Talk:Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The Act Might Not Be That Clear Anyway
From an article called "A Retrospective Look at the Vehicle Service Industry" at http://www.fi-magazine.com/t_print.cfm?action=article_pick&storyID=1090:
"As longstanding as that law is today, I don't know of any two lawyers who can agree on all its meanings and implications. One of the original authors of the law described it as broad, which I think says it all." 65.5.11.253 16:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
My experience is that if you're not a lawyer, confusion is the order of the day when it comes to a lot of legislation. That being said, I didin't have any problem understanding the existing language in the article. Don't know how accurate it is (IANAL), but it seems to follow from the wording in the origianl Public Law (which I did read). I'm going to go ahead and remove the notice at the top which has been there since February, 2007. I don't think it inappropriate to put a different template up pleading for a re-write, but saying a law is confusing is kind of redundant. - Quartermaster 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additional coverage requested on effect of product modifications
Perhaps the most common reason people bring up Magnuson-Moss is to describe the effect of the law on end-user or third-party modifications.
It's my understanding that even if a company says that modifications will void a product's warranty, this is true only with respect to the modified elements. That is, if you modify your car's engine, the engine may no longer be covered, but the seat upholstery still is. In a computer product, adding a compatible memory module does not void the warranty on the processor.
It'd be nice to see someone cover this issue here in a more authoritative way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.48.196.9 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
