Re: Washington Upholds ATT Customer's Right To Class Action

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
BF234C.17023629082008@news.x-privat.org:

> http://consumerist.com/5043570/washi...stomers-right-
to-
> class-action
>
> In another step towards the impending demise of mandatory binding
> arbitration, a customer's right to file a class-action lawsuit against
> AT&T Wireless was upheld by Washington Supreme Court yesterday.
>
> The court ruled the class-action waiver clause, included in every
single
> cellphone contract and many other types of contracts, was
> "unconscionable," as it denied consumers basic protections. Here's the
> kill quote from the Opinion: "Courts will not be easily deceived by
> attempts to unilaterally strip away consumer protections and remedies
by
> efforts to cloak the waiver of important rights under an arbitration
> clause."
>

Warranties have this same type of unilateral screwing of consumers with
their unlawful disclaimers against implied warranties that are plainly
not permitted under 15USC50 sect 2308:

"§ 2308. Implied warranties
(a) Restrictions on disclaimers or modifications
No supplier may disclaim or modify (except as provided in subsection (b)
of this section) any implied warranty to a consumer with respect to such
consumer product if
(1) such supplier makes any written warranty to the consumer with
respect to such consumer Product, or
(2) at the time of sale, or within 90 days thereafter, such supplier
enters into a service contract with the consumer which applies to such
consumer product.
(b) Limitation on duration
For purposes of this chapter (other than section 2304 (a)(2) of this
title), implied warranties may be limited in duration to the duration of
a written warranty of reasonable duration, if such limitation is
conscionable and is set forth in clear and unmistakable language and
prominently displayed on the face of the warranty.
(c) Effectiveness of disclaimers, modifications, or limitations
A disclaimer, modification, or limitation made in violation of this
section shall be ineffective for purposes of this chapter and State
law."

Every warranty I ever read said the two important implied warranties of
Merchantability and Suitability for a particular purpose has a long
disclaimer telling the uneducated consumer it doesn't apply to the
product in their hand...even though FEDERAL LAW forbids them from
weaseling out of it with words from the lawyers.

It makes you wonder how much of the REST of the weasels in any warranty
are invalid, given someone shoving them towards the Federal judges'
bench for a decision.

Every consumer needs to download and printout or buy from the Gummit
printing office this booklet from the FTC tasked with enforcement:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/.../warranty.shtm

I faxed it to a boat dealer after they all went home so I could be sure
he had his own personal copy outlining his responsibilities to me as his
customer over a piece of shit Yamaha Waverunner with a 4-year extended
Y.E.S. warranty Yamaha had no intention of fulfilling was returned for a
full refund under this act.

They were wrong....

Larry wrote:

<snip>

> I faxed it to a boat dealer after they all went home so I could be sure
> he had his own personal copy outlining his responsibilities to me as his
> customer over a piece of shit Yamaha Waverunner with a 4-year extended
> Y.E.S. warranty Yamaha had no intention of fulfilling was returned for a
> full refund under this act.

But most consumers would just give up. The dealer knew that occasionally
they'd get a customer that was aware of their warranty rights under
federal law and that insisted on them, and that was fine (better having
to honor the warranty once than a thousand times). Just like most people
give up when their health insurance rejects a claim, pay up when they
receive a parking ticket that was given in error, or docilely stop for
the exit checks at retail stores. In a nation of sheeple, the wolves
dine well.

I remember when some retailers and manufacturers were really into the
"authorized dealer" schtick with (oh, you have no warranty, you bought
our product from an unauthorized dealer), until Magnuson Moss put an end
to it (but only for consumers that are aware of it). It doesn't apply to
gray market goods, but a lot of manufacturers dump excess production
into distribution channels where the product ends up at "unauthorized
dealers."

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:IGduk.5314$zv7.3178
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:

> I remember when some retailers and manufacturers were really into the
> "authorized dealer" schtick with (oh, you have no warranty, you bought
> our product from an unauthorized dealer), until Magnuson Moss put an end
> to it (but only for consumers that are aware of it). It doesn't apply to
> gray market goods, but a lot of manufacturers dump excess production
> into distribution channels where the product ends up at "unauthorized
> dealers."
>
>

Another thing MM did was put an end to brand-specific consumable
requirements, like OEM oil. If you say the consumer MUST use Yamalube,
which we found out is just rebottled and relabeled Chevron TC-W3 2-stroke
marine oil for $30/gallon....the manufacturer MUST, by law, provide the oil
FREE for the duration of the product, not just to the end of the warrantee.

Boy, that put a stop to it in a hurry.

ON TOPIC - It's really too bad MM doesn't cover SERVICES as well as
PRODUCTS. We'd have all the sellphone carriers by the ass with their
shitty, inconsistent service from a system that was never properly built
out and installed across their license areas.