn’t absolutely sure about, either. California courts have no compassion for someone that brings a frivolous lawsuit, so I wouldn’t want to go there. Before I got too deep in my research, I stumbled onto something that dropped the skids on my pursuit of Denon.
I discovered some audio retailers have two divisions, one for consumer electronics, and one for pro audio. The consumer side is likely to be firmly entrenched as a player in the price-fixing scheme. However, the pro-audio side will wheel-n-deal on anything, even products from the consumer division. I bought a brand new Denon 3910, A-stock, with warranty for $1080, delivered to my door, from an authorized Denon retailer. That was less than purchasing A-stock thru an unauthorized dealer. MSRP is $1499. I presume the reseller isn’t taking a loss on selling me this single item, so the $419+ difference (don’t know what shipping cost the seller) gives you some idea of the markup/gravy on this Denon product. As a result, I didn’t need to pursue Denon, so I didn’t.
Also be aware that some chain stores cross territories for product distribution. So some stores of a chain may be in a territory that makes them an authorized dealer, while other stores may not. Sometimes the unauthorized link in the chain is happy to sell you product at a deep discount and have it shipped in from one of their authorized sister-stores. What you get is A-stock from an authorized dealer at a deep discount. If you are in the market for Krell product, don’t overlook this possibility.
California law does not allow for the removal or voiding of a product’s warranty by the manfr or anyone else. Furthermore, regardless of the absence of any expressed warranty (written), California law requires an implied warranty (unwritten) accompany all product. If Denon, or any other manf wants to play the ‘authorized dealer’ game, they have a problem in California. They would need to be shipping product only to authorized dealers, ‘les they create unreasonable confusion amongst buyers. And since authorized dealers are the ones supplying product to unauthorized dealers, the warranty is in place, and stays in place from that point on, as long as the product is being bought and sold as new.
Laws in each state differ. Anyone interested should check the laws in their state. Your state’s Atty General’s office is a good place to start.
I never got as far at fully researching the Magnuson-Moss Act (fed code, Title 15, Chapter 50). My initial conversation with the consumer help line at the FTC is that they interrupt the ‘authorized dealer’ clause in a warranty as a violation of the prohibition on ‘tie-in sales’ unless the manf could
“demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC” how sales of their product thru unauthorized dealers causes their product to somehow become non-functional. I presume lawyerly-types drafted the warranties so they would have known better, IF it is as the FTC suggested, but you can never be sure. I’m not a lawyer, I haven’t studied this part yet, so I don’t know. Also, the info I got from the FTC was verbal and everyone should know not to relay on anything verbal from the gov’t.
Fwiw, the FTC wants to receive complaints on the issue of limiting warranty coverage based on sales locations. Contact info for the FTC is at the bottom of this info on the Magnuson-Mass Act:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.htm