That is why it is impossible in the service to put the b/u parts on the car
Repair using used parts, who is to blame: the Car or the motorist
“Avaricious pays twice” – says the proverb.
We all like to operate their cars and none of us want our iron horse stood idle from-for breakages. Even worse is that when the inevitable happens – the car breaks down, he has to invest. Of the cost sometimes does not save even the presence of the manufacturer’s warranty, to say nothing about fixing used cars? There is therefore nothing strange in the fact that every car owner tries one way or another to save money.
Someone buys a new aftermarket parts, someone, on the contrary, to save money on car service, preferring to resolve the damage yourself, and someone puts the car used the details. This is today and will talk. The story in colors tells us about the greed and excessive stupidity of some motorists.
Most adults know that any items, including vehicles, must be purchased on the basis of their financial capabilities. Buying a more expensive used car can result in various problems ranging from money, ending the litigation.
A motorist from Siberia proved it by experience. Not new premium Porsche Cayenne SUV started having problems with the engine. In the service station said that the need to repair. Well, I thought, the owner of a luxury SUV, engine isn’t cheap, so it would be nice to save money, buy used parts and only those that in the opinion of the motorist really worn, the others he decided not to change.
Working as a master-receiver in the service station, a motorist could easily buy a used part on your car and self-righteous demanded to hold a HUNDRED odd unscheduled replacement of your own screenplay.
Knowing what is coming motorist, service men, tried to dissuade him from the undertaking. Said that the quality of the repair will be very low, which guarantees for the old parts they provide will not be and that generally is not done. To convince them of the owner of a healthy discussion was not possible.
After “repair” the car was able to drive 100 km then the engine gave a final “wedge”. And then the fun began. The owner called the same service center with a demand to rectify the fault and shortcomings of the work performed. Car service dismissed the claims, Recalling that during the repair the car owner was warned about the inadmissibility of the engine Assembly using the b/a parts. Warned him about the possibility of a similar failure and the non-proliferation of warranty with this method of repair.
A brazen motorist turned to the experts, and then to court to recover their own “justice”.
The finding of the district court was unexpected not only for service but for the owner of the SUV Cayenne.
After conducting a court-appointed examination, which confirmed that the failure occurred due to use in the repair of used parts, the court ignored these arguments, the testimony of the service center employees (the court noted that the service no written evidence of a warning car owners about the possible consequences of using old parts). “He also referred to “Rules of rendering of services in maintenance and repair of motor vehicles”, which supposedly spelled out the need for a contractor to refuse to perform work if the customer requires to repair the car, using substandard parts,” according to the website of the Russian newspaper.
The result is a flurry of activity district court was shocking, to the service center, had to collect 2.2 million! Despite the fact that the repair cost 49,000 rubles, and the total market value of the car is 1 million rubles!
Defenders of the service disagreed with this decision and appealed to the Novosibirsk regional court. The appellate court sided with the defendants. The regional court pointed out that the first instance has unreasonably ignored the testimony of witnesses – employees of the service and forensics. Also, he pointed out that requirements for warning of the inadmissibility of the use of b/y details in the mandatory written form nor the Law “On protection of consumer rights”, or terms of service contain. And verbally warned the motorist. It is established by court.
Moreover, paragraph 22 of the rules of rendering of services referenced in the court of first instance, provides the contractor the right, but does not oblige him to terminate the contract for the provision of services if the client insists on using substandard parts.
The appeal overturned the decision of the district court and rejected the claim of the vehicle owner to the auto shop.