by Oscar (Oz) de Jongh

Ever been told that you must have your new bike worked on by the dealer? Or that using non-OEM parts will void your warranty? Most of us have, or at least we have a riding buddy that has. Some owners have wrongfully been denied warranty claims by dealers using the claim that some aftermarket part or non-dealer repair has voided their warranty.

In most cases nothing could be further from the truth. I won't speculate whether some dealers are being dishonest, ignorant, or just using scare tactics in an attempt to damage their independent competitors. You be the judge of that.

Legally, a vehicle manufacturer cannot void the warranty on a vehicle due to an aftermarket part unless they can prove that the aftermarket part caused or contributed to the failure in the vehicle (per the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)) http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.htm#Magnuson-Moss.

To deny warranty coverage, a manufacturer must prove that you or an independent shop has done something to cause the problem. It is not up to you or the independent shop to prove that they have not. Its one thing to have the service writer say you or your independent shop is at fault and quite another to have a large manufacturer go on record that you or your independent repair shop caused the problem. It is very difficult for the manufacturer to do, especially if your independent shop is using the manufacturers recommended procedures and specifications. With regards to performance upgrades, pipes etc., unless there are significant cases already on the books and the manufacturer can produce a genuine engineering study indicating that, a combination of accessories installed will cause engine damage, they will have a great deal of difficulty making a strong argument that will stand the scrutiny of litigation or arbitration.

With regards to modifications, the less related modification and a problem are, the better the case for warranty coverage. To deny warranty coverage during the specified warranty period, the manufacturer must prove not only that something was done in breach of the warranty, but also that whatever was done actually caused the problem you're trying to get covered under warranty. In other words, installing a set of shocks or an aftermarket exhaust will have no result on a cam-chain tensioner failing. If you have tensioner failure but had other engine modifications made, the manufacturer still has to prove, conclusively, that whatever was done created the problem.

Local independent shops can be an excellent alternative for service, repair, and accessories. They typically offer a very high level of service, customer satisfaction, and excellent turnaround. Since your independent shop cannot count on new bike sales to make a living, the focus is on providing you with a great value proposition and retaining a loyal customer base. They can usually provided service at a lower cost than the dealers due to a reduction in the overhead associated with a franchise.

With regards to your motorcycle's warranty, let's set the record straight. In 1975 the US Congress passed the Magnuson-Moss Act to protect consumers. The Magnuson-Moss Act is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties and falls under the auspices of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Act requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. In addition, it affects both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors under written warranties.

The Magnuson-Moss Act creates a simplified method of remedy. Warranty claims must be remedied by the repair or replacement of affected parts, including labor. If the dealership refuses to do the work as specified under the warranty, it is putting the actual warrantor—the manufacturer of the motorcycle—in breach of the warranty. (The dealership itself does not automatically become a co-warrantor, though it may be liable under other state laws for the merchantability of the product.) Generally speaking, the Act encourages informal arbitration of the matter outside the courts, but maintains the consumer's right to file suit for breach of contract. In this case, the consumer can sue for damages, replacement of the vehicle, and loss of value among other things. And, should he prevail, may recoup reasonable court and attorney's fees.

There are three prohibitions under the Magnuson-Moss Act. They involve; so-called "tie-in sales" provisions, deceptive or misleading warranty terms, and implied warranties.

"Tie-in Sales" provisions are NOT allowed in consumer warranties. Manufacturers cannot require consumers to purchase items or services from a specific dealer in order to keep their warranty valid. In other words, the consumer cannot be required to exclusively use a dealer or a specific brand of parts to maintain the warranty on the motorcycle. Also, the motorcycle manufacturer or dealer CANNOT state that the bike's warranty is void if services are performed by an independent shop or other "brands" of parts are used. If a manufacturers warranty covers both the parts and labor for making a repair, the Act applies to labor/services. Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, a manufacturer can include such a provision in their written warranty if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that their motorcycle will not work properly without a specified part or service.

Deceptive or misleading terms must not be contained in warranties. A manufacturer cannot offer a warranty that appears to provide coverage but, in fact, provides none. For example, a warranty covering only "moving parts" on an electronic product that has no moving parts would be deceptive and unlawful. Disclaimer or Modification of Implied Warranties is prohibited. This means that no matter how broad or narrow the manufacturer's written warranty is, the customers will always receive the basic protection of the implied warranty of merchantability. If a dealer sells a consumer product with a written warranty from the product manufacturer, but they do not warrant the product in writing, they can disclaim their implied warranties (these are the implied warranties under which the dealer, not the manufacturer, would otherwise be responsible). Regardless of whether the dealer warrants the bikes they sell, as a seller, they must give their customers copies of any written warranties from the manufacturer.

Congress specified a number of requirements that warrantors must meet. Congress also directed the FTC to adopt rules to cover other requirements. The FTC adopted three Rules under the Act, the Rule on Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions (the Disclosure Rule), the Rule on Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms (the Pre-Sale Availability Rule), and the Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule). In addition, the FTC has issued an interpretive rule that clarifies certain terms and explains some of the provisions of the Act.

The Act and the Rules establish three basic requirements. As a warrantor, the manufacturer must designate, or title, their written warranty as either "full" or "limited" As a warrantor, they must state certain specified information about the coverage of the warranty in a single, clear, and easy-to read document. As a warrantor or a seller, the manufacturer and the dealer must ensure that warranties are available where the warranted products are sold so that consumers can read them before buying.

Two other features of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are also important to warrantors. First, the Act makes it easier for consumers to take an unresolved warranty problem to court. Second, it encourages companies to use a less formal, and therefore less costly, alternative to legal proceedings. Such alternatives, known as dispute resolution mechanisms, often can be used to settle warranty complaints before they reach litigation.

The Act makes it easier for purchasers to sue for breach of warranty by making breach of warranty a violation of federal law, and by allowing consumers to recover court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Because of the stringent federal jurisdictional requirements under the Act, most Magnuson-Moss lawsuits are brought in state court. However, major cases involving many consumers can be brought in federal court as class action suits under the Act.

So pay your local independent a visit, talk to them and see what they can offer you. Remember that reputable independents hire and retain excellent staff, use proven quality parts, and work very hard to earn and keep your business. Lastly, having them do your services (including your first service) will not void your warranty.