Well, someone's gotta make a first post, I guess.
Around 6 months ago, I took my car to a regional chain mechanic shop for a decent chunk of work (timing assembly replaced). About 5 months later, it died in the driveway.
I took it back to them and they ultimately told me I have a spun bearing and that the entire motor would need to be replaced. Neither me nor a friend of mine were satisfied with this answer (for one, a spun bearing wouldn’t destroy the motor), so we investigated it briefly with a scope and discovered what we both suspected: that the timing assembly is indeed destroyed, which contradicts the mechanics words that “the timing assembly is fine”, which I had asked him explicitly to check, since it was worked on recently.
I also read through their warranty, and found two problematic clauses:
When warranty service is requested, this warranty shall not be valid if the customer does not permit [REDACTED] to install all necessary parts and/or perform all necessary services needed to restore the vehicle for safe operation or that would allow the warranted part to operate in the manner it was intended.
THIS WARRANY DOES NOT COVER THE COST OF REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY PART THAT IS DAMAGED DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE WARRANTED PARTS OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF TIME, INCONVENIENCE, LOSS OF USE OF VEHICLE, TOWING CHARGES OR OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
Is there any chance either of these is illegal or unenforceable? The "consequential damages" waiver feels particularly egregious to me, like it might violate some consumer protection laws.
Normally, small claims court would be the option to go for if the mechanic refuses to acknowledge liability for the motor, would it not? Does the warranty make that option worthless?
First, the disclaimer. I'm not a lawyer and I am not providing any legal services -- I am simply sharing my knowledge and understanding.
The first of the two paragraphs that you quote seems to me like it is completely reasonable and I can think of no reason it would not be completely enforceable. If you went to make a warranty claim because the timing had destroyed your engine and they needed to replace a spark plug and you said, "no, I refuse to let you replace a spark plug", then they would be well within their rights to say, "in that case, I can't really help you".
The second sentence of the second paragraph that you quote also sounds like a typical restriction on liability. It simply says that they are not liable for your costs in renting a car while waiting for yours to be fixed. There may be state laws in some jurisdictions that make that exclusion unenforceable, but I don't know enough to help you there.
Finally, the first sentence of the second paragraph that you quote seems to claim that they are not responsible for any damages that are consequences of the repair they made. That doesn't really sound enforceable to me, but I am definitely not an expert and I have no idea what jurisdiction you are in anyway.
Yeah, that last bit is really the one that bugs me. You do shoddy work and it breaks my whole damn engine, and you're not liable for it?
For the first paragraph, the scenario I'm thinking is more like "Why would I want you to do the repairs when you've already proven you're not good at it? I'd rather take fair-market value in cash." Not that I think this was necessarily negligence or incompetence in this case.
IANAL but lots of people put unenforceable clauses in contracts just to make laymen think they don't have a shot.
A common one is "this parking lot is not responsible for damage to your car".
To me, small claims is cheap and worth a shot, especially on that first one. Your reasoning is easy to follow.