Jon C

then shame on them for trying to modify the terms now.

As you said, though I hope it's several years til I replace my '01 A6 Avant, if that change is true then an Audi certified used car will likely drop out of the picture next time (I'm done buying $35-40k cars).

Cheers,
Jon

Jon C

---even if you rotate and balance every x thousand miles (unless you call that a specified maint. interval) they're gonna wear out...

I don't so much have a problem w/ calling control arm bushings (which is what fails) a wear and tear item as I do changing terms of existing contracts (forget it).

That's why I only would buy a service contract that includes wear and tear on items it covers (we had control arms replaced under one on our Passat) and my xt contract on the A6 covers them too.

Jon

uberlinkA5

Aren't tires always excluded?

Jon C

they don't have a specific maint/replacement interval in my owners manual, yet they are undoubtedly wear & tear items, hence the attempted definition is a good try but doesn't work.

IMO control arm bushings are wear & tear items, the appalling thing is how regularly they go on Audi/VWs and after how few miles (which is why I want my xtended servc. K to cover them). More appalling is the attempt to change the terms of an existing contract to exclude them.

regards,
Jon

uberlinkA5

it beats the heck out of no definition at all! As it stands now, it seems Audi feels free to decide post hoc that they're having to cover too may X's, and therefore X is a normal wear and tear item which is not covered. What would happen if they suddenly realized, for example, that transmissions were going out very frequently at around 60,000 miles. Could they then say that these ordinarily run out at 60k miles, so they aren't covered? That wouldn't make sense.

I like the proposed definition. To the extent that it fails to exclude tires, we could just say, "Tires are also excluded." I suspect they are among the many parts that are specifically excluded.

Jon C

that's elementary first year contracts in law school.

There's no "consideration" for the unilateral modification, I can't see anyone with a half decent lawyer losing if they take Audi on over this.

best,
Jon

uberlinkA5

If the contract contains a general exclusion of normal wear and tear items, however, then if "normal wear and tear items" is undefined, a court would have to construe the meaning of the phrase. Audi isn't really changing the terms of the contract itself, but changing its reading of what the contract promises. But their interpretation opens the door to basically anything being counted as a normal wear and tear item and renders the promise of warranty coverage illusory. Of course, no court would accept an interpretation of a contract that makes the contract meaningless!

All I was saying is that I think jhuston4 has suggested a pretty reasonable read of the phrase that a court might accept, particularly given that ambiguous contract terms are generally construed against the drafter.

So I'm with you. I think Audi would lose this one.