Extended warranty claim and N rated tyres
Discussion
sidicks said:
Baz99 said:
But my two claims are more than you are offering Sidicks.
Like the other informed people on here, including some knowledgable legal types, I'm just pointing out the (massive) flaws in your argument:1) your own limited experience is meaningless
2) you still seem unable to understand who determines what is 'reasonable' and the implications thereof
3) you seem oblivious to the potential practical implications of your approach
Baz99 said:
I have never claimed a legal qualification, so how can I remind you?
Exactly!Edited by sidicks on Monday 29th May 10:12
Any contract or agreement relies on both parties behaving reasonably, in the final analysis a court would decide.
I have consistently pointed out the risks associated with parts, service or modifications that may cross the line. We have been discussing the relevance of minor things like tyres, batteries wipers etc.
Ultimately it's all down to common sense and trust.
Baz99 said:
Why is my experience meaningless, it's more than you are providing.
It's basically meaningless in the context of future claims for other people with different claims and different modifications judged by different OPCs. I'm unclear why you can't understand that basic concept.Baz99 said:
Any contract or agreement relies on both parties behaving reasonably, in the final analysis a court would decide.
You still haven't defined 'reasonably'?Who gets to decide what is reasonable?
Do you expect ALL refused claims to go to court?
Baz99 said:
I have consistently pointed out the risks associated with parts, service or modifications that may cross the line. We have been discussing the relevance of minor things like tyres, batteries wipers etc.
Who defines what that line is?In whose opinion are tyres and batteries a 'minor' thing?
Baz99 said:
Ultimately it's all down to common sense and trust.
Those well defined legal terms 'common sense' and 'trust'...
Edited by sidicks on Monday 29th May 10:34
Stop nit picking Sidicks.
Ultimately we have established that fitting non genuine parts, non OPC servicing or even modifications does not void your warranty because there is no clause to say it does, only that such action could affect a claim if responsibility can be attributed to those parts, servicing or modifications. So fitting non 'N' tyres does not void your policy.
The basis of your argument is that any such action will effectively void the contract because Porsche will immediately use this as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. In my experience this is not the case, enquiries with Porsche GB have confirmed this, you have provided no evidence or examples to justify your opinions.
I have sought to reasonably explain how the contract works, to dispel the myth that you can't do anything to the car but also to point out the obvious risk of crossing the line.
It's all very simple really.
Ultimately we have established that fitting non genuine parts, non OPC servicing or even modifications does not void your warranty because there is no clause to say it does, only that such action could affect a claim if responsibility can be attributed to those parts, servicing or modifications. So fitting non 'N' tyres does not void your policy.
The basis of your argument is that any such action will effectively void the contract because Porsche will immediately use this as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities. In my experience this is not the case, enquiries with Porsche GB have confirmed this, you have provided no evidence or examples to justify your opinions.
I have sought to reasonably explain how the contract works, to dispel the myth that you can't do anything to the car but also to point out the obvious risk of crossing the line.
It's all very simple really.
Edited by Baz99 on Monday 29th May 10:52
Baz99 said:
Stop nit picking Sidicks.
Ultimately we have established that fitting non genuine parts, non OPC servicing or even modifications does not void your warranty because there is no clause to say it does, only that such action could affect a claim if responsibility can be attributed to those parts, servicing or modifications. So fitting non 'N' tyres does not void your policy.
The only point at which we can confirm whether the warranty is valid or not is at the point of claim. At that time Porsche will decide. HTH.Ultimately we have established that fitting non genuine parts, non OPC servicing or even modifications does not void your warranty because there is no clause to say it does, only that such action could affect a claim if responsibility can be attributed to those parts, servicing or modifications. So fitting non 'N' tyres does not void your policy.
What you actually mean is that "fitting non genuine parts, non OPC servicing or even modifications does not void your warranty, unless your OPC says it does'
Baz99 said:
The basis of your argument is that any such action will effectively void the contract because Porsche will immediately use this as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities.
I've said no such thing and nor has anyone else - if you can't understand the basic point being made, please don't bother to try.Baz99 said:
In my experience this is not the case, enquiries with Porsche GB have confirmed this, you have provided no evidence or examples to justify your opinions.
Porsche GB have confirmed your experience?You've still failed to answer the basic questions put to you!
Baz99 said:
I have sought to reasonably explain how the contract works, to dispel the myth that you can't do anything to the car but also to point out the obvious risk of crossing the line.
Once again, there is no such myth. You understanding is significantly flawed.Baz99 said:
It's all very simple really.
You certainly appear to be!Edited by sidicks on Monday 29th May 11:12
You're pretending that everyone is claiming that the policy is void and that no claims can be made once an OPC spots a non-approved part.
I think you know very well what they're saying, and persisting with this little semantic hook is pretty silly.
What is the point of a warranty that is not technically void, but also won't pay out a claim?
I think you know very well what they're saying, and persisting with this little semantic hook is pretty silly.
What is the point of a warranty that is not technically void, but also won't pay out a claim?
Sustenpass said:
You're pretending that everyone is claiming that the policy is void and that no claims can be made once an OPC spots a non-approved part.
I think you know very well what they're saying, and persisting with this little semantic hook is pretty silly.
What is the point of a warranty that is not technically void, but also may notwon't pay out a claim?
I think you know very well what they're saying, and persisting with this little semantic hook is pretty silly.
What is the point of a warranty that is not technically void, but also may not
(with one slight amendment, in bold!)
Sustenpass said:
You're pretending that everyone is claiming that the policy is void and that no claims can be made once an OPC spots a non-approved part.
I think you know very well what they're saying, and persisting with this little semantic hook is pretty silly.
What is the point of a warranty that is not technically void, but also won't pay out a claim?
I'm not sure Sidicks understands this.I think you know very well what they're saying, and persisting with this little semantic hook is pretty silly.
What is the point of a warranty that is not technically void, but also won't pay out a claim?
Baz99 said:
Sustenpass said:
You're pretending that everyone is claiming that the policy is void and that no claims can be made once an OPC spots a non-approved part.
I think you know very well what they're saying, and persisting with this little semantic hook is pretty silly.
What is the point of a warranty that is not technically void, but also won't pay out a claim?
I'm not sure Sidicks understands this.I think you know very well what they're saying, and persisting with this little semantic hook is pretty silly.
What is the point of a warranty that is not technically void, but also won't pay out a claim?
Baz99 said:
You're pretending that everyone is claiming that the policy is void and that no claims can be made once an OPC spots a non-approved part.
I'm claiming no such thing.Baz99 said:
That's not what I am saying is it Sidicks, quite the opposite.
Really? And yet that seems to be exactly what you've claimed previously:Baz99 said:
The basis of your argument is that any such action will effectively void the contract because Porsche will immediately use this as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities.
Neither I, nor anyone else on this thread, has made any such claim.Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff