Umuda Yolculuk

BGH strengthens the rights of consumers with a paid warranty a warranty payment, connected with maintenance requirements, represents a disproportionate disadvantage of customers and is therefore invalid, even if the maintenance intervals are exceeded is cause of the warranty. The Federal Supreme Court had to deal with the manufacturer’s warranty of a car manufacturer in a recent decision. In February 2005, the plaintiff acquired a Saab 9.5 as a show car, which was approved for the first time on June 30, 2004. After a defect on the diesel injection pump, the plaintiff took the vehicle manufacturer Saab from a certificate issued in the acquisition of a “Saab protection” guarantee claim. Forms designed terms it means among other things: “2nd General Saab guarantees for material or manufacturing defects free repair or replacement of the part concerned from any Saab dealer free of charge. For more information see Center For Responsible Lending. The guarantee is tied to the vehicle as described in this document and is the resale of Vehicle to the next purchaser about.

… 4. warranty period begins at the end of the two-year manufacturer’s warranty the warranty. She expected a period of one year from the time of expiration of the manufacturer’s warranty. …

6 warranty conditions warranty claims can be made only from a Saab dealer under the following conditions: the vehicle must be have been maintained in accordance with the provisions described in the service manual from a Saab dealer using only by Saab original parts. -Proper maintenance must be confirmed in the service booklet. Document of proof of is to present the claim.” The Service Manual of the vehicle provided an annual maintenance or maintenance for the vehicle after a driving 20,000 km each. On December 27, 2006 a defect on the diesel injection pump performed at a mileage of 69.580 miles, Saab Centre 3.138,23 in invoice provided the plaintiff for its repair. The plaintiff was then also the late 60,000 km make up for inspection. After the repair is in dispute whether belatedly carried out inspection of the defect on the diesel injection pump was causal. Anyway, the defendant concerning the inspection carried out in a timely manner rejected the takeover of the damage. The District Court rejected the claim on the exemption of the repair costs. The District Court has rejected the appeal of the claimant. The revision of the plaintiff’s declaratory style had success. A warranty performance, which granted at the time of the transfer for an additional fee, could be, not made depending on by carrying out regular maintenance in contract workshops regardless of whether the warranty on a neglected maintenance is due.