Sponsored

FL 2087 update (interesting information)

OP
OP
Angrey

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,351
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
Are you an Attorney speaking from courtroom experience?

I’m interested.

I’m not trying to be a Twat Waffle, I just know the attorney who I spoke to does not guess on facts. You may be correct since there are always two sides to every case.
But to say “That’s not true” needs some good legal basis to make that claim.

COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
The ingenious phrase of "Twat Waffle©" is the sole proprietary ownership of nastang87xx and shall not be used without recognition to the original legal owner of the phrase
I've purchased over $400M in warranties in the past 5 years. At any given time I have from 3 to 7 or 8 different firms working for us, that advise us on all sorts of law. The warranties we purchase range from a few hundred dollars to 8 figures, from a year up to 20 years. I've seen all sorts of terms and requirements, from repair components to operating components to inspections and certifications for installation, etc, some cover materials only, some cover labor and materials and all of them seek to limit consequential damages, some have ridiculous hold harmless agreements (when buying fireplaces for instance). I've managed and been involved in COUNTLESS warranty and service claims and calls, ranging from very minor to some in the millions.

The point is, they can all stipulate whatever they want and it's up to you to sign them or don't (or attempt to negotiate, which is usually fruitless because most of a products competitors will have similar terms and obligations). Where they expose themselves to suit is when they violate the terms of their warranty or attempt to move the goal posts. NONE of them provide free operational consumables.

Dick measuring aside, take what your "friend" told you and square it against the purchase of your car. Ford dictates that you run all sorts of things in your car, from the fuel, to the oil, to the filters, to brake fluid, transmission fluid, etc. Does Ford provide all that for free?

So which do you find more likely, that your friend is mistaken, that you mistook what they said, or that a huge company like Ford just continuously runs afoul of the law across all their sales?
Sponsored

 

Tomster

Beware of idiots
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Threads
278
Messages
15,511
Reaction score
15,586
Location
FL
First Name
Tom
Vehicle(s)
'20 RR GT500R(CFTP), 18 OW GT350R Base, '17 AG GT350R Electronics Pack, '97 PG Cobra Convertible
I've purchased over $400M in warranties in the past 5 years. At any given time I have from 3 to 7 or 8 different firms working for us, that advise us on all sorts of law. The warranties we purchase range from a few hundred dollars to 8 figures, from a year up to 20 years. I've seen all sorts of terms and requirements, from repair components to operating components to inspections and certifications for installation, etc, some cover materials only, some cover labor and materials and all of them seek to limit consequential damages, some have ridiculous hold harmless agreements (when buying fireplaces for instance). I've managed and been involved in COUNTLESS warranty and service claims and calls, ranging from very minor to some in the millions.

The point is, they can all stipulate whatever they want and it's up to you to sign them or don't (or attempt to negotiate, which is usually fruitless because most of a products competitors will have similar terms and obligations). Where they expose themselves to suit is when they violate the terms of their warranty or attempt to move the goal posts. NONE of them provide free operational consumables.

Dick measuring aside, take what your "friend" told you and square it against the purchase of your car. Ford dictates that you run all sorts of things in your car, from the fuel, to the oil, to the filters, to brake fluid, transmission fluid, etc. Does Ford provide all that for free?

So which do you find more likely, that your friend is mistaken, that you mistook what they said, or that a huge company like Ford just continuously runs afoul of the law across all their sales?
May I ask... is Ford within their rights to insist on a specific oil filter? My understanding is yes. They also have the right to designate an acceptable alternative.

Thoughts and opinions please.
 
OP
OP
Angrey

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,351
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
May I ask... is Ford within their rights to insist on a specific oil filter? My understanding is yes. They also have the right to deaignate an acceptable alternate.

Thoughts and opinions please.
I've already belabored it. Ford can stipulate WHATEVER THEY WANT, at the TIME OF THE PURCHASE.

They could say that you must use a filter only made once every millenia in Himalayan mountains. As long as it's CLEARLY stipulated in the original warranty, they're largely protected if you use something else and they deny your claim.

Where Ford runs afoul of their obligation is when they CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS of the warranty.

So if Ford says you can use a FL2062, and then at some point says you must use a 2087, as long as the 2087 is readily available and not substantially more expensive, again, they're probably okay.

What puts them exposed to breach is when they change the terms to something you as the warrantee can't REASONABLY comply.

NONE of this will matter, because again, until someone is actually harmed (aka they can't find a 2087, they use an aftermarket alternative, the motor shits, they make a claim, and Ford denies the claim based on them using a non-approved filter) it wouldn't even scare them, let alone make it to the first step in a civil proceeding.
 

Egparson202

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
755
Reaction score
796
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Shelby GT350, 2018 Audi TTRS
May I ask... is Ford within their rights to insist on a specific oil filter? My understanding is yes. They also have the right to designate an acceptable alternative.

Thoughts and opinions please.
Not sure I’m qualified to provide a legal opinion. (I’m not). But yes, I think Ford is within their rights to stipulate the oil filter. That said it seems obvious to me that if the filter they specify can’t be obtained through reasonable effort, they have an obligation to designate an acceptable alternative or waive the requirement until the supply returns.
 
Last edited:

Tomster

Beware of idiots
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Threads
278
Messages
15,511
Reaction score
15,586
Location
FL
First Name
Tom
Vehicle(s)
'20 RR GT500R(CFTP), 18 OW GT350R Base, '17 AG GT350R Electronics Pack, '97 PG Cobra Convertible
Not sure I’m qualified to provide a legal opinion. (I’m not). But yes, I think Ford is within their rights to stipulate the oil filter. That said it seems obvious to me that if the filter they specify can’t be obtained through reasonable effort, they have an obligation to designate an acceptable alternative or waive the requirement until the supply returns.
I agree and I'm working on the issue.
 

Sponsored

OP
OP
Angrey

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,351
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
Not sure I’m qualified to provide a legal opinion. (I’m not). But yes, I think Ford is within their rights to stipulate the oil filter. That said it seems obvious to me that if the filter they specify can’t be obtained through reasonable effort, they have an obligation to designate an acceptable alternative or waive the requirement until the the supply returns.
Buried in all these threads is similar discussion.

I've seen it all. "Ford" may not even know about this issue. Or more specifically, the person or group of persons who can make the call may not be aware it's even an issue. Or maybe they are aware and it's just buried at the bottom of a pile of things to do and until they receive legal notice, it won't rise to the top of their priority list.

I've said from the beginning that I've seen OTHER companies issue temporary guidance (i.e. here's a list of alternates that are only approved for a specific expiration and then they'll readdress the issue then to see if there's still a supply issue).

It's all just shithouse attorney talk. I'm not an attorney. I have quite a bit of experience dealing with them and with legal matters. What I do know is that it's all speculation until someone actually has "standing" and can show actual harm from the breach. It's not enough that Ford isn't holding up their end. Someone has to actually be harmed by it.

Could a group file a class action? Sure. No one would take it cause there's no money in it to say we've all been harmed a few bucks by having to buy momentarily expensive filters.

Furthermore, Ford would simply argue if you need an oil change, you can get one at a dealership. It would then be up to the attorneys to wrestle over whether that's fair or dealership prices are comparable to the marketplace at large. Again, all discussions in fantasy, because none of it harms us individually enough to matter and as a class action, there wouldn't be enough money in it for any firm to take it up and seriously pursue it.

I recommended someone have an attorney just write a simple letter on attorney letterhead (sometimes that's enough to spur it off the bottom of someone's pile).

This could continue to go on for some time. Maybe Ford is waiting (like the rest of us) hoping that the supplies will come back around and it'll be a non-issue.

But yeah, the simplest thing would be for them to say "okay, you can continue to use the 2062 until August of 2022, at which time we'll re-examine the issue"
 

Tomster

Beware of idiots
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Threads
278
Messages
15,511
Reaction score
15,586
Location
FL
First Name
Tom
Vehicle(s)
'20 RR GT500R(CFTP), 18 OW GT350R Base, '17 AG GT350R Electronics Pack, '97 PG Cobra Convertible
Buried in all these threads is similar discussion.

I've seen it all. "Ford" may not even know about this issue. Or more specifically, the person or group of persons who can make the call may not be aware it's even an issue. Or maybe they are aware and it's just buried at the bottom of a pile of things to do and until they receive legal notice, it won't rise to the top of their priority list.

I've said from the beginning that I've seen OTHER companies issue temporary guidance (i.e. here's a list of alternates that are only approved for a specific expiration and then they'll readdress the issue then to see if there's still a supply issue).

It's all just shithouse attorney talk. I'm not an attorney. I have quite a bit of experience dealing with them and with legal matters. What I do know is that it's all speculation until someone actually has "standing" and can show actual harm from the breach. It's not enough that Ford isn't holding up their end. Someone has to actually be harmed by it.

Could a group file a class action? Sure. No one would take it cause there's no money in it to say we've all been harmed a few bucks by having to buy momentarily expensive filters.

Furthermore, Ford would simply argue if you need an oil change, you can get one at a dealership. It would then be up to the attorneys to wrestle over whether that's fair or dealership prices are comparable to the marketplace at large. Again, all discussions in fantasy, because none of it harms us individually enough to matter and as a class action, there wouldn't be enough money in it for any firm to take it up and seriously pursue it.

I recommended someone have an attorney just write a simple letter on attorney letterhead (sometimes that's enough to spur it off the bottom of someone's pile).

This could continue to go on for some time. Maybe Ford is waiting (like the rest of us) hoping that the supplies will come back around and it'll be a non-issue.

But yeah, the simplest thing would be for them to say "okay, you can continue to use the 2062 until August of 2022, at which time we'll re-examine the issue"
This should have happened a long time ago. I hope it doesn't have to come down to lawyers getting involved. I'd like to see someone at Ford step up and provide guidance.

Thank you to everyone for their well thought out responses.
 

ChipG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2021
Threads
32
Messages
513
Reaction score
566
Location
Nashville TN
First Name
Chip
Vehicle(s)
'20 GT350/'95 F250/'65 Fastback/'96 Cobra Project
Magnuson-Moss stipulates that an OEM cannot void a warranty simply due to the use of non-OEM-branded replacement or maintenance parts. They would need to show that the part did not meet specification or failed and caused the issue - being aftermarket is not in and of itself sufficient. This is to protect consumers from being required to purchase OEM-branded tires, oil, repair parts, etc. giving the OEM predatory monopoly pricing power. It is not limited to the auto industry.
 

jseeutat

Active Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
32
Reaction score
42
Location
Louisiana
Vehicle(s)
2019 GT350
Funny thing is if these assholes would produce the oil filters that they recommend we use then this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. All of us have spent a pretty penny on our cars and the fact that we're all scrambling to find a damn oil filter is ridiculous.
 
OP
OP
Angrey

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,351
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
Funny thing is if these assholes would produce the oil filters that they recommend we use then this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. All of us have spent a pretty penny on our cars and the fact that we're all scrambling to find a damn oil filter is ridiculous.
We don't know why they're backed up. Could be any number of things. We also don't know what Ford's agreement with them allows them to do. It's probably not like have a lot of flexibility to use alternates without having to recertify or face some sorta blowback from Ford. I know that MOST (if not nearly all) businesses and manufacturers want to produce and sell products, so whatever it is that's holding them up, it's likely that they're just as frustrated as we are.
 

Sponsored

Tomster

Beware of idiots
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Threads
278
Messages
15,511
Reaction score
15,586
Location
FL
First Name
Tom
Vehicle(s)
'20 RR GT500R(CFTP), 18 OW GT350R Base, '17 AG GT350R Electronics Pack, '97 PG Cobra Convertible
We don't know why they're backed up. Could be any number of things. We also don't know what Ford's agreement with them allows them to do. It's probably not like have a lot of flexibility to use alternates without having to recertify or face some sorta blowback from Ford. I know that MOST (if not nearly all) businesses and manufacturers want to produce and sell products, so whatever it is that's holding them up, it's likely that they're just as frustrated as we are.
It's strange that you can get these filters all day long in Canada. It seems that either Canada doesn't have the supply chain issue or that they had a significant stockpile and limited demand.

Oh, and they won't ship them....
 
OP
OP
Angrey

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,351
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
It's strange that you can get these filters all day long in Canada. It seems that either Canada doesn't have the supply chain issue or that they had a significant stockpile and limited demand.

Oh, and they won't ship them....
If that's the case, why can't we find a good member of the community North of the border to buy them in CAD and send them to us south of the border? Seems cheaper than Ebay and faster than waiting on intermittent supply shipments.
 

Tomster

Beware of idiots
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Threads
278
Messages
15,511
Reaction score
15,586
Location
FL
First Name
Tom
Vehicle(s)
'20 RR GT500R(CFTP), 18 OW GT350R Base, '17 AG GT350R Electronics Pack, '97 PG Cobra Convertible
If that's the case, why can't we find a good member of the community North of the border to buy them in CAD and send them to us south of the border? Seems cheaper than Ebay and faster than waiting on intermittent supply shipments.
I have a few coming, but the scope of this shortage is so far outside what we as forum members can do.

This is a Ford problem. They really need to solve this one way or the other.
 

Blwnsmoke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Threads
14
Messages
460
Reaction score
561
Location
NH
First Name
Brian
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT350
That's not true. Or at least you're leaving out a crucial part.

A warranty can stipulate virtually anything they want it to, it's a voluntary agreement that you sign when you purchase the car (it's part of the purchase).

What they can't do is CHANGE the terms of the warranty such that the holder is harmed through unreasonable escalation or difficulties.

Ford can stipulate that you must use 93 octane in order to maintain your warranty. They don't have to provide you fuel for it. What they CAN'T do is sell a bunch of cars stipulating 93, then change the requirement to be some obscure high grade race fuel (that only their licensed supplier has).

Ford and any other warranter can stipulate the terms of the warranty. In this case, what Ford did was CHANGE to something not readily available, which harms the warranty holder by forcing them to either not use their property (or as often) OR face undue financial burden trying to comply with the new terms.

I've run into this a few times and it's usually when companies are purchased by other companies
You are 100% incorrect. The MM does state what he just posted. I have read it before in the law. A manufacturer must provide the part for free if they require you to use their part only and no aftermarket versions

Your gas example is totally flawed. Ford doesn't produce gas. There is no Ford brand gas or Ford performance brand gas so they would never have to provide free gas.
Sponsored

 
 




Top