jessejames

Update:

Two weeks have gone by. Nothing from Chambers with regard to honoring the Massachusetts warranty laws. Chambers continues to ignore Chapter 90laws regarding licensed dealer warranty obligations over and above manufacturers warranty. See all that above.

Clair Porsche, also Boston, did a great deal of warranty work recently with aplomb. Respect, concern, speedy, efficient, and professional are adjectives that come to mind. Tom Shanahan if you are reading this I gave your service department 10's across the board both on line and just now by a telephone call from Porsche. Thank you and your techs. I could not be more pleased.

HAMMER502

I AM SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR BAD EXPERIENCE,BUT IF I AM READING THE MA. LAW CORRECTLY I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE K40 REPAIR.THIS ITEM DOES NOT EFFECT THE DRIVEABILITY OR SAFETY OF THE VEHICLE,OF COURSE THIS IS JUST MY OPINION AND OTHERS WILL SURELY VARY.BTW WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE K40 AND HOW LONG HAD IT BEEN INSTALLED IN THE VEHICLE.I BELEIVE K40 HAS A WARRANTY BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG IT IS.

jessejames

Thank you. It is use or safety not driveability or safety. The law is clear. It is for all items not covered by the manufacturer concerning USE or safety and is relugated by the price you pay for the car and the miles on the odometer.

Strictly speaking Massachusetts law would cover the K40 advertised by Chambers even on a $700 car with less than 125,000 miles. K40's warranty is to the first owner for one year and is not transferable, so the owness is on Chambers. Hell, they even advertised the car as having a K40 as an inducement to buy...not a broken K40 but a working K40 and that is what any reasonble man would assume.

1AS

Does Mass. have a law on radar detectors? I kind of think any judge wouldn't look favorably upon a request to impose a "use" warranty on a device whose intended use is to violate speed laws.
It's kind of like the Menendez brothers asking for pity because they are orphans. Would your position be the same for a radar emitter (I think clearly an illegal device) or hidden flashing lights intending to create the illusion of a police vehicle? Obviously, these are extreme examples, and ridiculous when considered by themselves. But, I don't think radar detectors were intended by the framers of the law when they considedred the "use" wording. I kind of think you're beeping up the wrong tree. AS

jessejames

None whatsoever...It is considered an accessory and should be treated according to Ma law conerning dealer sales as just that, such as an aftermarket cd stacker should be treated. If they present the car as having thus and so accessory they are obligated by law to warranty it for a prescribed amount of time and mileage according the price and odometer. I think there may be a problem for warranty on an illegal item but not this.

Look at the sales offer they presented me below -->