There has been a lot of discussion happening on ScubaBoard lately relating to warranties on scuba equipment. Specifically, the discussions have centered around the ability of scuba equipment manufacturers to void warranties on items purchased through non-authorized (i.e. gray market) retailer. This is interesting to me, so I spent a little time over the weekend trying to get a better understanding of the situation.
From what I can see, warranties made by scuba equipment manufacturers fall under The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. The Act was passed by Congress in 1975, and 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.
In terms of scuba manufacturers, where I see them having a problem is with the "Tie-In Sales" provisions of the Act. Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. In other words, a scuba manufacturer cannot legally dictate who sells the product, nor who provides the service in order for the warranty to remain in effect.
What does everyone else think? Do anyone know if this has ever been challenged?
From what I can see, warranties made by scuba equipment manufacturers fall under The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. The Act was passed by Congress in 1975, and 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.
In terms of scuba manufacturers, where I see them having a problem is with the "Tie-In Sales" provisions of the Act. Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. In other words, a scuba manufacturer cannot legally dictate who sells the product, nor who provides the service in order for the warranty to remain in effect.
What does everyone else think? Do anyone know if this has ever been challenged?