Re: Re: RE: K&N -- good people, good product.

From: andy levy (andy-dml@levyclan.us)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 20:44:00 EDT

And that's fine. In the case of a K&N disintegrating on a Cummins.
It's already been proven to be a problem.

But the dealer can't "refuse to acknowledge warranty coverage on any
part of the vehicle for whatever excuse he wishes to make" on a warranty
claim I make on my Dakota unless he can prove it.

Bernd D. Ratsch wrote:

> In the case of the K&N filters on the Cummins engines...proof is already
> there with documentation to back it up. Warranty is void - no recourse
> available.
>
> - Bernd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of andy levy
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 7:16 PM
> To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
> Subject: Re: DML: Re: RE: K&N -- good people, good product.
>
>
>
> Tubamirbls@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>Any dealer can refuse to acknowledge warranty coverage on any part of
>>the
>>vehicle for whatever excuse he wishes to make. That's why Chrysler
>
> has an
>
>>appeals procedure in place for the customer to seek redress.
>
>
> Law trumps Chrysler. The burden of *proof* rests on Chrysler's
> shoulders when refusing warranty coverage for "any excuse he wishes to
> make."
> 

-- 
-andy

http://home.twcny.rr.com/andylevy/dakota - andy-dml@levyclan.us
--------------------------------------------
"Whatever Adam does, do the opposite and you'll be fine"
	-Bob Tom
--------------------------------------------

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:47:02 EST