So I went to a fair trading seminar

[Bug_racer]

Interesting that they are considering this as an across-the-board ban on all cars driven at a track.

I'm not sure how that will work with the warranty on my new 911 GT3 RS, Gallardo Superleggera Super Trofeo, F430 Challenge Stradale etc etc. All of those cars are specifically built, marketed and sold as road-registerable track cars, so a NSW body trying to blanket ban all warranty claims if those cars are taken on the track will be in violation of the new Commonwealth Australian Consumer Laws regarding the suitability of goods for the purpose for which they were sold.

As Ive stated earlier , if its in the contract then it wont apply !

Should I bring up the whole Nissan R35 GTR launch control saga and warranty to demonstrate whats written in the contract outweighs local governing bodies ? Besides , if the manufacturer does decide not to give you warranty on your Porsche GT3 cause you did a track day and on your contract states you can then you would win the case anyway wouldnt you ?

[jamesatfish]

As Ive stated earlier , if its in the contract then it wont apply !

Should I bring up the whole Nissan R35 GTR launch control saga and warranty to demonstrate whats written in the contract outweighs local governing bodies ?

To me the issue is not whether the sales contract specifically voids the warranty in the event of track use - this is a pretty clear case as you've mentioned above. I don't know about the R35 contract situation so can't offer an opinion there, other than to note that those issues arose before the new Australian Consumer Laws came into effect in 2011.

The issue to me is whether warranties can be blanket voided by a state Fair Trading body where the sales contract contains no such provision.

I just re-checked the contracts of the last few cars I purchased - none have any clauses with regards to warranty or intended use of the vehicle. Indeed there is a clause in most of them to the effect that the contract specifically does not exclude any rights under statutory warranties conferred by Commonwealth, State or Territory laws.

To that extent, if I purchase a vehicle where it is reasonable to expect that suitability for track driving is part of the product offered for sale by the dealer (for example the GT3 / Super Trofeo type cars, or even an FPV where part of the purchase includes driving 'on a track'), then I find it hard to imagine that my consumer rights with regards to goods being 'fit for purpose' could be negated by this type of blanket ban.

Besides , if the manufacturer does decide not to give you warranty on your Porsche GT3 cause you did a track day and on your contract states you can then you would win the case anyway wouldnt you ?

As a retailer, it is now illegal to display any signage or attempt to enforce any contract which would violate a consumer's rights under the new ACLs. For instance, a store cannot display a 'No Refunds or Returns' sign as this policy would violate the consumer's right to return faulty goods for repair or refund. Similarly I would find it hard to imagine a dealer selling a GT3 RS could advertise the product as being designed for use on a track and then attempt to enforce a contract voiding the consumer's rights to a product that is 'fit for purpose'.

[Tim]

Thats it. The customer has rights, but then so does the reseller/manufacturer. There will always be a grey area over "abuse" no matter how much legislation is written.

[Bug_racer]

To me the issue is not whether the sales contract specifically voids the warranty in the event of track use - this is a pretty clear case as you've mentioned above. I don't know about the R35 contract situation so can't offer an opinion there, other than to note that those issues arose before the new Australian Consumer Laws came into effect in 2011.

The issue to me is whether warranties can be blanket voided by a state Fair Trading body where the sales contract contains no such provision.

I just re-checked the contracts of the last few cars I purchased - none have any clauses with regards to warranty or intended use of the vehicle. Indeed there is a clause in most of them to the effect that the contract specifically does not exclude any rights under statutory warranties conferred by Commonwealth, State or Territory laws.

To that extent, if I purchase a vehicle where it is reasonable to expect that suitability for track driving is part of the product offered for sale by the dealer (for example the GT3 / Super Trofeo type cars, or even an FPV where part of the purchase includes driving 'on a track'), then I find it hard to imagine that my consumer rights with regards to goods being 'fit for purpose' could be negated by this type of blanket ban.



As a retailer, it is now illegal to display any signage or attempt to enforce any contract which would violate a consumer's rights under the new ACLs. For instance, a store cannot display a 'No Refunds or Returns' sign as this policy would violate the consumer's right to return faulty goods for repair or refund. Similarly I would find it hard to imagine a dealer selling a GT3 RS could advertise the product as being designed for use on a track and then attempt to enforce a contract voiding the consumer's rights to a product that is 'fit for purpose'.

Here is the R35 situation : REPORT: Nissan GT-R class action suit over transmission failures settled . Its basically about using launch control and warranties .

Ok in your service book it clearly states the following :

What repairs must I pay for ?
- Ordinary wear and tear, or wear and tear caused by use of your vehicle for racing, rallying , speed trial , hill climbing or similar activities or competitive events or for a purpose other than for which it was designed (e.g. , all terrain use )

So its in writing in a service book that should have been read anyway . I'll get a contract out and let you know what it states there .


Also you need to stop looking at it from a customers perspective , where would you draw the line ?
You buy tyres from Bob Jane , go do burnouts , the tyres last 100km , you come back with bald tyres - do you expect a warranty claim to actually hold ?

You buy a Porsche GT3 and say it has a 3 year 100k km warranty and its a dedicated race car , Would you really expect Porsche to fork out for a new engine/gearbox if you blow one doing 240+ down the main straight at Bathurst ? Im yet to see any regular insurance (except Shannons) that has any kind of accident damage on a race track , why shouldnt manufacturers/parts suppliers have the same ?

[Drift]

Launch control is bound to become more of a contentious issue with more manufacturers including it in their vehicles. Any dealer trying to wriggle their way out of a warranty claim as a result of transmission failure for the use of LC in Australia is going to have an interesting time justifying their position under the ACL especially if the vehicle's completely stock. As for specifics being written into the contract of sale, the legislation is very strict and clear around unfair contract terms on consumer contracts.

[jamesatfish]

Ok in your service book it clearly states the following :

<snip>

You buy a Porsche GT3 and say it has a 3 year 100k km warranty and its a dedicated race car , Would you really expect Porsche to fork out for a new engine/gearbox if you blow one doing 240+ down the main straight at Bathurst ? Im yet to see any regular insurance (except Shannons) that has any kind of accident damage on a race track , why shouldnt manufacturers/parts suppliers have the same ?

I'm not sure that statements in a service book can be considered contractually binding - for one they do not form part of the terms and conditions to which a customer agrees when making the vehicle purchase, and in many cases the contents of the service books are not available to read until after the vehicle is purchased.

In regards to the GT3 eating an engine at Bathurst - yes I would expect this to be covered by Porsche warranty as long as the issue would have been covered had it occurred elsewhere. That is, if the engine died due to mechanical failure not driver abuse (and the ecu electronics are pretty good at identifying driver abuse) then yes Porsche should cover the failure under warranty.

If Porsche markets the GT3 as suitable for use on the circuit (as they do) then mechanical failures on the circuit should be covered by warranty.

You mentioned that Fair Trading wanted to ban warranty claims if a car had ever been on a track, even if the failure occurred away from the track. My Cayenne Turbo once blew some manifold hoses under a heavy torque low revs situation (towing a car trailer) and needed repair under warranty. This was a manufacturing flaw from the factory. Should this claim have been denied under this blanket policy because I've taken the car to the track on numerous occasions?

Keep in mind this is a 'fit for purpose' position. I am not advocating that Toyota cover an engine failure in my HiAce when it dies on the racetrack, as there's no suggestion that the van was marketed as a track car. But where it can be shown that a manufacturer has made claims that a vehicle is suitable for use on a track then statutory warranty should apply in all cases where the car did not perform as claimed.

[gareth_oau]

Interestly bug_racer, I would imagine that no court in the land would accept wording like you have specifed in a service manual as being contractually binding.

to be binding, the dealer would have to explicitly provide you with the manual to read before signing the sales contract (and proof of this occurring).

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

LOL james, we think and type alike!!

[jamesatfish]

Launch control is bound to become more of a contentious issue with more manufacturers including it in their vehicles. Any dealer trying to wriggle their way out of a warranty claim as a result of transmission failure for the use of LC in Australia is going to have an interesting time justifying their position under the ACL especially if the vehicle's completely stock. As for specifics being written into the contract of sale, the legislation is very strict and clear around unfair contract terms on consumer contracts.

Indeed - and I suspect the battle lines will be drawn on the issue as to what are consumable items.

The owners manual for the e-gear Gallardo warns that use of launch control will result in quicker clutch wear, but does not state that transmission failures caused by use of launch control will not be covered by warranty. Indeed, by providing and documenting the procedure for using launch control they are stating that using the feature is a standard use of the car fully covered by warranty.

The only possible out would be to argue that the transmission itself (that is, the cogs and gears) is a consumable item. That's a big leap and I think a tough sell for the first dealer / manufacturer who has to fight a claim on that basis.

[mfl]

ATECO, the importers of Alfas & Fiats (and many other cars) have long been using the excuse of drivers over-revving cars not to honour warranties, one particular case was one driver who over-revved his Fiat 166 times and another , an driver Alfa 147, 20 times ! apparently, yes they have rev limiters.

As mentioned, though there is a significant difference between wear & tear and abuse, if I wear out my clutch in 6 months, because I spend my weekends at Wakefield, then so be it, if my clutch self-destructs and its not driver abuse, why shouldn't the warranty cover it, if the cars is unmodified.

[SMOK3Y]

In regards to the GT3 eating an engine at Bathurst - yes I would expect this to be covered by Porsche warranty as long as the issue would have been covered had it occurred elsewhere. That is, if the engine died due to mechanical failure not driver abuse (and the ecu electronics are pretty good at identifying driver abuse) then yes Porsche should cover the failure under warranty.

lol you expect alot mate!!

[gecko2k]

lol you expect alot mate!!

Why? In other countries Porsche drivers will hit the same speed legally on public roads! There is no difference to it if you hit 200/250/300km/h on the autobahn or on a race track. The engine will work or not work the same way under full throttle!

So would you expect Porsche NOT to fix your GT3 if it blew up under 100% legal conditions on the autobahn when still under warranty?

[SMOK3Y]

Why? In other countries Porsche drivers will hit the same speed legally on public roads! There is no difference to it if you hit 200/250/300km/h on the autobahn or on a race track. The engine will work or not work the same way under full throttle!

So would you expect Porsche NOT to fix your GT3 if it blew up under 100% legal conditions on the autobahn when still under warranty?

that is totally different IMO my opinion none the less. and another note point out an autobahn to me in australia.. it has nothing to do with us.

[Bug_racer]

Why? In other countries Porsche drivers will hit the same speed legally on public roads! There is no difference to it if you hit 200/250/300km/h on the autobahn or on a race track. The engine will work or not work the same way under full throttle!

So would you expect Porsche NOT to fix your GT3 if it blew up under 100% legal conditions on the autobahn when still under warranty?

We have ADRs here for our conditions . We also have our own crash tests . They have TUV which isnt recognised in Australia so it doesnt matter . Apples to oranges in this case .


The thing which strikes me is how much people believe the consumer has the right to abuse what they buy and expect warranty on it !
If you bought a kettle and dropped it from the 5th storey floor , would you take it back and claim "it shouldnt have done that , it should be stronger"

The other thing that people forget is that even though there is no contract with warranty repairs , it can go either way . And also where is the line drawn in terms of whats abuse and whats normal . You could sit at 6000rpm for 24/7 for 365 days then come in for a service with less than 100kms and that still wouldnt be considered abuse since its within the operating conditions of the car and within the service schedule ?

[gecko2k]

that is totally different IMO my opinion none the less. and another note point out an autobahn to me in australia.. it has nothing to do with us.

I didn't mention any autobahns or autobahn-like highways in Australia. If you know of some shoot me a pm

[SMOK3Y]

Well why bring up autbahns in ya original statement?