Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Warranty - parts or labour

  • 02-09-2011 2:40pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭


    Bought a used car through a dealer a few weeks ago and find it's got a problem drinking oil - it's not leaking. I'm envisaging major problems trying to source and correct.

    Warranty from the dealer says parts or labour. I've said I'm only paying whichever is the lower. How do I ensure he's not going to hick up chrages to cover the other?

    Is it acceptable to get another garage carry out the work and give the bill to the dealer?

    Help! :confused:


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Bought a used car through a dealer a few weeks ago and find it's got a problem drinking oil - it's not leaking. I'm envisaging major problems trying to source and correct.

    Warranty from the dealer says parts or labour. I've said I'm only paying whichever is the lower. How do I ensure he's not going to hick up chrages to cover the other?

    Is it acceptable to get another garage carry out the work and give the bill to the dealer?

    Help! :confused:

    In my opinion if warranty from dealer says "part or labour" it means they have to cover both.

    From logic point of view, "A or B" means that there are three possible options:
    1) A
    2) B
    3) A and B


    I can see other problem though.
    If drinking oil is the only problem, that dealer might not accept is as a fault. Usually car manufacturers specify the acceptable amount of oil that can be burnt at levels like 1l per 1000km or similar.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    CiniO wrote: »
    In my opinion if warranty from dealer says "part or labour" it means they have to cover both.

    From logic point of view, "A or B" means that there are three possible options:
    1) A
    2) B
    3) A and B

    The guy at the dealer has said, it's one or the other. Have you seen anything to back up your opinion that they have to cover both?
    I can see other problem though.
    If drinking oil is the only problem, that dealer might not accept is as a fault. Usually car manufacturers specify the acceptable amount of oil that can be burnt at levels like 1l per 1000km or similar.

    The warranty covers the engine and gearbox. It's not leaking anywhere, there's no smoke coming out the exhaust so I believe the problem is somewhere in the engine. It's gone through at least 4 litres in 700 miles.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Parts or labour suggests one or the other. If it meant both wouldn't it be parts and labour?

    p.s. That oil consumption is very heavy. Way beyond what's normal even on something thirsty for oil. I'd ask them repair it. It could be a top end issue (valve stem oil seals or guides) which isn't too bad. If it's a bottom end issue (wear causing oil to get past the piston rings) it's much more serious. Either way the head has to come off.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    The guy at the dealer has said, it's one or the other. Have you seen anything to back up your opinion that they have to cover both?
    In general guarantee would be a Law contract.
    In Law, logic applies and this is the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_disjunction

    Generally speaking I know nothing about the above, but if I were you I would definitely find out.
    The warranty covers the engine and gearbox. It's not leaking anywhere, there's no smoke coming out the exhaust so I believe the problem is somewhere in the engine. It's gone through at least 4 litres in 700 miles.
    That's way more than acceptable.
    If that's really the choice (parts or labour) I would first go with them to diagnose the problem and find a way of fixing it, and only then choose which of that two you want to pay for.

    Because if you choose earlier, than probably their diagnose will be designed to rip you off.
    F.e. if you pay for parts, they will say that engine needs replacing and you will pay for new engine, while they only fit it for you for free.
    If you say you pay for labour, they will make sure they spend 30 hours or more going though the engine, and fixing parts, while they will give you maybe piston rings for free or something.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    Logical Dysfunction, you reckon your average backstreet car dealer will be able to understand it? ;)

    Thanks CiniO, I'll try the diagnosis route before they fix anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,696 ✭✭✭kermitpwee


    CiniO wrote: »
    In my opinion if warranty from dealer says "part or labour" it means they have to cover both.

    From logic point of view, "A or B" means that there are three possible options:
    1) A
    2) B
    3) A and B

    Your logic is flawed here. It cannot be number 3, it wouldn't make sense. If I say to you that you can have the Yorkie or the Twix bar you only get one of them. You can't have both my friend!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    kermitpwee wrote: »
    Your logic is flawed here. It cannot be number 3, it wouldn't make sense. If I say to you that you can have the Yorkie or the Twix bar you only get one of them. You can't have both my friend!

    If you ask me to bring you Yorkie and Twix, so to satisfy your request I have to bring both of them.

    If you ask me to bring you Yorkie or Twix, so if I bring you Yorkie it will be ok; if I bring you Twix it will be ok; if I bring you Yorkie and Twix it will be ok as well.

    That's the basics of logic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,696 ✭✭✭kermitpwee


    CiniO wrote: »
    If you ask me to bring you Yorkie and Twix, so to satisfy your request I have to bring both of them.

    If you ask me to bring you Yorkie or Twix, so if I bring you Yorkie it will be ok; if I bring you Twix it will be ok; if I bring you Yorkie and Twix it will be ok as well.

    That's the basics of logic.
    You are missing the point I am entitled to either a Yorkie or Twix but not both. Your logic is flawed otherwise you don't understand what 'or' actually means. Simple as that.

    The op is entitled to either parts or labour not both. You are saying that 'or' can mean both when it obviously can't.

    Do you understand the meaning of the word or?


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    kermitpwee wrote: »
    You are missing the point I am entitled to either a Yorkie or Twix but not both. Your logic is flawed otherwise you don't understand what 'or' actually means. Simple as that.

    The op is entitled to either parts or labour not both. You are saying that 'or' can mean both when it obviously can't.

    Do you understand the meaning of the word or?

    To be fair CiniO is not Irish, nor is English his first language.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Is it a turbo diesel?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,696 ✭✭✭kermitpwee


    To be fair CiniO is not Irish, nor is English his first language.

    Didn't mean it like that at all. CiniO is a great asset to the motors forum and I really enjoyed his thread on his Bravo going for the nct. Nevertheless he is very forthright in his view that I am wrong and he is right. It is for this reason I pulled him on his use of the word or as he is clearly in the wrong and his advice is incorrect.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    kermitpwee wrote: »
    You are missing the point I am entitled to either a Yorkie or Twix but not both. Your logic is flawed otherwise you don't understand what 'or' actually means. Simple as that.

    The op is entitled to either parts or labour not both. You are saying that 'or' can mean both when it obviously can't.

    Do you understand the meaning of the word or?


    Did you look at the link I provided earlier?
    (that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_disjunction)
    In logic and mathematics, a two-place logical connective or, is a logical disjunction, also known as inclusive disjunction or alternation, that results in true whenever one or more of its operands are true. E.g. in this context, "A or B" is true if A is true, or if B is true, or if both A and B are true. In grammar, or is a coordinating conjunction. In ordinary language "or" sometimes has the meaning of exclusive disjunction.

    In logic "or" means as described above, which is the way I was saying.
    In ordimnary language it might be exclusive disjunction. (described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_disjunction
    The logical operation exclusive disjunction, also called exclusive or (symbolized by the prefix operator J, or by the infix operators XOR, EOR, EXOR, or , 11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png/ˌɛks ˈɔr/ or /ˈzɔr/), is a type of logical disjunction on two operands that results in a value of true if exactly one of the operands has a value of true.[1] A simple way to state this is "one or the other but not both."


    Here's a little dispute from above wikipedia page:
    Exclusive "or" in English

    The Oxford English Dictionary explains "either ... or" as follows:
    The primary function of either, etc., is to emphasize the indifference of the two (or more) things or courses ... but a secondary function is to emphasize the mutual exclusiveness, = either of the two, but not both. The exclusive-or explicitly states "one or the other, but not neither nor both."
    Following this kind of common-sense intuition about "or", it is sometimes argued that in many natural languages, English included, the word "or" has an "exclusive" sense. The exclusive disjunction of a pair of propositions, (p, q), is supposed to mean that p is true or q is true, but not both. For example, it might be argued that the normal intention of a statement like "You may have coffee, or you may have tea" is to stipulate that exactly one of the conditions can be true. Certainly under many circumstances a sentence like this example should be taken as forbidding the possibility of one's accepting both options. Even so, there is good reason to suppose that this sort of sentence is not disjunctive at all. If all we know about some disjunction is that it is true overall, we cannot be sure that either of its disjuncts is true. For example, if a woman has been told that her friend is either at the snack bar or on the tennis court, she cannot validly infer that he is on the tennis court. But if her waiter tells her that she may have coffee or she may have tea, she can validly infer that she may have tea. Nothing classically thought of as a disjunction has this property. This is so even given that she might reasonably take her waiter as having denied her the possibility of having both coffee and tea.
    (Note: If the waiter intends that choosing neither tea nor coffee is an option i.e. ordering nothing, the appropriate operator is NAND: p NAND q.)
    In English, the construct "either ... or" is usually used to indicate exclusive or and "or" generally used for inclusive. But in Spanish, the word "o" (or) can be used in the form p o q (exclusive) or the form o p o q (inclusive). Formalists may contend that any binary or other n-ary exclusive "or" is true if and only if it has an odd number of true inputs, and there is no word in English that can conjoin a list of two or more options has this general property. For example, Barrett and Stenner contend in the 1971 article "The Myth of the Exclusive 'Or'" (Mind, 80 (317), 116–121) that no author has produced an example of an English or-sentence that appears to be false because both of its inputs are true, and brush off or-sentences such as "The light bulb is either on or off" as reflecting particular facts about the world rather than the nature of the word "or". However, the "barber paradox" -- Everybody in town shaves himself or is shaved by the barber, who shaves the barber? -- would not be paradoxical if "or" could not be exclusive (although a purist could say that "either" is required in the statement of the paradox).
    Whether these examples can be considered "natural language" is another question. Certainly when one sees a menu stating "Lunch special: sandwich and soup or salad", one would not expect to be permitted to order both soup and salad. Nor would one expect to order neither soup nor salad, because that belies the nature of the "special", that ordering the two items together is cheaper than ordering them a la carte. Similarly, a lunch special consisting of one meat, french fries or mashed potatoes and vegetable would consist of three items, only one of which would be a form of potato. If one wanted to have meat and both kinds of potatoes, one would ask if it were possible to substitute a second order of potatoes for the vegetable. And, one would not expect to be permitted to have both types of potato and vegetable, because the result would be a vegetable plate rather than a meat plate.

    So as you can see it's not so black and white.

    I'm not sure how Law treats cases like that, and what exactly "or" means in Law contracts.
    But this is the question for lawyers. Maybe OP should ask at Law forum.

    One thing I know is that from logic point of view A or B might mean A, B, A and B.

    From language point of view it's not 100% clear.

    That's why OP should take a proper check on it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    To be fair CiniO is not Irish, nor is English his first language.

    Language is not relevant in here.
    "or" pretty much means the same in all languages.
    The whole dispute is because common sense tells us "or" in language means something else then "or" in logic.

    F.E. by saying "I'm off tomorrow, so maybe I'll go fishing or have couple of pints" might mean that you will go fishing, might mean that you'll have couple of pints, but as well might mean you'll do both of above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,689 ✭✭✭mondeo


    I never take these engine gearbox only warranties for granted. Every car I ever bought with one of these 3 month or 6 month engine/gearbox warranties always meant F ALL when I had problems.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66,395 ✭✭✭✭unkel


    CiniO wrote: »
    So as you can see it's not so black and white.

    Isn't it interesting that the original master of black or white, yes or no, 0 or 1, the groundlayer of computing, George Boole, was a professor of mathematics in - yes - Ireland :D

    Lotus Elan turbo for sale:

    https://www.adverts.ie/vehicles/lotus-elan-turbo/35456469

    My ads on adverts.ie:

    https://www.adverts.ie/member/5856/ads



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    unkel wrote: »
    Isn't it interesting that the original master of black or white, yes or no, 0 or 1, the groundlayer of computing, George Boole, was a professor of mathematics in - yes - Ireland :D

    Good to know :D
    It was not until his successful establishment of a school at Lincoln, its removal to Waddington, and later his appointment in 1849 as the first professor of mathematics of then Queen's College, Cork in Ireland (now University College Cork, where the library, underground lecture theatre complex and the Boole Centre for Research in Informatics[3] are named in his honour)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 183 ✭✭Wheres My ForkandKnife


    Lads, while I have enjoyed the debate on the english language I don't really think it helps the OP.

    Firstly you need to establish what's wrong with the car before arguing who is paying for what. 4L of oil in 700km is horrific. Depending on make/model/year it may well be cheaper to replace the engine.

    How is your relationship with the dealer now? Would you trust him to carry out the repairs?

    It sounds to me as if the car is not fit for purpose in the first place. If it were my car I would be trying to offload it back on the dealer.

    I also would try and sort it as quickly as possible as the longer it goes on the less chance you have of sorting it to your satisfaction.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    Lads, while I have enjoyed the debate on the english language I don't really think it helps the OP.

    Firstly you need to establish what's wrong with the car before arguing who is paying for what. 4L of oil in 700km is horrific. Depending on make/model/year it may well be cheaper to replace the engine.

    How is your relationship with the dealer now? Would you trust him to carry out the repairs?

    It sounds to me as if the car is not fit for purpose in the first place. If it were my car I would be trying to offload it back on the dealer.

    I also would try and sort it as quickly as possible as the longer it goes on the less chance you have of sorting it to your satisfaction.

    Thanks for your response.

    No I don't trust they'll do a proper job on the problem. That's why I asked in my OP whether I am within my rights to get another garage to do the job and get them to reimburse me.

    I've tried searching on the web but can't find a definite answer - how much would an engine for a 2003 Opel Zafira 1.6 cost?


Advertisement