I too have started the bitch process with Continental. At this point they have offered new Continentals for $46 plus install. The dealer has said it is not their responsibility to warranty the tires as it is Conti's problem. I phoned Chrysler customer assistance, received the $50 credit-thank you-and heard the same b.s. ..... Now the fun begins. Saskatchewan, like most places, has a consumer protection act, which overides the dealership and Chrysler script. The applicable points are:
48 Where a consumer product is sold by a retail seller, the following warranties
are deemed to be given by the retail seller to the consumer:
(d) that the product supplied under the contract is of acceptable quality,
except that this warranty is deemed not to be given:
(i) respecting defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention
before the contract is made; or
(ii) where the consumer examines the product before the contract is
made, respecting defects that examination ought to have revealed;
(iii) that the product is free from any defect that renders it not of
acceptable quality and that would not be apparent on reasonable
examination of the sample;
(g) that the product and all its components are to be durable for a reasonable
period, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the sale, including:
(i) the description and nature of the product;
(ii) the purchase price;
(iii) the express warranties of the retail seller or manufacturer; and
(iv) the necessary maintenance the product normally requires and the
manner in which it has been used;
(h) where the product normally requires repairs, that spare parts and repair
facilities will be reasonably available for a reasonable period after the date of
sale of the product.
1996, c.C-30.1, s.48.
In this instance, the retailer ( dealer) is responsible. The dealership certainly has the right to chase Conti, but not my problem. The product and all it's components must be durable for a reasonable period, I've got significant wear at 18,000 kms. I purchased my '05 Magnum R/T in May 2006. I believe the dealership and Chrysler were aware by this date that they had a problem with the tires. Also, under the act they had a responsibility to bring the issue to my attention if they were aware of the problem. The Conti rep stated that they have known about the early tread wear for a long time. I think it is safe to assume Chrysler did too. I've since spoken with the dealership and let them know that I want them to cover the difference between Conti's offer and my expense. I then informed them that if they won't do this, I will pursue them for the entire cost, as it is their responsibility. We'll see what happens.
What I may need, and I don't know if the info is out their, but is there any factual info of the number of us that have had early treadware problems.
The other thing I may need, and this is a significant request, but would any of the members be prepared to send an affidavit, particularly the Canadian members, stating their problems with these tires. Any help would be appreciated, and this may help others down the road if I am successfull.
Cheers
48 Where a consumer product is sold by a retail seller, the following warranties
are deemed to be given by the retail seller to the consumer:
(d) that the product supplied under the contract is of acceptable quality,
except that this warranty is deemed not to be given:
(i) respecting defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention
before the contract is made; or
(ii) where the consumer examines the product before the contract is
made, respecting defects that examination ought to have revealed;
(iii) that the product is free from any defect that renders it not of
acceptable quality and that would not be apparent on reasonable
examination of the sample;
(g) that the product and all its components are to be durable for a reasonable
period, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the sale, including:
(i) the description and nature of the product;
(ii) the purchase price;
(iii) the express warranties of the retail seller or manufacturer; and
(iv) the necessary maintenance the product normally requires and the
manner in which it has been used;
(h) where the product normally requires repairs, that spare parts and repair
facilities will be reasonably available for a reasonable period after the date of
sale of the product.
1996, c.C-30.1, s.48.
In this instance, the retailer ( dealer) is responsible. The dealership certainly has the right to chase Conti, but not my problem. The product and all it's components must be durable for a reasonable period, I've got significant wear at 18,000 kms. I purchased my '05 Magnum R/T in May 2006. I believe the dealership and Chrysler were aware by this date that they had a problem with the tires. Also, under the act they had a responsibility to bring the issue to my attention if they were aware of the problem. The Conti rep stated that they have known about the early tread wear for a long time. I think it is safe to assume Chrysler did too. I've since spoken with the dealership and let them know that I want them to cover the difference between Conti's offer and my expense. I then informed them that if they won't do this, I will pursue them for the entire cost, as it is their responsibility. We'll see what happens.
What I may need, and I don't know if the info is out their, but is there any factual info of the number of us that have had early treadware problems.
The other thing I may need, and this is a significant request, but would any of the members be prepared to send an affidavit, particularly the Canadian members, stating their problems with these tires. Any help would be appreciated, and this may help others down the road if I am successfull.
Cheers
