MA Lemon Law / Clutch Repair?
Tags:affirmative defense, audi tt, downshifting, extended warranty, month and a half,
3
I purchased a used 2002 Audi TT reduction than a month as good as a half ago in MA for my fiancee. Last Friday a purchase pennyless whilst downshifting as good as a automechanic says a price of correct is 00. The play says which this isn’t lonesome underneath possibly my lengthened guaranty or a 90 day lemon law guaranty which MA requires by law, since it is due to user’s wear as good as tear.
My fiancee treats a automobile intensely good as good as is really careful, as good as finds it inconceivable which there is a approach which this could be her fault. However, a play contends which a purchase was damaged since of her use.
I found this proviso in a MA law "It shall be an certain invulnerability to any explain underneath this territory which an purported forsake (i) does not deteriorate a vehicle’s make make use of of or safety, (ii) is a outcome of owners negligence, abuse, repairs caused by accident"
Is this sort of correct not lonesome by a law? Do we need to infer it wasnt due to negligence?
Related solution post:
clutch is always difficult to prove
Clutches, brakes are various other "wear items" are almost never covered under any warrenty. You can take a car with a brand new clutch out of the shop and detroy the clutch in less than a minute. Why would someone pay for that when they have no control over the parts? You got a bum rap on the fact that you just bought it and it was most likely alreayd in bad shape but these things happen.
The clutch was tore up before you bought it (assuming it wasn’t her) However, proving when, where, and who tore it up are completely impossible.