LDS Disillusionment

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

MikeFerrara:
What's legal and what's not matters less than what's enforced and the government enforces whatever is best for the people who pay the best. These dealer agreements are all over the place and if it's illegal and they want to enforce it then they could have a real field day and flat out fill some federal prison.

If the price restrictions were removed along with the requirements to be a full service dive shop (which cost lots of money for things that aren't always profitable) then every one would be on a fairly level playing fielt.

As a manufacturer, it's not the government I'd be worried about. Class action civil suits are a distinct possibility. Juries can award actual and punative damages which could be millions of dollars. Faced with this type of action, do you think a smaller manufacturer, like Zeagle, is going to go to the mat or do you think they'll cave in?
 
awap:
Name recognition, volume sales, large established customer base, fairly good web site. But it would still be a good start. Downside is a lot of LDSs would not survive the transition.

And I would expect that LP could be survivor, at least until the company's owners decide they could get a higher return selling something else. Don't forget that most new divers don't automatically start with LP. They tend to end up there after being insulted by something at their LDS, like 100% mark-ups. The fact that some LDS's won't survive isn't a bad thing. If your area has enough demand for a dive shop then someone else may step in and do a better job anyway.
 
yknot:
Laird, as a first step to understanding these issues I read as much of the Magnuson-Moss act as possible. I also read the opinions of those charged with interpreting and enforcing this type of legislature, namely the FTC and my own state's attorney general.

Good for you, OK, great. That's the correct background material.

While we "could" call these service contracts we won't. Since the manufacturer has chosen to call them "warranties" we will too, since that is what they are now, per the law.

OK, no problem. The other term might help some understand the fallacy in their thinking, but you are correct.

Also, in spite of what some warranties state as to who is eligible, when a warranty requires actions on a consumer's part that are outside the law to ask for then those restrictions become unenforcible.

True, but irrelevant to most of the discussion here. Very little of the usual discussion is about third-party parts or about failure to comply with the warranty terms, it's about people who have bought something with warranty B and now want the services of warranty A.
 
lairdb:
Very little of the usual discussion is about third-party parts or about failure to comply with the warranty terms, it's about people who have bought something with warranty B and now want the services of warranty A.

Maybe on this thread but I think the two issues are related. I compared the warranty language from Aqualung between US goods and European, as a recent purchase contained a manual with both warranties listed. The European warranty doesn't require annual services nor offer free parts for life. No problem there as I'd bet a parts service kit is available over the counter and at a reasonable price and we already know the products are sold more competitively. The US warranty not only contains illegal requirements but also offers free parts for life. As parts are not available over the counter this has a definite eventual effect on merchantability but also in essence turns the warranty into something you are paying extra for by requireing you to purchase the product in a certain manner, which is non-competitive. How has a consumer failed to deserve or be considered not to have paid for a warranty when the item was purchased at LP instead of a LDS? Did the manufacturer, who ultimately makes and warrants a product, fail to profit equally in either case? In reality, enforcement of these warranties falls on the LDS and they are the ones that seem to indulge in punative measures. Walk into the average LDS with a reg you didn't buy there. Tell them your brother bought it for you as a present and you need service but don't know where he got the item originally. Most LDS's will treat you better under these circumstance than if you told them you bought it at Leisurepro.
 
yknot:
Maybe on this thread but I think the two issues are related. I compared the warranty language from Aqualung between US goods and European, as a recent purchase contained a manual with both warranties listed. The European warranty doesn't require annual services nor offer free parts for life. No problem there as I'd bet a parts service kit is available over the counter and at a reasonable price and we already know the products are sold more competitively. The US warranty not only contains illegal requirements but also offers free parts for life.

Illegal under Magnusson-Moss? Song-Beverly? Local case law? I'm not disputing (quite) but if you can find online copies of these and point out the parts that concern you, I'd be interested.

How has a consumer failed to deserve or be considered not to have paid for a warranty when the item was purchased at LP instead of a LDS?

Aha. That's what I've been trying to point out.

Did the manufacturer, who ultimately makes and warrants a product, fail to profit equally in either case?

Yes! Exactly! The manufacturer failed to profit equally! :jump013: Thank you!

The manufacturer sold the product that included warranty A to distributor B for $200. Distributor B sold it to LDS C for $250. The manufacturer expects to pay LDS C or LDS D $65 for parts and service over the life of the limited warranty.

The manufacturer sold the product that did not include warranty A to Distributor X for $125. Distributor X sells it to LP for $150. The manufacturer does not expect to spend anything on parts and service; the buyer is responsible for those.

(Actually, the manufacturer does profit, on a net basis, equally so far; the warranty servicing reserve and costs are a cost, not a profit. However, I believe what you really meant was "did the manufacturer collect different revenue", to which the answer is "yes".)

In reality, enforcement of these warranties falls on the LDS and they are the ones that seem to indulge in punative measures. Walk into the average LDS with a reg you didn't buy there. Tell them your brother bought it for you as a present and you need service but don't know where he got the item originally. Most LDS's will treat you better under these circumstance than if you told them you bought it at Leisurepro.

When the LDS asks the manufacturer to pay them for the parts used in servicing the item, the manufacturer is going to ask if the LDS can prove that they're supposed to. I don't see this as punitive; in fact, if Diver 1 bought the item without warranty A, but is trying to con the diveshop into getting the manufacturer to pay for parts, that's fraud.

(Granted, many LDS, including my local LDS, will be nasty to you if they think you are an LP shopper, but that's a separate topic.)
 
lairdb:
Which warranty each of these comes with may be a factor in it's price when it's sold.
  • R190 s/n 123456: warranteed against all failures ever, free service parts for life, free drinks while you wait. Price: $500
  • R190 s/n 123457: warranteed to contain parts. Price: $100
Are they the same product? Well, no. Both products include an R190, but one includes additional goods and services, and the other doesn't.
If I buy s/n 123457 and demand the free drinks, I'm demanding something I didn't buy. It really is that simple.
Combine that common misunderstanding with the the decrease in net-cost of long distance transportation and communication. Now, it's easy for me to order an R190 from GunthersSprocketsDanceMonkeyScuba.com. The R190 from GunthersSprocketsDanceMonkeyScuba.com doesn't come with the same warranty; it wasn't sold with it, I didn't buy it. If I take it to Ed's and demand free drinks, they're perfectly right to ask (on behalf of the manufacturer who will be paying for the drinks) for my free-drink-card, and to decline to give me free drinks if I don't have one.
--Laird

Laird,
This was an insightful and informative post, and was also hilarious. Well done, and thanks!
-Andrew
 
yknot:
Requiring minimum advertised prices and price minimums is illegal, at least according to the US government in the case of "Nine West". If you removed those restrictions and allowed mail order sales by authorised dealers, what competitve advantage would LeisurePro have then?


Incidentally, careful there. Your first statement is correct under current case law if you meant that the combined activities of MAP and price minimums is illegal.

If you meant that each of those activities individually is illegal, that is incorrect -- the CD price fixing decree says that "an explicit or implied agreement on minimum price" is unlawful; the Nine West and Reebok decrees have similar language. MAP is not per se illegal, though it may constitute or be a component of an unreasonable restraint of trade or a facilitating practice, as it was found to be in the CD price fixing case.

(Mike, Genesis, and others have, if I recall correctly, told us that explicit or implied agreements on minimum price are commonplace, however, 1.someone has to bring that the the FTC's attention, 2.they have to become interested, 3.they have to accumulate evidence including cooperative testimony.)
 
lairdb:
Incidentally, careful there. Your first statement is correct under current case law if you meant that the combined activities of MAP and price minimums is illegal.

If you meant that each of those activities individually is illegal, that is incorrect -- the CD price fixing decree says that "an explicit or implied agreement on minimum price" is unlawful; the Nine West and Reebok decrees have similar language. MAP is not per se illegal, though it may constitute or be a component of an unreasonable restraint of trade or a facilitating practice, as it was found to be in the CD price fixing case.

(Mike, Genesis, and others have, if I recall correctly, told us that explicit or implied agreements on minimum price are commonplace, however, 1.someone has to bring that the the FTC's attention, 2.they have to become interested, 3.they have to accumulate evidence including cooperative testimony.)

Unfortunately, laws and enforcement are two different things. Rest assured that this issue has been brought to the FTC's attention but please send your own complaint. Maybe if they hear it enough times something will change.

Since you asked for some specifics, let's start with the following, taken directly from Aqualung's web site:


The Free Parts For Life Agreement is a three party agreement that involves responsibilities of the original owner, the authorized Aqua Lung Dealer and Aqua Lung. If all of the terms of the agreement are met, the original owner will receive free standard regulator overhaul parts every other year for the life of the regulator.

In order to maintain the Free Parts for Life Agreement the following terms must be met:
· The Aqua Lung or Apeks regulator must have been purchased from an Authorized Aqua Lung America Dealer
· The Free Parts for Life Agreement is only available to the original owner
· The regulator must be inspected by a participating Authorized Aqua Lung Service facility every year.
· The regulator must be overhauled by a participating Authorized Aqua Lung Service facility every other year *
· You must make sure the Dealer records both inspections and overhaul service in the “Annual Service and Inspection Record” located in the back of your regulator owner’s manual.

If the regulator is subjected to less than 50 dives per year* it is permissible to overhaul it every other year with an inspection procedure being performed on the “off” years. For example:

Year #1 Inspection
Year #2 Overhaul
Year #3 Inspection
Year #4 Overhaul
and so on.

· if the regulator is subjected to more than 50 dives per year it will require overhaul service every year. In this case you will only have to pay for parts every other year as documented by the Annual Service and Inspection record in the back of your Aqua Lung regulator owner’s manual.

Conditions:
· In order to get free standard overhaul parts on the Free Parts for Life program you will be required to provide proof of purchase from an Authorized U.S. Aqua Lung Dealer and the “Annual Service and Inspection Record” located in the back of your regulator owner’s manual documenting all inspections and overhauls have been completed as per the agreement.
· This program is limited to participating Authorized Aqua Lung America Retailers. Aqua Lung retailers are not required to participate in this program. Please inquire with the Aqua Lung retailer if they participate in the Aqua Lung Free Parts for Life program prior to bringing your regulator in for overhaul servicing.

· The Free Parts for Life agreement does not cover any labor fees incurred during either inspection or overhaul service.

· The Free Parts for Life agreement is limited to standard overhaul replacement parts as defined by Aqua Lung. During the course of a normal overhaul service additional part replacement may be necessary that are not covered under the Free parts for Life agreement.

· The Free parts for Life Agreement does not cover any parts that need replacement due to lack of basic or annual maintenance, damage caused by misuse, accident, or neglect.

REGULATOR INSPECTION
An inspection from an Authorized Aqua Lung Service facility involves detailed testing of several performance parameters, and visual inspection for any excessive wear, or conditions that may affect the performance of the regulator. An inspection requires substantially less labor than a complete overhaul and is generally quite a bit less expensive than a complete overhaul. A complete inspection is also generally performed prior to performing a complete overhaul. Under the Free Parts for Life agreement, an inspection is required every year while regulator overhaul is only required every other year.

REGULATOR OVERHAUL
A Regulator overhaul from an Authorized Aqua Lung Service facility involves the same detailed inspection as is performed annually to identify any potential areas that may need special attention. In addition, a complete overhaul includes complete disassembly of the first and second stage, thorough cleaning, and replacement of all standard overhaul parts.

The next part came from the FTC's web site:

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 16, Volume 1, Parts 0 to 999]
[Revised as of January 1, 1998]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 16CFR700.10]

[Page 536-537]

TITLE 16--COMMERCIAL PRACTICES

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

PART 700--INTERPRETATIONS OF MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT--Table of Contents

Sec. 700.10 Section 102(c).

(a) Section 102(c) prohibits tying arrangements that condition
coverage under a written warranty on the consumer's use of an article or
service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that
article or service is provided without charge to the consumer.
(b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of
defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102(c)
prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor)
identified by the warrantor to install the replacement parts. A
warrantor or his designated representative may not provide parts under
the warranty in a manner which impedes or precludes the choice by the
consumer of the person or business to perform necessary labor to install
such parts.
(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty
on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized
replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example,
provisions such as, ``This warranty is void if service is performed by
anyone other than an authorized `ABC' dealer and all replacement parts
must be genuine `ABC' parts,'' and the like, are prohibited where the
service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions
violate the Act in two ways. First, they

[[Page 537]]

violate the section 102 (c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such
provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a
warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written
warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of
``unauthorized'' articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor
from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such
``unauthorized'' articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor
from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the
defect or damage was so caused.

Now, my interpretation is that: You can't require parts and service together for warranty validity unless the service is free. Aqualung specifically requies this and further notes that service (labor charges) is not included. Also, it seems deceptive (in the least) to restrict access to parts entirely as this action could technically violate the mechantability concepts of product use or value. If my reg quites working because I can't get parts then it is no longer a regulator, per merchantability standards. The trend for per se rulings would seem to be in favor of consumers and business practices which favor competiton.
 
That's the way I interpret it.
 
Is an "agreement" legally the same as a "warrenty"? I believe that is the catch.
 

Back
Top Bottom