Extended warranty claim and N rated tyres

[sidicks]

Baz99 said:

I'd stop digging if I were you

FFS - I've quoted your post!

[Baz99]

yes, selectively and usually out of context.

[sidicks]

Baz99 said:

yes, selectively and usually out of context.

Priceless...

On this thread, who has made the following claim:

Baz99 said:

..any such action will effectively void the contract because Porsche will immediately use this as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities.

[Baz99]

You seem to have missed the first art of the sentence. But this is all getting pointless, perhaps you will clarify what you think is significant with fitting non 'N' rated tyres.

[sidicks]

Baz99 said:

You seem to have missed the first art of the sentence. But this is all getting pointless, perhaps you will clarify what you think is significant with fitting non 'N' rated tyres.

More obfuscation on your part?

Who decides what is 'significant'?

[Baz99]

Well how do you feel about fitting non 'N' rated tyres

[sidicks]

Baz99 said:

Well how do you feel about fitting non 'N' rated tyres

My personal feelings are irrelevant...(and once again you avoid the question).

[Baz99]

Well this is all very amusing but there comes a point when other things need doing.

[sidicks]

Baz99 said:

Well this is all very amusing but there comes a point when other things need doing.

I guess that answering the reasonable questions posed to you isn't one of those 'things'?

Sorry you don't like it when your strawman argument is highlighted for the nonsense that it is!

[EnS]

Baz99 said:

Yes EnS, The OPC can exercise it's discretion with renewal as they are not bound by any agreements, some are stricter than others. A claimis different, there you have a contract.

Hang on a minute, are you saying there are some OPC's who have authorised the extended warranty without insisting, for example on N rated tyres or Porsche battery ( which was the original question) ? I find that hard to believe as there has been so much discussion on many threads on this subject.If that's the case many would head to one of these 'lenient' OPC's for their warranty renewal - any actual evidence ?

[Baz99]

No, I have no evidence of any particular OPC being more lenient. It's up to the guy doing the 111 check to decide if he needs to remove the brake pads say, but such things as non 'N' tyres and genuine batteries almost certainly wouldn't get through. One hears different stories, perhaps some feedback?

[BertBert]

So we understand what the agreement says. We have evidence of reasonable behaviour from Porsche. Is there any evidence of the unreasonable behaviour you are worried about?

sidicks said:

Baz99 said:

Evidence guy's? You are convinced that Porsche will behave unreasonably and screw you.

I don't believe anyone has said that - I think there are simply saying that there is a significant risk that in some circumstances Porsche could argue that a non-OPC part was the cause of the issue and it would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to prove otherwise. At the least you will incur significant inconvenience and cost in trying to do so.

Baz99 said:

Well, i have not experienced that and am still waiting evidence that this is their attitude.

Yes, your two claims are conclusive proof of your opinion...

Baz99 said:

Sidicks, try constructing a cohesive case.

Given that your who case is based solely on your 2 claims, I'm not sure you understand what a 'cohesive' case is!

Remind me of your legal qualifications, if you would...