I can understand to a degree why GM and others may consider limiting the warranty for someone flipping a car. But at the same time GM needs to hold the dealer franchises to offer the car at the MSRP. There is no way any dealership is going to offer a Corvette Z-06 for MSRP, that's the start of the problem.
@@Vykk_Draygo yes, but the M stands for Manufacturer. If I make a product, and license others to sell it... I wouldn't allow them to price gouge customers for a product that represents my brand. ESPECIALLY if my goal is to be an affordable product in a category that is historically priced out of most people's range. The manufacturer loans products to dealers in its network and only requires a certain amount be paid to zero the debt. Anything over that is profit. Dealers are getting rich off consumers and the manufacturer is allowing it. I'd be curious to know if GM is requiring a percentage to be paid rather than an amount predetermined by a cost benefit analysis.
Yes, they should be making the dealships honor msrp and not trying to limit the end consumer. Like someone else said, thus will probably hurt them more. Stay tuned for Steve's upcoming video about GM changing their mind.
So you can't sell your corvette until a year without penalty, but it's ok for dealers to add huge markups to the price in the first place? Isn't that just as bad if the car makers are worried about being seen as over priced?
Car dealers lobby the government to set things up in a way to prevent new cars being sold by anyone else, even having territory laws to prevent other dealers from setting up too close to them.
That's actually the root of the problem that they're not going after. It's what they're protecting. So let's say you have a dealership in a hot area like Miami. Miami wants these sporty cars but the only have so many allocated and they are all marked up at the dealership. So someone realizes they can go to the middle of the country middle of nowhere and buy the car at MSRP. Then go over to Miami and resell it for a gigantic profit. They want to protect that dealership that's gouging the fuck out of Miami customers. They give the excuse that they're protecting the customers that live out in the middle of nowhere. Cuz they didn't get that car. But that's not what's really happening. What should happen is they just need to make more fucking cars, something they won't and can't do. For a variety of reasons that I won't bother getting into but... So there will always be this demand and they're just trying to shift the blame away from dealerships marking him the fuck up and instead protecting those dealerships, and blaming customers on reselling it.
@@TravisFabel that is why they are a dealer . under the law gm can only say suggested retail price. it's the same for pretty much any product you buy in a store. MSRP is on cereal and toothpaste and everything else. due to anti monopoly laws . the manufacturer can't dictate to the store or dealer what price to charge. but gm can fight the dealers by not letting them buy that corvette to pressure them.
@@TravisFabel If these models are a certain spec, why don't Chevrolet just say they are only making a certain number, as long as the number is big enough to keep speculators away. Most other car makers do this anyway.
I remember in 77 my wife and I bought a brand new American motors car and they had a 1 year warranty and it said it was a no small print warrantee and it said anything they supplied on the car was warranteed for 1 yr or 12,000 miles. well at 10 months the car had bushings that were defective The dealer replaced them under warranty but then said I needed new spark plugs and rotor and cap and ignition wires I said well if they are no good, replace them. When I went to pick up the car, they tried to charge for the tune up. I said the plain written warrantee stated everything American Motors supplied was good for a year. The said these were wear items I said sucks being you. The let me go without charge
I wonder how many other people took advantage of such a situation. Probably only those who had heard of a similar story or worked for the corporation and found out about it similarly.
None of those parts should have needed replacing in the 1st year, wear items or not, especially considering you were under 12,000 miles. They tried to scam you for unnecessary work, to help defray the cost of the warranty work. Bravo to you for sticking it right back to them, Lawrence.
Interesting point: If someone flips a single vehicle, their buyer has no Lemon Law protection in most states. If the flipper sells enough cars that they trigger lemon law protections, they also have to become a licensed car seller. At least, that's how it works in Massachusetts.
yep 3 cars in a year and you need a license, and any car sold for over used to be 750 had to be able to pass mass inspections or no sale or seller had to fix it...
This varies WIDELY among states. Most states include used cars in their lemon law, but lemon laws generally require the first defect or defects to happen within a specific time period - Massachusetts for example requires the first major issue to occur in the first year or 15k miles - and that INCLUDES used cars. So yeah, it does include used cars but how many used cars are going to qualify for the 1 yr/15k miles thing? Almost none. Some states SPECIFICALLY disallow used vehicles under lemon law protection (although you are still protected under breach of warranty).
Assuming the person buying a car wants to deal with owning an LLC. In a lot of areas there’s going to be ongoing fees and annual reports needed. Not to mention the tax implications. If I’m buying a car and you sell me an LLC that owns the car I’m going to want a good % knocked off because now I have to deal with the LLC. I don’t think that is a viable solution.
Just sell the LLC without taxable rights. Sell a part of the LLC that keeps the car, but it is probably easier to just go to work and earn money and find more opportunities that would be helpful for both parties. An LLC can be a problem for both people if there’s no commerce happening within it.
@@georgewelker853 -- The LLC "invests" in cars. It only has one asset. Anyone with the money to buy these vehicles at such inflated costs can probably afford to have their tax person handle the extra paperwork. And the LLC can be dissolved after the one-year date. In my state, it's $100 to form an LLC. Nothing to file an annual report other than a stamp. A bit of extra paperwork at tax time, but mine is for a business anyway.
This reminds me of small town businesses that do things like threaten their customers if they buy a product from someone else. In one town I lived in I went to a business and asked if they had a certain style water heater. They said no, but they could order one. But the home owner needed it right away. I told the business owner I would look elsewhere, whereat he said, "You buy one from someone else don't come back here to buy anything else." Never bought anything else fro that business, but that tactic worked on most of the poeple who lived in that town.
That’s why they’ll stay a small business, if they can even manage that. The owners are so narcissistic that they feel entitled to your business, rather than having to earn your business. I’ve seen small business owners who act like this as well.
There's no way this is commonplace. Most small town people wouldn't put up with the local shop keeper telling them they're only allowed to shop with him.
@Billy William Try Volkswagen in the Uk if you buy new you get a 3 year 100,000 mile warranty, but if you clock up more than 60,000 miles within the first 2 years of the warranty period then the third year is null and void
I come home in 1976 to purchase a bicentennial Corvette. All the dealerships in the US or sold out. You could look in the newspaper and find bicentennial Corvettes for sale $50,000 over dealer price. I called GM and they told me that all the Corvettes were allotted to dealers and those we're already sold. I told GM that I would never never own a Corvette.
How are lenders going to feel about this? That is going to affect their ability to resell one of these vehicles if they have to repossess it within the first year.
More then likely a lender is not involved. These high damn car are brought outright and resold with cash. People that are willing to pay huge markups have money to burn.
The big manufacturers like Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc have their own financing. I'd assume that if Chevy is willing to implement this, their in-house financing and legal teams had a chance to weigh in. GM corporate must have some justification. I bet as the manufacturer they would just resell it as "certified pre-owned" with a different pre-owned warranty. The issue comes in if you're trying to get a loan through your own bank. They would have to consider the resale value sans warranty. That might not be the end of the line though. If the secondary market is hot enough to offset the value of the lost warranty, it might not make a difference.
I feel that this will do way more to damage GM's Brand than letting it be. It Just smacks of their Greed and general shady trickery. For YEARS dealers have been adding desirability markups on every hot new model. Manufactures did little or nothing to stop this and just said, Look, This shows how desirable our product is. Now there is push back on this and so GM says 'This is bad! We will punish the BUYER if they do this.'
> I feel that this will do way more to damage GM's Brand than letting it be. Well, I'd definitely have a much better opinion of Sony if they'd limited the warranty on PS5's which were (and still are) being flipped.
If I recall correctly, at least one foreign "exotic" vehicle manufacturer (Ferrari maybe) has had a similar policy for quite a while. I don't know if it voided the warranty but, it did prevent the seller from buying another one. Since I don't want a new Corvette and couldn't afford one if I did, I have no skin in this game. However, if someone buys one, then can immediately resell it for a profit to someone else, more power to them. To me, it's no different than a dealer marking up prices on the lot. The first time I can remember this happening is when the Buick GNX came out in 1987. Dealers were selling them at much more than sticker price and people bought them all. Flipping cars has been done for years and, as long as everything is legit, I don't have a problem with it. Personally, I enjoy working on and driving my classic vehicles but, I have bought a few newer ones in need of repairs to fix and flip for extra cash.
I think even "THE" car guy j leno badmouthed one of the supercar companies and is banned. He refuses to have one in his collection. Thier loss, they will not have an almost mint car in a museum in 50 years. Don't remember the company, not in that market. J Leno is the wrong enemy for a supercar company's to make, people with stupid money for cars, some listen to "THE" car guy.
Ferrari dealerships have Ferrari corporate approve every buyer. They have to because it's Ferrari's policy if they want to keep being a dealership. (See the now defunct Vegas Ferrari dealership story for more on that) So the dealership has to play by corporate Ferrari's rules. Corporate Ferrari keeps track of people they don't want to own Ferraris. People who have flipped them in the past are on that list... As are celebrities that have publicly bad mouthed Ferrari for one reason or another. So Ferrari is not avoiding warranties and such. Their cars don't actually come with real warranties. It's basically the bare minimum required by law that end as soon as possible because you have to pay for the fucking car and all of its work and all of its bullshit. It's a club and your should be thankful and grateful to have allowed you to be in it. At least that's their perspective on it. My perspective on it is that the are poorly built overpriced pieces of shit that look pretty because they're generally designed outside of Ferrari... They have all the right pieces there but they don't have any other refinement to make them into decent cars. They're not the fastest. They're not the lightest. They're not the most cutting edge. They literally have nothing more than a brand going for them.
When I went to work in California about 1976, the Honda dealer on Colorado Blvd in Pasadena wasn't a bit bashful charging $5000 over list on their Honda Accords. I have it and you don't. Wanna buy it? Supply and demand.
Ferrari dealerships are also the only way to buy a new Ferrari, and in some cases specific models entirely. In some cases they are basically always part owned by Ferrari, the original buyer agrees to this when buying them, and the contract they sign says they must sell it back to Ferrari if they choose to sell, or to a Ferrari approved buyer. It's to keep the brand exclusive and valuable. Chevvy has no such arguement, their brand has no real exclusive value. But then they are also trying to sell this car as a supercar, it just isn't, sure it makes alot of noise and generates loads of power, but it lacks performance. The US basically can't do super cars since nothing they make can handle corners..
I understand how GM could do this for warranties other than the federally mandated emissions warranty. BUT, I'm sure they will have to meet their responsibilities with regard to the emissions warranty.
Flipping is one thing, but what happens IF someone takes out a loan and, due to circumstances, can no longer afford it within a year (a real possibility, especially at this price point)? Or your employer shuts down/lays you off etc. and the house comes first? Or any number of other NON profit scenarios (edited for those of you that take comments far too literally). They try to sell it for enough to pay out the loan but no one will buy it without the warranty. GM should not be able to penalize those that need to sell for LEGITIMATE reasons within a year. Maybe a process to get GMs OK might be an idea?
Q: but what happens IF someone takes out a loan and, due to circumstances, can no longer afford it within a year(?) A: unfortunately sucks to be you. because: sometimes we go to Vegas, gamble, and we WIN...? other times we go to Vegas, gamble, and we LOSE.
Look at the new 2023 Raptor R. Multiple Dealers asking 100k over msrp. A allocation is needed of course but there are dealers who do not have a allocation taking deposits knowing full well they cannot get one.
I can remember back when the warranties on a new cars were for either 2/24 or 3/36 and were not transferable. As for the Corvette, could the seller and buyer do an end run around this limitation by structuring the transaction so that, at least on paper, it was a 1 year lease with the "option" to buy at an agreed upon price?
I can see this leading to the thinking that if you buy any used GM car you will get no warranty. Edit I can see this type of policy leading to rumours that the car is so bad that the manufacturer will not warranty the car.
If GM is worried about their reputation the stories about a newer Corvette that was not covered under warranty will hurt them more than a high sale price.
In Norway, we have two standards: Manudacturer warranty and Right of complaint by law. They are not the same, but used interchangeably in daily speech. We have a set of rules for minimum right of complaint by law. Every business in Norway has to obey these rules. Often the Norwegian distributors set their warranty to apply with this minimum standard. Sometimes they try to get away with shorter international warranty. New cars have 5 year right of complaints, used cars have 2 years. There are different standards applied to dealers and consumers, stating that a car dealer is professional, and is expected to know what to check. A company can have a warranty less than the right of complaints. Because of warranty and complaints being used interchangeably, some companies might try deny your warranty claim. "That's not covered by our warranty!" If you claim right og complaints, suddenly they understand you know your rights, and they probably start to cooperate. For cars, they usually offer (at leadt) 5 year warranty, in accordance with right to complain, but they limit at certain km. Still you could have a case, by right of complaints, within 5 years, if the applicable part should be expected to last longer. Loads of shady phone dealers try to offer 2 years warranty, while mibile phones by definition are ecpected to last longer than 5 years, thus 5 years rights of complaints.
@@havenbastion I used to believe America were too, but after observing some events the last few years, I've reconsidered my thoughts on that to some degree.
@@tagsby81 you are correct. stuff like ABS, and Traction control and so on, all of it needs CHIPS. why USA does not make its own chips however, now that is the real question. is there really savings to make them in asia if USA car manufacturers suffers from it?
@@magnetmannenbannanen a chip fab is like an oil refinery, you can't just build one at the drop of a hat. It takes years, and tens of millions of dollars for the equipment. The chip shortage isn't being caused by a lack of fab capacity, AFAIK it's due to a lack of raw materials which would usually come from Ukraine.
@@tissuepaper9962 You are a little low on the prices, the machinery costs billions of dollars, the running costs for the 3 month maintenance intervals are just millions of dollars. Yet out of that the fab can make a profit, selling parts for the price of 100 units per US cent. Big volume, or very expensive parts, same thing, they all take up to a year to go through, and no way to make it go through faster.
Thanks for the informative video...I always learn something new every time I watch your videos! As for as the warranty...didn't Ford do something like this with legal limitations with the Ford GT to keep people from flipping them? I think John Cena ended up in court or something after he breached Ford's GT contract?
Steve where I live the manufacturer could not limit the transfer of warranty because the warranty is not specified by the manufacturer it's specified by law whereby a seller or manufacturer must warrant anything to be usable for a reasonable amount of time. On the other hand if the manufacturer throws in extras as the manufacturers warranty such as free oil change or coverage of consumables such as wiper blades then for sure limits could be put on those things but not the basic usedability of the car.
There is a simple loophole around this. Register an LLC and make the only asset the LLC has is one Z06. Then you can sell the LLC but the owner of the car in the eyes of GM is still the SAME!
thanks Steve. I saw the call out on "the other channel" and thought "hey! I watch his videos! I wonder what he'll say?" Now I know. Well explained sir.
2:40... If the surge pricing really is to prevent people from scalping. The ticket sales companies could implement a process where you get back your search pricing if the person that bought the ticket actually goes. 1. You buy tickets for yourself and your friend Anna 2. You register the tickets under your name and Anna 3. You go to the venue and present your ID, banana can't make it so somebody else goes. 4. You would then get reimbursed the search pricing on your ticket but not Anna's This would keep tickets that were scalped or resold at a much higher price, while keeping regular event going customer tickets prices low.
I recall dodge giving a lifetime warranty on their drivetrains to the original owner because the transmissions were junk, so i would say that GM can do this
One Chrysler iteration (Cerberus era?) had offered lifetime powertrain warranties for a few years in the noughties to try to increase sales to stave-off bankruptcy. It was then possible to get bumper-to-bumper upgrades to that warranty depending on offerings. My brother had one such truck for many, many years with the 4.7L V8 and 545RFE transmission. The warranty had nothing to do specifically with the quality of the transmission. It was simply to drive sales.
At the 5 min 50 sec mark "The free marketplace will almost always find a way..."...Yes! It will. Steve mentions ticket scalping... When I was a kid I found a way to buy scalped tickets LEGALLY...This company would buy 50 or a hundred tickets to an event and then sell them at a good profit BUT by offering a bus ride to the event... officially, you were buying the bus ride at a premium price in which the ticket(s) to the event were included free (or at cost). You didn't even have to actually take the bus ride...just buy it and you could drive yourself to the event (with your tickets) but your bus seat was always still available...The business would charter 2 or 3 school buses or however many they needed for the night of the event and provide transport to and from the event...a nice way around the law forbidding ticket scalping.
Technically the car still will have some warranties on it; however the important ones like drive train go away. And basically they are just saying the warranty is non-transferable for 1 year from purchase. The simple way around this is that investors purchase the cars into an LLC and keep ownership and insurance through that. They can "sell the car" to someone for whatever price, just keep ownership under the company that purchased it and only transfer the title to the new owner until after 1 year has gone by.
Wonder if there is an exception if after owning for about 6 months the seller has a financial crisis and has to sell. Also, a creative seller could put together a short term lease with an option to buy at the end of the lease.
In reality the way they would determine whether or not the seller is flipping the car and not really a "consumer" under the law is by how much money they make doing it. If it's a significant portion of your income, there's no way they're going to believe that you are a consumer. Of course, if you just buy one car and sell it later, it's unlikely they do anything because they don't have a good argument. You could literally just say "I ended up not liking the car that much" or "it cost too much to drive" and that's why you sold it and they'd have no way to prove otherwise. However, if you bought 11 cars this year and flipped all of them, the claim that you're a "consumer" wouldn't even pass the laugh test.
And of course the listed sale price wouldn’t include the cash “finders”, or “original acquisition” fee to the seller… or just a plain undocumented cash top off.
I switch to ford vehicles for my trucks when my wife’s saturn was in a collision with a deer at 11,000 km…basic the front facia,hood and driver’s fender needed to be replaced…after the car was fixed at the dealership I was told that the engine and powertrain warranty was now void because the engine and powertrain are connected to damaged parts and the body now has only a year warranty. Thankfully the fallowing year a lady at a stop sign( driving a caddy) stopped then pulled out in front of me and wrote the saturn off…I have never bought new of used another GM vehicle because of the warranty issue…my wife is currently drive a beautiful 2011 MB Glk. I would like to thank Gm for pissing me off and forcing me to look at much better and nicer Car Manufacturing companies.
How would the lemon law apply to a flipped car like this? No more warranty due to sale within a year, but would lemon law (at least in your state) still apply in some manner?
First, I disagree with "flipping" a vehicle. Now, people need to understand that as you say a warranty is controlled by the manufacturer. I read my vehicle warranties and how they apply. (Example) a 2wd SUV I bought had a front end that was out of alignment (from the start), causing uneven tread wear on both front tires. I took it to the dealer and made sure the service man wrote up my complaint as I described it. The dealer refused to put the vehicle on the alignment machine claiming it was aligned properly at the factory. This started at 2,000 miles on the vehicle. Every few weeks I returned and again had it written up. I kept all my receipts. The dealer stated I just needed to rotate my tires more often. This continued until I had 6,000 miles on it. I tried the factory customer service numerous times and finally was able to get a person to look at the vehicle at the dealership. The machine proved me correct, and I finally got it properly aligned. Now the fun part. I then told the dealer that I wanted two new tires, as the old ones were badly worn. The dealer claimed I hadn't brought the issue to their attention soon enough. I intentionally told them they could check "their records" and see when I first brought it in. Conveniently they couldn't access the info. That's when I produced all my copies. Faced with this evidence, their story changed and the denied me stating I needed to contact the tire manufacturer, as it was their problem. That's when I produced the manufacturer's warranty and pointed to the section stating the car manufacturer didn't warranty another companies product, "unless the damage was caused by a defective in the car". I received two new tires. Also at that time the car company stated that if your new car was kept overnight they would provide you with a "free rental car". The dealer did provide me with a rental, but wanted to charge me tax for it. I quoted the Webster dictionary, to them, on the meaning of the word "free". No taxes had to be paid.
The classic problem with concert tickets is automated purchasing by a subsidiary of the ticket seller which then resells the tickets at a higher than face price. (This happened in Canada with Ticketmaster.) For a physical object like a car, warranty denial seems unlikely to be legal. Warranties are supposed to follow the object.
As it is a strict limitation on the ability to dispose and sell of one's own property which the buyer has already paid GM for. GM should not be allowed to have any control over the sale or resale of that car.
@@lawrencefranck9417 Because the things they do are not, strictly speaking, illegal at the time they do them. Now that there's laws against the practice of selling the tickets to a subsidiary, they've gone on to other methods. Now, I'll say that classical ticket scalping, when any given scalper only has a small fraction of the tickets for any particular event, and they have to get them like any regular customer, isn't something that really bothers me. When the original vendor is mass-scalping tickets, and they've got exclusivity agreements with many venues to be the sole ticket seller, however....
re: "warranty denial seems unlikely to be legal." except for when you sign a contract (like John Cena did) AGREEING to these terms. don't sign the contract when you go to pick up the car from the dealer/franchisee and it's "NO Z06 FOR YOU...!!!"" (Soup Nazi voice)
Yeah we need to force our governments to put an end to Corporate control such as this. And also penalize for selling above MSRP because that's just Bullshit
If the automakers can figure out how to successfully prevent flipping, then it will give them the opportunity to raise the MSRP and the cost to the dealer. Why should the dealer or flippers be the one to profit from the shortage of new cars? Someone is going to profit; that is a given.
Do they just refuse to let you buy any in the future, or do they write conditions into the contract? I had only heard of them doing the first, but I'm not a big car person.
As long as the original owner never transfers the ownership throughout the one year period the warranty will be fine. Once the tittle transfers to the second owner, within the one year period regardless of it’s a gift, it’ll be voided.
@@khysor1832 a nasty problem I see is if you don't transfer ownership to the buyer for a year and that person goes out and causes a massive multicar accident, you as the owner of record could be held liable if I am not mistaken since it IS your car till you transfer ownership.
@@khysor1832 you posited that the original owner would not transfer title for a year to get around the warranty thing.... now you're saying to transfer title to the buyer before the year is up to avoid the liability issue ... can't have it both ways.
Ford found out the hard way they don’t want to do that and quit pursuing the matter. Having private dealerships puts a buffer between them and the customer. And private dealerships are pressurized to make sales because they actually “owe” Ford for the inventory. Dealerships actually make payments. If was Ford owned, the pressure would be removed. That’s why Tesla dealerships don’t have cars to release. Nothing in stock is wasted.
I wonder if Ford could sell directly to consumers by creating a new subsidiary, for example, "Ford Direct". The new subsidiary would sell a brand-new model that would sell directly to consumers in a test market. If it works, then Ford could slowly decline designing new models in the parent company which would cause a reduction in dealerships over time. During the reduction, hire the parent company's employees into the subsidiary to reduce costs. Subsidiary then purchases the parent's assets and sheds all remaining dealerships. Every step I think would be fiscally responsible from the point of view of a public corporation and stocks.
I'm an auto mechanic I work for myself, I give 3,000 or 90 day warranties to the original customer, if they sell the vehicle I do not warranty the labor.
That's interesting, but I would think that this will wind up for them much like other Adventures they had in trying to limit people's warranties and this comes from all of the major auto companies they will end up having to service the cars anyway. And nobody refuses to sell to people who are willing and have the ability to purchase. They are a licensed entity and when they refuse service to certain people they can get spanked.
The restriction is easily circumvented. The 1st buyer can lease or loan the car with a prepaid contract to convey title in 1 year and a day. Handled through an escrow there is no risk to purchaser.
If I recall, Ford had implemented a similar policy for the Ford GT, they sued John Cena for breaching the no sale contract, oddly enough Ford lost. I could be mistaken, but greed, capitalism, and (in most circumstances) profiteering is still legal in the US, we love our system until it affects a large group of people like a spike in gas prices, or dealerships asking for thousands of dollars over MSRP, it’s human nature, I am sure that people would NOT be complaining about if they were the beneficiaries of said transactions, what’s legal may not be fare, and what’s fare may not be legal.
Going off of something that you mentioned about requiring specific things or voiding the warrantee, most modern Chevrolets require Dextros Oil. Failing to have proof that Dextros was used for all of your oil changes will void all sorts of warrantees on their vehicles. Ferrari has a stipulation in their warrantee that forces the owner to follow certain guidelines with their cars in order to keep it valid. There was a big issue years ago where DeadMau5 wrapped his Ferrari in baby blue with Nyan cat down the side and replaced the hood ornament with a "Purrari" logo. Ferrari threatened to void his warrantee and no longer service his car if he didn't change it back. He ended up selling the car and buying a McLaren.
If you worked at a dealership, this seems like an easy and obvious hustle. I'm actually glad GM is trying to stop it, but I feel like the Ban List might be most effective.
As a former dealer employee I can tell you that most of the employees at the dealership wouldn’t have the cash or credit score to to pull off flips. Most salesmen spent it all on coke and hookers. Maybe a mechanic, they actually drug test them, but they spent 70k on tools so they are also broke.
Boat manufacturers do this. My boat has a lifetime hull warranty since I bought it new from the dealer. If I sell it, the warranty converts to 10 years to the second purchaser and the 10 years start at the time I purchased the boat and a transaction fee has to be paid to transfer the warranty.
1st Sale Doctrine is being violated, comparing it to tickets is wrong as tickets is access to private property, not the sale of an object. Manufactures warranties are required by law are they not?
Actually, no. The warranties are offered by the companies in question as a incentive for people to buy from them. What is required by law are for dealerships and manufacturers to fix cars if there is a recall.
The first sale doctrine on a car would prevent the manufacturer from putting a clause in the sales contract that prohibits the buyer from reselling it within a year of the original date of purchase. This is leaving the initial buyer free to do with the vehicle what they want. The penalties for reselling the vehicle don't deprive the first buyer of any benefit of the vehicle itself. It's a good way to make customers not want to buy their products, but I'm confident GM lawyers know how to perform legal acrobatics well enough to hold up in court
I don’t think so. But lemon laws provide a small, couple month, fill in that gap. Manufacturers Warranties also vary greatly on new cars. Then a dealer may offer warranty incentives to buy.
Just a thought......Initially, a LLC buys the Vehicle from the dealer....LLC "sells" it to the "new" owner at a profit, make new owner a holder in the LLC, initial owners bow out of LLC.....And do it as a Montana LLC to avoid sales tax.....After the 12 months, LLC transfers ownership to the new individual....
That actually could work. In some states the cost of an LLC is a one time fee of as little as $50 and since corporations are legally people the car would remain registered to the same buyer.
@@1911Earthling We own two GM franchise's. It's in our agreement. Rental companies have direct contracts with GM. When your husband gets home from his boyfriends house, you can talk to him about being silly.
@@stackenali7059 : You were asked a simple question and you answered it; you should have left it at that. Now let me ask you another one: Why don't you talk to yourself about you being a Jerk? Or, much better, to the Lord about you not being one?
One of the benefits of buying a high end car is that it retains significant resale value. Limited edition cars may even gain in resale value. I would think that the car companies would realize that voiding the warranty for reselling the car before 1 year would adversely affect the resale value of these cars.
Could you get around this prohibition by leasing the car to someone for a for a year, with the payment of a lump sum price equal to the proposed purchase cost, with an option to buy after one year for $1?
I Donno, I sort of understand where they are coming from, BUT they BETTER crack down on dealer markups or I won't agree. People have been doing this with Tesla's for years which is why the waiting list are so long. I've heard of people who have bought and flipped like 8 Tesla's. When I was looking for a truck it was terrible because people were buying anything remotely moderately prices and flipping them to people that are desperate for a truck while supply is low. All the initial broncos were flipped too, which Steve mentioned. They are still for sale out there with only the "drive home from the dealer" mileage on them. I feel if you want to flip new cars and take them from under the feet of true fans of the product, you should be able to pay for the risk of not having a warranty.
The ball is in their court. Look at the Ford GT, they have a 24-month "no-flip" clause in the owner's contract, breach it and they'll seek compensation. How many consumer products can you buy that limit warranties to the original purchaser only? Wasn't that many years ago that many car brands were the same. Like it or not, it's totally up to the seller/ manufacturer what they will offer, and up to you whether to purchase it or not. If it'll keep pricing lower, it's not a bad thing. If they can also keep the dealers in line by preventing them from gouging people, it'll be even better.
I'm all for this. I'm tired of rich people and/or people with connections being able to suck up a product that would otherwise be affordable to a certain group of people, but they have made that impossible. Same thing goes to dealers who jack the prices up too. Yeah I'm all for capitalism, but this is one of those cases where it's just not right. Remember, Ford tried to limit buyers of the GT to not selling it for the first two years for the same reason. I don't think that worked out too well, so I'm sure GM was paying attention and is doing this instead.
$100,000 dollar plus cars are not affordable to the average middle class family. People are being stupid and taking out 7, 8 and even longer loans for these ultra expensive cars and trucks and they are under water for almost the entire life of the loan.
I am at 0:03 , i just jumped on the title. French btw, so not very aware of US laws, my apologies... In my humble opinion, it is the car (the product from GM) that is under warranty, so, no, if no seal broken and maintenance plans respected, the warranty is for ANY owner of the car within the time and mileage after it was initially sold... Just gut-feeling, nothing to do with the law ! I am sure the law is more tortuous and complicated than that 😥😂 Edit to insert. I was right, so tortuous... what does GM have against early swappers ? They come often, and GM gets paid... In Europe, warranties are for the products, as long as you can justify ownership and you being within time/usage limits, the warranty applies. Thanks for your (very needed on the technical side) clear and documented highlights 👍🖖
Did you buy a flipped car? I'd like to talk to you about your vehicle warranty... If GM doesn't want to warranty their products beyond the first buyer or 70,000 miles, whichever comes first, then that's their right IMO. I think it's potentially a really stupid business practice that's gonna bite them in the ass because, as suggested, they COULD get warranty repairs from a third party. People are going to put less faith in a vehicle that the manufacturer won't stand behind because YOU MIGHT SELL IT to someone. And meanwhile, someone ELSE is going to see vehicles come in for inevitable repairs and people will simply cease to use dealership service altogether. Or at least it's possible. Hey, if they want to go that route let them shoot themselves in the foot. Their next logical step is to go John Deere and simply not provide ANY parts to non-authorized repair centers. We'll see how far they get with that...
*your channel is so very illuminating, and I am so happy to be poor. when I bought my 2007 Grand Marquis almost 12 years ago, it came with a guarantee/warranty that it would run at least until the end of the seller's lot. still pumping, though here in floorda, we have problems with anything made of rubber 🤢*
Always read the fine print. The warranty can be voided by the car company for a myriad of reasons. Racing out, using it outside the scope of designated use, and someone buying one for another is as old as Bonny and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson and the other famous Depression Era robbers who used fronts to buy cars all the time.
One thing I would recommend anyone is to read your contract before signing. If this clause is in your contract you need to really think about what it means. If it is, however, not mentioned in a contract than GM does not have a leg to stand on, in my opinion. Or am I no longer the owner of the vehicle I am purchasing? Dealers are upselling vehicles 25 - 60% over MSRP and nobody seems to care.
Hyundai does not have the 10 year 100k warranty transferable, it is reduced if the car is sold. Second owner gets 5 year 60k warranty. So this is not so surprising that they do this.
I like your flood waters rising comment - here is one possible approach... So, a scalper buys 50 Corvette Z06s. They are made available to anyone who wants one (at flipper level pricing) on a one-year capital lease that is paid in full up front. Title does not transfer to the lessee until the end of the lease period. Any warranty work is handled by the lessor during the term of the lease. A bit of a nuisance to administer but it gets around the problem.
CNC Equipment has a u-tube channel. They have an episode about a couple of manufacturers who void their five year warrantees just because the equipment was sold at auction. So just because the mechanism of title transfer was through an auction.
Standing room only seats... arena sports are on that. You get to wander around the mezzanine all game. But the food has improved. They prefer to be called pit seats or some trendy name at concerts.
Warranty transfer I didn’t think it was even a thing, because the second hand person didn’t enter that purchase agreement with the company. I only learned this courtesy was a thing today.
Steve, Ok, I buy one of those Corvettes….. Now I know I have no manufacturers warranty. 1. What is stopping me from buying an extended warranty from whomever. & 2. Will there be issues if the car is in need of “warranty” repairs that GM has denied due to the rules imposed on a purchase of corvettes younger than 1 year old…. Will the extended warranty company follow suit and align there policy to GM and deny payment to fix…… inquiring minds want to know !
1) Voiding the warranty to the 2nd owner mostly only punishes that 2nd owner that could be totally unaware the warranty will be voided due to the sale in the 1st year. 2) I'm confident a purchase agreement could easily be made that 2nd owner gets the car but the ownership transfer only occurs 1yr+1day after the original sale date.
The problem with this is that if someone loses a job they can end up deep underwater on what they owe and what they can reasonably sell the car for. In essence the car manufacturer is in a position to indenture unsophisticated buyers into servitude because they assumed that they would not have any negative financial events happen to them in their first year of ownership. I can understand this if the manufacturer makes allowances for changes in circumstance.
Doesn't this suggest the quality is poor? If it was good quality this threat would mean very little and you buy it anyway. So GMs threat basically admits poor quality.
This isn’t about warranties but a story you might like. In the very early ‘80’s I worked for a government regulatory agency and we did cargo inspections at ports of entry. At this particular port they had foreign car imports as some of the vessels were Ro/Ro (roll on, roll off). So the vehicles were just driven off the ships. Well, 2 cars got driven off the dock completely and disappeared. It was a mystery for almost 2 years. No one knew what became of the cars. I learned their fate from my cousin who happened to work for the company insuring the car import. The thieves bided their time then after tried to register the cars in our state. That’s when the hammer fell and the thieves were arrested and cars recovered. The thieves were longshoreman at the facility and got their buddy at the gate to look the other way and housed both cars in a garage just half a mile from the port. I am not sure of what became of the thieves. If you want the particulars I can send to you in a pm/email
There is a "used" ford lightning for sale at a local dealership. It has 38 miles and a 45,000 dollar markup from the new price. Seems rather dirty, but dealerships are known for being dirty.
Imagine! The effrontery of wanting to buy a product at a lower price and then resell it at a higher price! Who ever heard of such a thing? I mean, just think of what would happen if every single store in the entire world did that....oh wait, they do.
Back in the 80s, it was not uncommon for new car warranties to be extended to the first owner only. If you bought a low mileage used car, you often got no warranty, just like any other high mileage car.
So basically transferability of the [limited, new vehicle] warranty is *expected* in the car market, but it isn't necessarily *legally mandated* . Any manufacturer *could* legally state that there is *no* transferability of the warranty of any kind and therefore a used car buyer would never get any manufacturer warranty on their purchase. GM doing this only for certain models, and only for ones that are flipped prior to one year of ownership...that ain't so bad. Because, it seems it could be a lot worse if all manufacturers just up and said, "Hey that's not a bad idea, let's just make *all* warranties non-transferable, period." 😐
Credit where it's due, GM is actually trying to deal with flippers on the two fronts where it matters. Doesn't matter if it's a PS5, a car or anything in between, resellers can't resell if nobody is willing to buy or if they can't get the items themselves. This concept addresses both aspects. It "discourages" individuals from buying from a reseller as well as taking steps to prevent resellers from continuing this "business model." Is it the best idea/will it work? Too soon to say, but it's an attempt.
Entirely different scenario but parallels it in a sense. The terms of the Hyundai warranty change for any subsequent owner after the original owner. The 10 year/100,000 mile warranty only applies to the original owner. It becomes a a 5 year/60,000 mile warranty beginning with owner number two, presumably even if the first owner sold it after only a few weeks of purchase. Point being, the terms of a new car warranty can change with changes of ownership.
Not in the U/K. When you buy any product from a seller then it is the seller that has to give you the warranty. For Steves example. The battery on your new car brakes down. The seller has to renew it, then the seller takes it up with the battery company. To cut it short. You are buying a product from a seller NOT from a MANUFACTURER. It's the same when you use your CREDIT CARD to buy something ( highly recommened ). If you have a problem with a purchase then it is upto you bank to sort the problem out because when you use a CREDIT CARD ( AGAIN HIGHLY RECOMMENED ) it is the bank making that purchase not YOU. Moral of the story, NEVER use a DEBIT CARD to make a purchase. ALWAYS, ALWAYS use you CREDIT CARD. Even if you make a deposit on something, use your CREDIT CARD. Let's suppose you put $2000 down deposit on a car. You pay cash or debit card. Two weeks latter that company goes bust. Well you can kiss YOUR money GOODBYE !!! HOWEVER if you used you CREDIT CARD then YOUR MONEY is safe and YOU loose NOTHING !!!
I can understand to a degree why GM and others may consider limiting the warranty for someone flipping a car. But at the same time GM needs to hold the dealer franchises to offer the car at the MSRP. There is no way any dealership is going to offer a Corvette Z-06 for MSRP, that's the start of the problem.
I agree. There's already a dealership trying to sell the Z06 at $100k over msrp.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket Why? The S means suggested. They can sell it for more or less if they want (used to be it was usually less).
Their is peoples purchasing Ford Mavericks and flipping them for a profit now.
@@Vykk_Draygo yes, but the M stands for Manufacturer. If I make a product, and license others to sell it... I wouldn't allow them to price gouge customers for a product that represents my brand. ESPECIALLY if my goal is to be an affordable product in a category that is historically priced out of most people's range. The manufacturer loans products to dealers in its network and only requires a certain amount be paid to zero the debt. Anything over that is profit. Dealers are getting rich off consumers and the manufacturer is allowing it. I'd be curious to know if GM is requiring a percentage to be paid rather than an amount predetermined by a cost benefit analysis.
Yes, they should be making the dealships honor msrp and not trying to limit the end consumer. Like someone else said, thus will probably hurt them more. Stay tuned for Steve's upcoming video about GM changing their mind.
GM Statement: If you FLIP your new corvette, it will go on your “Permanent Record”, and your parents will be notified …
oh dear......
You mean I won't be able to buy a GM product any more? 😉
@@johnevans9751 That sounds like a win to me
They probably use their parents as buyers to flip the car
😆😂😂👍🏻
So you can't sell your corvette until a year without penalty, but it's ok for dealers to add huge markups to the price in the first place? Isn't that just as bad if the car makers are worried about being seen as over priced?
Car dealers lobby the government to set things up in a way to prevent new cars being sold by anyone else, even having territory laws to prevent other dealers from setting up too close to them.
That's actually the root of the problem that they're not going after. It's what they're protecting. So let's say you have a dealership in a hot area like Miami. Miami wants these sporty cars but the only have so many allocated and they are all marked up at the dealership. So someone realizes they can go to the middle of the country middle of nowhere and buy the car at MSRP. Then go over to Miami and resell it for a gigantic profit. They want to protect that dealership that's gouging the fuck out of Miami customers. They give the excuse that they're protecting the customers that live out in the middle of nowhere. Cuz they didn't get that car.
But that's not what's really happening. What should happen is they just need to make more fucking cars, something they won't and can't do. For a variety of reasons that I won't bother getting into but... So there will always be this demand and they're just trying to shift the blame away from dealerships marking him the fuck up and instead protecting those dealerships, and blaming customers on reselling it.
If I have something for sale I'll ask what I want period. If Chevrolet wants to nullify the factory warranty that's on the buyer, not me.
@@TravisFabel that is why they are a dealer . under the law gm can only say suggested retail price. it's the same for pretty much any product you buy in a store. MSRP is on cereal and toothpaste and everything else. due to anti monopoly laws . the manufacturer can't dictate to the store or dealer what price to charge.
but gm can fight the dealers by not letting them buy that corvette to pressure them.
@@TravisFabel If these models are a certain spec, why don't Chevrolet just say they are only making a certain number, as long as the number is big enough to keep speculators away. Most other car makers do this anyway.
I remember in 77 my wife and I bought a brand new American motors car and they had a 1 year warranty and it said it was a no small print warrantee and it said anything they supplied on the car was warranteed for 1 yr or 12,000 miles. well at 10 months the car had bushings that were defective The dealer replaced them under warranty but then said I needed new spark plugs and rotor and cap and ignition wires I said well if they are no good, replace them. When I went to pick up the car, they tried to charge for the tune up. I said the plain written warrantee stated everything American Motors supplied was good for a year. The said these were wear items I said sucks being you. The let me go without charge
I wonder how many other people took advantage of such a situation. Probably only those who had heard of a similar story or worked for the corporation and found out about it similarly.
None of those parts should have needed replacing in the 1st year, wear items or not, especially considering you were under 12,000 miles. They tried to scam you for unnecessary work, to help defray the cost of the warranty work. Bravo to you for sticking it right back to them, Lawrence.
😂 you bought an amc
Should have had it towed in when it ran out of gas.
😂good for you
Interesting point: If someone flips a single vehicle, their buyer has no Lemon Law protection in most states.
If the flipper sells enough cars that they trigger lemon law protections, they also have to become a licensed car seller.
At least, that's how it works in Massachusetts.
yep 3 cars in a year and you need a license, and any car sold for over used to be 750 had to be able to pass mass inspections or no sale or seller had to fix it...
@@lennym1273 holy shit just three? I could easily hit that by accident some years.
@@TravisFabel me too when I was young, kept buying junk cars lol...
This varies WIDELY among states. Most states include used cars in their lemon law, but lemon laws generally require the first defect or defects to happen within a specific time period - Massachusetts for example requires the first major issue to occur in the first year or 15k miles - and that INCLUDES used cars. So yeah, it does include used cars but how many used cars are going to qualify for the 1 yr/15k miles thing? Almost none.
Some states SPECIFICALLY disallow used vehicles under lemon law protection (although you are still protected under breach of warranty).
that's how it works everywhere
I have a feeling nobody who's spending well in excess of a hundo grand is going to be deterred by a lack of manufacturer's warranty service
I'm going to get a LLC, put the Corvette under my LLC. Then sell my LLC (company) that owns the ZO6. Been done before but many people.
Assuming the person buying a car wants to deal with owning an LLC. In a lot of areas there’s going to be ongoing fees and annual reports needed. Not to mention the tax implications.
If I’m buying a car and you sell me an LLC that owns the car I’m going to want a good % knocked off because now I have to deal with the LLC.
I don’t think that is a viable solution.
Just sell the LLC without taxable rights. Sell a part of the LLC that keeps the car, but it is probably easier to just go to work and earn money and find more opportunities that would be helpful for both parties. An LLC can be a problem for both people if there’s no commerce happening within it.
Outside of the box ,
You are wise.
@@georgewelker853 -- The LLC "invests" in cars. It only has one asset. Anyone with the money to buy these vehicles at such inflated costs can probably afford to have their tax person handle the extra paperwork. And the LLC can be dissolved after the one-year date.
In my state, it's $100 to form an LLC. Nothing to file an annual report other than a stamp. A bit of extra paperwork at tax time, but mine is for a business anyway.
This reminds me of small town businesses that do things like threaten their customers if they buy a product from someone else. In one town I lived in I went to a business and asked if they had a certain style water heater. They said no, but they could order one. But the home owner needed it right away. I told the business owner I would look elsewhere, whereat he said, "You buy one from someone else don't come back here to buy anything else." Never bought anything else fro that business, but that tactic worked on most of the poeple who lived in that town.
That's a story I could only read on TH-cam. Very original.
That’s why they’ll stay a small business, if they can even manage that. The owners are so narcissistic that they feel entitled to your business, rather than having to earn your business. I’ve seen small business owners who act like this as well.
There's no way this is commonplace. Most small town people wouldn't put up with the local shop keeper telling them they're only allowed to shop with him.
@@M167A1 indeed, they're exercising their free will to be douchebags and you're exercising your free will to take your money elsewhere.
@@M167A1 its also very bad business process.
My KIA Soul's 100,000-mile warranty is reduced to 50,000 for the subsequent buyer. It is clearly noted in the "voluminous" warranty manual.
Your KIA's soul will soon be K.I.A! 😆
Another reason not to buyr Kia junk
Clearly noted, in Volume 2, on Page 135, in paragraph 4 sub-section b of the Warranty …
@Billy William Try Volkswagen in the Uk if you buy new you get a 3 year 100,000 mile warranty, but if you clock up more than 60,000 miles within the first 2 years of the warranty period then the third year is null and void
@@darreng745still sounds better than in the US it’s only 50k so we still get 60k or 100k miles
Its common now for scalpers to buy up inventory on limited items. Im happy GM is doing something about it.
Hyundai did the same thing for many years 10-year warranties to the original owner only.
5-year 60,000 if the vehicle was sold
I come home in 1976 to purchase a bicentennial Corvette. All the dealerships in the US or sold out. You could look in the newspaper and find bicentennial Corvettes for sale $50,000 over dealer price. I called GM and they told me that all the Corvettes were allotted to dealers and those we're already sold. I told GM that I would never never own a Corvette.
How are lenders going to feel about this? That is going to affect their ability to resell one of these vehicles if they have to repossess it within the first year.
More then likely a lender is not involved. These high damn car are brought outright and resold with cash. People that are willing to pay huge markups have money to burn.
I hope lenders find it appalling and refuse to lend money on the Z06 (or any product that contains limitations of this kind)!
In this game cash is king and the bank acct. is flush.
@@vegeta6555 I don't know. There are plenty of people that impulse buy what they cannot afford.
The big manufacturers like Ford, Chevy, Toyota, etc have their own financing. I'd assume that if Chevy is willing to implement this, their in-house financing and legal teams had a chance to weigh in. GM corporate must have some justification. I bet as the manufacturer they would just resell it as "certified pre-owned" with a different pre-owned warranty.
The issue comes in if you're trying to get a loan through your own bank. They would have to consider the resale value sans warranty. That might not be the end of the line though. If the secondary market is hot enough to offset the value of the lost warranty, it might not make a difference.
I feel that this will do way more to damage GM's Brand than letting it be. It Just smacks of their Greed and general shady trickery. For YEARS dealers have been adding desirability markups on every hot new model. Manufactures did little or nothing to stop this and just said, Look, This shows how desirable our product is. Now there is push back on this and so GM says 'This is bad! We will punish the BUYER if they do this.'
> I feel that this will do way more to damage GM's Brand than letting it be.
Well, I'd definitely have a much better opinion of Sony if they'd limited the warranty on PS5's which were (and still are) being flipped.
If I recall correctly, at least one foreign "exotic" vehicle manufacturer (Ferrari maybe) has had a similar policy for quite a while. I don't know if it voided the warranty but, it did prevent the seller from buying another one.
Since I don't want a new Corvette and couldn't afford one if I did, I have no skin in this game. However, if someone buys one, then can immediately resell it for a profit to someone else, more power to them. To me, it's no different than a dealer marking up prices on the lot. The first time I can remember this happening is when the Buick GNX came out in 1987. Dealers were selling them at much more than sticker price and people bought them all.
Flipping cars has been done for years and, as long as everything is legit, I don't have a problem with it. Personally, I enjoy working on and driving my classic vehicles but, I have bought a few newer ones in need of repairs to fix and flip for extra cash.
Ferrari is notorious for not allowing people to buy their vehicles from Ferrari dealerships for X reasons.
I think even "THE" car guy j leno badmouthed one of the supercar companies and is banned. He refuses to have one in his collection. Thier loss, they will not have an almost mint car in a museum in 50 years. Don't remember the company, not in that market. J Leno is the wrong enemy for a supercar company's to make, people with stupid money for cars, some listen to "THE" car guy.
Ferrari dealerships have Ferrari corporate approve every buyer. They have to because it's Ferrari's policy if they want to keep being a dealership. (See the now defunct Vegas Ferrari dealership story for more on that)
So the dealership has to play by corporate Ferrari's rules.
Corporate Ferrari keeps track of people they don't want to own Ferraris. People who have flipped them in the past are on that list... As are celebrities that have publicly bad mouthed Ferrari for one reason or another.
So Ferrari is not avoiding warranties and such. Their cars don't actually come with real warranties. It's basically the bare minimum required by law that end as soon as possible because you have to pay for the fucking car and all of its work and all of its bullshit. It's a club and your should be thankful and grateful to have allowed you to be in it.
At least that's their perspective on it. My perspective on it is that the are poorly built overpriced pieces of shit that look pretty because they're generally designed outside of Ferrari... They have all the right pieces there but they don't have any other refinement to make them into decent cars. They're not the fastest. They're not the lightest. They're not the most cutting edge. They literally have nothing more than a brand going for them.
When I went to work in California about 1976, the Honda dealer on Colorado Blvd in Pasadena wasn't a bit bashful charging $5000 over list on their Honda Accords.
I have it and you don't. Wanna buy it?
Supply and demand.
Ferrari dealerships are also the only way to buy a new Ferrari, and in some cases specific models entirely. In some cases they are basically always part owned by Ferrari, the original buyer agrees to this when buying them, and the contract they sign says they must sell it back to Ferrari if they choose to sell, or to a Ferrari approved buyer. It's to keep the brand exclusive and valuable. Chevvy has no such arguement, their brand has no real exclusive value. But then they are also trying to sell this car as a supercar, it just isn't, sure it makes alot of noise and generates loads of power, but it lacks performance. The US basically can't do super cars since nothing they make can handle corners..
Gm is just mad someone else is making profit. Gm should be charged criminally for discrimination
I understand how GM could do this for warranties other than the federally mandated emissions warranty. BUT, I'm sure they will have to meet their responsibilities with regard to the emissions warranty.
A year lease wit contract to sale a year and a day after delivery date is a good option to work around the limitation.
Flipping is one thing, but what happens IF someone takes out a loan and, due to circumstances, can no longer afford it within a year (a real possibility, especially at this price point)? Or your employer shuts down/lays you off etc. and the house comes first? Or any number of other NON profit scenarios (edited for those of you that take comments far too literally). They try to sell it for enough to pay out the loan but no one will buy it without the warranty. GM should not be able to penalize those that need to sell for LEGITIMATE reasons within a year. Maybe a process to get GMs OK might be an idea?
This is what I thought of, too. "How unfortunate for the buyer who had some catastrophe happen to them in the first year."
I guess everyone will have to sue welcome to capitalism lol
If you can't afford it don't buy it?
Dont buy things you cannot afford?
Q: but what happens IF someone takes out a loan and, due to circumstances, can no longer afford it within a year(?) A: unfortunately sucks to be you. because: sometimes we go to Vegas, gamble, and we WIN...? other times we go to Vegas, gamble, and we LOSE.
Look at the new 2023 Raptor R. Multiple Dealers asking 100k over msrp. A allocation is needed of course but there are dealers who do not have a allocation taking deposits knowing full well they cannot get one.
I can remember back when the warranties on a new cars were for either 2/24 or 3/36 and were not transferable. As for the Corvette, could the seller and buyer do an end run around this limitation by structuring the transaction so that, at least on paper, it was a 1 year lease with the "option" to buy at an agreed upon price?
Without even watching. The answer is yes. Doesn't matter what's said. A warranty is a contract and they can write them however they want.
I can see this leading to the thinking that if you buy any used GM car you will get no warranty. Edit I can see this type of policy leading to rumours that the car is so bad that the manufacturer will not warranty the car.
If GM is worried about their reputation the stories about a newer Corvette that was not covered under warranty will hurt them more than a high sale price.
In Norway, we have two standards:
Manudacturer warranty and
Right of complaint by law.
They are not the same, but used interchangeably in daily speech.
We have a set of rules for minimum right of complaint by law. Every business in Norway has to obey these rules.
Often the Norwegian distributors set their warranty to apply with this minimum standard.
Sometimes they try to get away with shorter international warranty.
New cars have 5 year right of complaints, used cars have 2 years.
There are different standards applied to dealers and consumers, stating that a car dealer is professional, and is expected to know what to check.
A company can have a warranty less than the right of complaints.
Because of warranty and complaints being used interchangeably, some companies might try deny your warranty claim. "That's not covered by our warranty!"
If you claim right og complaints, suddenly they understand you know your rights, and they probably start to cooperate.
For cars, they usually offer (at leadt) 5 year warranty, in accordance with right to complain, but they limit at certain km. Still you could have a case, by right of complaints, within 5 years, if the applicable part should be expected to last longer.
Loads of shady phone dealers try to offer 2 years warranty, while mibile phones by definition are ecpected to last longer than 5 years, thus 5 years rights of complaints.
Yeah, but you're a civilized country. This is America.
@@havenbastion I used to believe America were too, but after observing some events the last few years, I've reconsidered my thoughts on that to some degree.
@@thorbjrnhellehaven5766 Same for me with Canada, Sweden, Australia, UK, China, and some others i forget.
They should build more high demand vehicles instead of artificially limiting supply.
There is still very much a chip shortage, they really can't
@@tagsby81 you are correct. stuff like ABS, and Traction control and so on, all of it needs CHIPS. why USA does not make its own chips however, now that is the real question. is there really savings to make them in asia if USA car manufacturers suffers from it?
@@magnetmannenbannanen a chip fab is like an oil refinery, you can't just build one at the drop of a hat. It takes years, and tens of millions of dollars for the equipment.
The chip shortage isn't being caused by a lack of fab capacity, AFAIK it's due to a lack of raw materials which would usually come from Ukraine.
@@tagsby81 then why can't they raise the MSRP to match the market?
@@tissuepaper9962 You are a little low on the prices, the machinery costs billions of dollars, the running costs for the 3 month maintenance intervals are just millions of dollars. Yet out of that the fab can make a profit, selling parts for the price of 100 units per US cent. Big volume, or very expensive parts, same thing, they all take up to a year to go through, and no way to make it go through faster.
Thanks for the informative video...I always learn something new every time I watch your videos! As for as the warranty...didn't Ford do something like this with legal limitations with the Ford GT to keep people from flipping them? I think John Cena ended up in court or something after he breached Ford's GT contract?
yea when you bought the ford gt you had to sign stating you wouldnt sell the car for iirc 2 years.
yup Cena signed a contract and Ford ENFORCED the contract. Cena lost and issued an apology.
Steve where I live the manufacturer could not limit the transfer of warranty because the warranty is not specified by the manufacturer it's specified by law whereby a seller or manufacturer must warrant anything to be usable for a reasonable amount of time. On the other hand if the manufacturer throws in extras as the manufacturers warranty such as free oil change or coverage of consumables such as wiper blades then for sure limits could be put on those things but not the basic usedability of the car.
There is a simple loophole around this. Register an LLC and make the only asset the LLC has is one Z06. Then you can sell the LLC but the owner of the car in the eyes of GM is still the SAME!
Dang. I just wrote this, then found your comment. Honestly, I wasn't copying. lol.
I believe that will save the second purchaser from sales tax as well. That’s how yachts are usually transferred.
thanks Steve. I saw the call out on "the other channel" and thought "hey! I watch his videos! I wonder what he'll say?" Now I know. Well explained sir.
Ben blocking the headlights of the Tucker, Steve's RHS
2:40... If the surge pricing really is to prevent people from scalping. The ticket sales companies could implement a process where you get back your search pricing if the person that bought the ticket actually goes.
1. You buy tickets for yourself and your friend Anna
2. You register the tickets under your name and Anna
3. You go to the venue and present your ID, banana can't make it so somebody else goes.
4. You would then get reimbursed the search pricing on your ticket but not Anna's
This would keep tickets that were scalped or resold at a much higher price, while keeping regular event going customer tickets prices low.
We should be very careful to consider if this is yet another affront to right to repair.
nope
Within a day of buying your new to you corvette, you're bound to get a call saying "your car warranty has expired"🤣🤣🤣
I recall dodge giving a lifetime warranty on their drivetrains to the original owner because the transmissions were junk, so i would say that GM can do this
Rolex have done something similar in the UK as GM to limit I guess the new watches going into the grey market
One Chrysler iteration (Cerberus era?) had offered lifetime powertrain warranties for a few years in the noughties to try to increase sales to stave-off bankruptcy. It was then possible to get bumper-to-bumper upgrades to that warranty depending on offerings. My brother had one such truck for many, many years with the 4.7L V8 and 545RFE transmission.
The warranty had nothing to do specifically with the quality of the transmission. It was simply to drive sales.
At the 5 min 50 sec mark "The free marketplace will almost always find a way..."...Yes! It will. Steve mentions ticket scalping... When I was a kid I found a way to buy scalped tickets LEGALLY...This company would buy 50 or a hundred tickets to an event and then sell them at a good profit BUT by offering a bus ride to the event... officially, you were buying the bus ride at a premium price in which the ticket(s) to the event were included free (or at cost). You didn't even have to actually take the bus ride...just buy it and you could drive yourself to the event (with your tickets) but your bus seat was always still available...The business would charter 2 or 3 school buses or however many they needed for the night of the event and provide transport to and from the event...a nice way around the law forbidding ticket scalping.
Hundo leaning against the front of the Tucker. 2
Technically the car still will have some warranties on it; however the important ones like drive train go away. And basically they are just saying the warranty is non-transferable for 1 year from purchase. The simple way around this is that investors purchase the cars into an LLC and keep ownership and insurance through that. They can "sell the car" to someone for whatever price, just keep ownership under the company that purchased it and only transfer the title to the new owner until after 1 year has gone by.
Wonder if there is an exception if after owning for about 6 months the seller has a financial crisis and has to sell. Also, a creative seller could put together a short term lease with an option to buy at the end of the lease.
In reality the way they would determine whether or not the seller is flipping the car and not really a "consumer" under the law is by how much money they make doing it. If it's a significant portion of your income, there's no way they're going to believe that you are a consumer. Of course, if you just buy one car and sell it later, it's unlikely they do anything because they don't have a good argument. You could literally just say "I ended up not liking the car that much" or "it cost too much to drive" and that's why you sold it and they'd have no way to prove otherwise.
However, if you bought 11 cars this year and flipped all of them, the claim that you're a "consumer" wouldn't even pass the laugh test.
And of course the listed sale price wouldn’t include the cash “finders”, or “original acquisition” fee to the seller… or just a plain undocumented cash top off.
I switch to ford vehicles for my trucks when my wife’s saturn was in a collision with a deer at 11,000 km…basic the front facia,hood and driver’s fender needed to be replaced…after the car was fixed at the dealership I was told that the engine and powertrain warranty was now void because the engine and powertrain are connected to damaged parts and the body now has only a year warranty. Thankfully the fallowing year a lady at a stop sign( driving a caddy) stopped then pulled out in front of me and wrote the saturn off…I have never bought new of used another GM vehicle because of the warranty issue…my wife is currently drive a beautiful 2011 MB Glk. I would like to thank Gm for pissing me off and forcing me to look at much better and nicer Car Manufacturing companies.
How would the lemon law apply to a flipped car like this? No more warranty due to sale within a year, but would lemon law (at least in your state) still apply in some manner?
In california lemon law doesn't apply to second owner if purchased from a private party.
First, I disagree with "flipping" a vehicle. Now, people need to understand that as you say a warranty is controlled by the manufacturer. I read my vehicle warranties and how they apply. (Example) a 2wd SUV I bought had a front end that was out of alignment (from the start), causing uneven tread wear on both front tires. I took it to the dealer and made sure the service man wrote up my complaint as I described it. The dealer refused to put the vehicle on the alignment machine claiming it was aligned properly at the factory. This started at 2,000 miles on the vehicle. Every few weeks I returned and again had it written up. I kept all my receipts. The dealer stated I just needed to rotate my tires more often. This continued until I had 6,000 miles on it. I tried the factory customer service numerous times and finally was able to get a person to look at the vehicle at the dealership. The machine proved me correct, and I finally got it properly aligned.
Now the fun part. I then told the dealer that I wanted two new tires, as the old ones were badly worn. The dealer claimed I hadn't brought the issue to their attention soon enough. I intentionally told them they could check "their records" and see when I first brought it in. Conveniently they couldn't access the info. That's when I produced all my copies. Faced with this evidence, their story changed and the denied me stating I needed to contact the tire manufacturer, as it was their problem.
That's when I produced the manufacturer's warranty and pointed to the section stating the car manufacturer didn't warranty another companies product, "unless the damage was caused by a defective in the car".
I received two new tires.
Also at that time the car company stated that if your new car was kept overnight they would provide you with a "free rental car". The dealer did provide me with a rental, but wanted to charge me tax for it. I quoted the Webster dictionary, to them, on the meaning of the word "free". No taxes had to be paid.
The classic problem with concert tickets is automated purchasing by a subsidiary of the ticket seller which then resells the tickets at a higher than face price. (This happened in Canada with Ticketmaster.) For a physical object like a car, warranty denial seems unlikely to be legal. Warranties are supposed to follow the object.
As it is a strict limitation on the ability to dispose and sell of one's own property which the buyer has already paid GM for. GM should not be allowed to have any control over the sale or resale of that car.
Ticketmaster are crooks idk how and why they are allowed to do business.
@@GeorgeMonet Gm does not have control over it... If you want to sell the car without warranty just go ahead and sell it.
@@lawrencefranck9417 Because the things they do are not, strictly speaking, illegal at the time they do them. Now that there's laws against the practice of selling the tickets to a subsidiary, they've gone on to other methods.
Now, I'll say that classical ticket scalping, when any given scalper only has a small fraction of the tickets for any particular event, and they have to get them like any regular customer, isn't something that really bothers me. When the original vendor is mass-scalping tickets, and they've got exclusivity agreements with many venues to be the sole ticket seller, however....
re: "warranty denial seems unlikely to be legal." except for when you sign a contract (like John Cena did) AGREEING to these terms. don't sign the contract when you go to pick up the car from the dealer/franchisee and it's "NO Z06 FOR YOU...!!!"" (Soup Nazi voice)
I am so tired of companies telling us what we can and can't do with OUR property. Screw their intentions, I'm adding Chevy to my blacklist.
Yeah we need to force our governments to put an end to Corporate control such as this. And also penalize for selling above MSRP because that's just Bullshit
If the automakers can figure out how to successfully prevent flipping, then it will give them the opportunity to raise the MSRP and the cost to the dealer. Why should the dealer or flippers be the one to profit from the shortage of new cars? Someone is going to profit; that is a given.
well except gm stated they want the z06 to be an affordable supercar so they absolutely good sell the car to the dealer for 200k if they wanted to.
in 1990, the Miata was like this. People were coming to the midwest, buying them up....then taking back east and selling for $10K over sticker....
The restriction from future sales for flipping is something Porsche and Ferrari have done for years.
Rolex watch dealers restrict sales to watch flippers.
Do they just refuse to let you buy any in the future, or do they write conditions into the contract? I had only heard of them doing the first, but I'm not a big car person.
@@Br3ttM They will refuse to sell you any in the future, but they do make you aware that that will happen before your purchase.
It is amazing gm wants to do this, when multiple dealerships in my area have added up to a 40k markup on the new z06!!!
So, you could “give” the car to someone and they could give you a donation or tip for an agreed upon amount…then the warranty should still be valid.
As long as the original owner never transfers the ownership throughout the one year period the warranty will be fine. Once the tittle transfers to the second owner, within the one year period regardless of it’s a gift, it’ll be voided.
@@khysor1832 a nasty problem I see is if you don't transfer ownership to the buyer for a year and that person goes out and causes a massive multicar accident, you as the owner of record could be held liable if I am not mistaken since it IS your car till you transfer ownership.
@@leonardchurch7675 that’s the first owner’s problem. Easy problem to avoid by transferring the title to the second owner.
@@khysor1832 you posited that the original owner would not transfer title for a year to get around the warranty thing.... now you're saying to transfer title to the buyer before the year is up to avoid the liability issue ... can't have it both ways.
@@leonardchurch7675 you right, I meant say that the original owner should sell after the one year period.
I don't know of any online warranty look up, but yes we can see this in the dealership.
I'm surprised that you haven't talked about Ford wanting to do away with dealerships and sell directly to the consumer.
It’s a good idea.
The lawsuits from dealerships would last for decades.
Ford found out the hard way they don’t want to do that and quit pursuing the matter. Having private dealerships puts a buffer between them and the customer. And private dealerships are pressurized to make sales because they actually “owe” Ford for the inventory. Dealerships actually make payments. If was Ford owned, the pressure would be removed. That’s why Tesla dealerships don’t have cars to release. Nothing in stock is wasted.
I wonder if Ford could sell directly to consumers by creating a new subsidiary, for example, "Ford Direct". The new subsidiary would sell a brand-new model that would sell directly to consumers in a test market. If it works, then Ford could slowly decline designing new models in the parent company which would cause a reduction in dealerships over time. During the reduction, hire the parent company's employees into the subsidiary to reduce costs. Subsidiary then purchases the parent's assets and sheds all remaining dealerships. Every step I think would be fiscally responsible from the point of view of a public corporation and stocks.
dealerships are mandated in certain states.....
I'm an auto mechanic I work for myself, I give 3,000 or 90 day warranties to the original customer, if they sell the vehicle I do not warranty the labor.
That's interesting, but I would think that this will wind up for them much like other Adventures they had in trying to limit people's warranties and this comes from all of the major auto companies they will end up having to service the cars anyway. And nobody refuses to sell to people who are willing and have the ability to purchase. They are a licensed entity and when they refuse service to certain people they can get spanked.
The restriction is easily circumvented. The 1st buyer can lease or loan the car with a prepaid contract to convey title in 1 year and a day. Handled through an escrow there is no risk to purchaser.
If I recall, Ford had implemented a similar policy for the Ford GT, they sued John Cena for breaching the no sale contract, oddly enough Ford lost. I could be mistaken, but greed, capitalism, and (in most circumstances) profiteering is still legal in the US, we love our system until it affects a large group of people like a spike in gas prices, or dealerships asking for thousands of dollars over MSRP, it’s human nature, I am sure that people would NOT be complaining about if they were the beneficiaries of said transactions, what’s legal may not be fare, and what’s fare may not be legal.
Settled not lost.
Going off of something that you mentioned about requiring specific things or voiding the warrantee, most modern Chevrolets require Dextros Oil. Failing to have proof that Dextros was used for all of your oil changes will void all sorts of warrantees on their vehicles.
Ferrari has a stipulation in their warrantee that forces the owner to follow certain guidelines with their cars in order to keep it valid. There was a big issue years ago where DeadMau5 wrapped his Ferrari in baby blue with Nyan cat down the side and replaced the hood ornament with a "Purrari" logo. Ferrari threatened to void his warrantee and no longer service his car if he didn't change it back. He ended up selling the car and buying a McLaren.
If you worked at a dealership, this seems like an easy and obvious hustle. I'm actually glad GM is trying to stop it, but I feel like the Ban List might be most effective.
As a former dealer employee I can tell you that most of the employees at the dealership wouldn’t have the cash or credit score to to pull off flips. Most salesmen spent it all on coke and hookers. Maybe a mechanic, they actually drug test them, but they spent 70k on tools so they are also broke.
Boat manufacturers do this. My boat has a lifetime hull warranty since I bought it new from the dealer. If I sell it, the warranty converts to 10 years to the second purchaser and the 10 years start at the time I purchased the boat and a transaction fee has to be paid to transfer the warranty.
1st Sale Doctrine is being violated, comparing it to tickets is wrong as tickets is access to private property, not the sale of an object. Manufactures warranties are required by law are they not?
Actually, no. The warranties are offered by the companies in question as a incentive for people to buy from them.
What is required by law are for dealerships and manufacturers to fix cars if there is a recall.
The first sale doctrine on a car would prevent the manufacturer from putting a clause in the sales contract that prohibits the buyer from reselling it within a year of the original date of purchase.
This is leaving the initial buyer free to do with the vehicle what they want. The penalties for reselling the vehicle don't deprive the first buyer of any benefit of the vehicle itself.
It's a good way to make customers not want to buy their products, but I'm confident GM lawyers know how to perform legal acrobatics well enough to hold up in court
I don’t think so. But lemon laws provide a small, couple month, fill in that gap. Manufacturers Warranties also vary greatly on new cars. Then a dealer may offer warranty incentives to buy.
Just a thought......Initially, a LLC buys the Vehicle from the dealer....LLC "sells" it to the "new" owner at a profit, make new owner a holder in the LLC, initial owners bow out of LLC.....And do it as a Montana LLC to avoid sales tax.....After the 12 months, LLC transfers ownership to the new individual....
A lawyer’s solution:
Create a corporation to buy the car, then sell the corporation.
That actually could work. In some states the cost of an LLC is a one time fee of as little as $50 and since corporations are legally people the car would remain registered to the same buyer.
GM dealerships will not sell Corvettes to a corporation.
@@stackenali7059 why not sell to a corporation? Rental car companies are corporations. Don’t be silly!
@@1911Earthling We own two GM franchise's. It's in our agreement. Rental companies have direct contracts with GM. When your husband gets home from his boyfriends house, you can talk to him about being silly.
@@stackenali7059 :
You were asked a simple question and you answered it; you should have left it at that.
Now let me ask you another one: Why don't you talk to yourself about you being a Jerk? Or, much better, to the Lord about you not being one?
One of the benefits of buying a high end car is that it retains significant resale value. Limited edition cars may even gain in resale value. I would think that the car companies would realize that voiding the warranty for reselling the car before 1 year would adversely affect the resale value of these cars.
Could you get around this prohibition by leasing the car to someone for a for a year, with the payment of a lump sum price equal to the proposed purchase cost, with an option to buy after one year for $1?
Probably not.
That sort of "structuring" has been tried before. Generally speaking, it doesn't work.
Never let big business create loopholes. Where does it end your wife drove the car but you bought it warranty invalid…ect.
Oh no rich people getting scammed! Funny how they will protect Corvette but Chevy truck owners are getting ripped off for junk boxes.
I Donno, I sort of understand where they are coming from, BUT they BETTER crack down on dealer markups or I won't agree.
People have been doing this with Tesla's for years which is why the waiting list are so long. I've heard of people who have bought and flipped like 8 Tesla's.
When I was looking for a truck it was terrible because people were buying anything remotely moderately prices and flipping them to people that are desperate for a truck while supply is low.
All the initial broncos were flipped too, which Steve mentioned. They are still for sale out there with only the "drive home from the dealer" mileage on them.
I feel if you want to flip new cars and take them from under the feet of true fans of the product, you should be able to pay for the risk of not having a warranty.
How about a PS 5 for 2x the MSRP? Or the toilet paper debacle a few years ago. It's a growing trend all across the board.
The ball is in their court. Look at the Ford GT, they have a 24-month "no-flip" clause in the owner's contract, breach it and they'll seek compensation. How many consumer products can you buy that limit warranties to the original purchaser only? Wasn't that many years ago that many car brands were the same. Like it or not, it's totally up to the seller/ manufacturer what they will offer, and up to you whether to purchase it or not. If it'll keep pricing lower, it's not a bad thing. If they can also keep the dealers in line by preventing them from gouging people, it'll be even better.
I'm all for this. I'm tired of rich people and/or people with connections being able to suck up a product that would otherwise be affordable to a certain group of people, but they have made that impossible. Same thing goes to dealers who jack the prices up too. Yeah I'm all for capitalism, but this is one of those cases where it's just not right. Remember, Ford tried to limit buyers of the GT to not selling it for the first two years for the same reason. I don't think that worked out too well, so I'm sure GM was paying attention and is doing this instead.
I don’t think someone can complain about rich people while also shopping for a Z06 corvette lol.
Corvettes are literally toys for rich people.
$100,000 dollar plus cars are not affordable to the average middle class family. People are being stupid and taking out 7, 8 and even longer loans for these ultra expensive cars and trucks and they are under water for almost the entire life of the loan.
Canceling the warranty is a perfect business opportunity for extended car warranties.
I really fail to see a problem with buying then selling ANY item. If you want it bad enough, then pay the asking price. Period.
I am at 0:03 , i just jumped on the title. French btw, so not very aware of US laws, my apologies...
In my humble opinion, it is the car (the product from GM) that is under warranty, so, no, if no seal broken and maintenance plans respected, the warranty is for ANY owner of the car within the time and mileage after it was initially sold...
Just gut-feeling, nothing to do with the law ! I am sure the law is more tortuous and complicated than that 😥😂
Edit to insert. I was right, so tortuous... what does GM have against early swappers ? They come often, and GM gets paid...
In Europe, warranties are for the products, as long as you can justify ownership and you being within time/usage limits, the warranty applies.
Thanks for your (very needed on the technical side) clear and documented highlights 👍🖖
Did you buy a flipped car? I'd like to talk to you about your vehicle warranty...
If GM doesn't want to warranty their products beyond the first buyer or 70,000 miles, whichever comes first, then that's their right IMO. I think it's potentially a really stupid business practice that's gonna bite them in the ass because, as suggested, they COULD get warranty repairs from a third party. People are going to put less faith in a vehicle that the manufacturer won't stand behind because YOU MIGHT SELL IT to someone. And meanwhile, someone ELSE is going to see vehicles come in for inevitable repairs and people will simply cease to use dealership service altogether. Or at least it's possible. Hey, if they want to go that route let them shoot themselves in the foot. Their next logical step is to go John Deere and simply not provide ANY parts to non-authorized repair centers. We'll see how far they get with that...
*your channel is so very illuminating, and I am so happy to be poor. when I bought my 2007 Grand Marquis almost 12 years ago, it came with a guarantee/warranty that it would run at least until the end of the seller's lot. still pumping, though here in floorda, we have problems with anything made of rubber 🤢*
I realize they aren't in America but Ferrari has been doing the thing for years.
Always read the fine print. The warranty can be voided by the car company for a myriad of reasons. Racing out, using it outside the scope of designated use, and someone buying one for another is as old as Bonny and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson and the other famous Depression Era robbers who used fronts to buy cars all the time.
One thing I would recommend anyone is to read your contract before signing. If this clause is in your contract you need to really think about what it means. If it is, however, not mentioned in a contract than GM does not have a leg to stand on, in my opinion. Or am I no longer the owner of the vehicle I am purchasing? Dealers are upselling vehicles 25 - 60% over MSRP and nobody seems to care.
Emissions equipment warranty is regulated separately, both federally and by CARB.
Hyundai does not have the 10 year 100k warranty transferable, it is reduced if the car is sold. Second owner gets 5 year 60k warranty. So this is not so surprising that they do this.
If a dealership is allowed to sell a Corvette for greater than MSRP, then GM should have no heartache over a consumer flipping one for a profit.
This happened back in the day in 1987 when the buick grand national X came out . pepole bought them new for 30k and sold them for up 50k in a week.
I like your flood waters rising comment - here is one possible approach... So, a scalper buys 50 Corvette Z06s. They are made available to anyone who wants one (at flipper level pricing) on a one-year capital lease that is paid in full up front. Title does not transfer to the lessee until the end of the lease period. Any warranty work is handled by the lessor during the term of the lease. A bit of a nuisance to administer but it gets around the problem.
CNC Equipment has a u-tube channel. They have an episode about a couple of manufacturers who void their five year warrantees just because the equipment was sold at auction. So just because the mechanism of title transfer was through an auction.
Standing room only seats... arena sports are on that. You get to wander around the mezzanine all game. But the food has improved. They prefer to be called pit seats or some trendy name at concerts.
Seems to me I remember Ford did something like this with the GT500?
I think it was more of a Contract or a condition of purchase?
This a huge mess for GM. So what happens if say the owner dies and the family has to sell the car !!! The next owner is screwed !!
Warranty transfer I didn’t think it was even a thing, because the second hand person didn’t enter that purchase agreement with the company. I only learned this courtesy was a thing today.
Steve, Ok, I buy one of those Corvettes….. Now I know I have no manufacturers warranty. 1. What is stopping me from buying an extended warranty from whomever. & 2. Will there be issues if the car is in need of “warranty” repairs that GM has denied due to the rules imposed on a purchase of corvettes younger than 1 year old…. Will the extended warranty company follow suit and align there policy to GM and deny payment to fix…… inquiring minds want to know !
1) Voiding the warranty to the 2nd owner mostly only punishes that 2nd owner that could be totally unaware the warranty will be voided due to the sale in the 1st year.
2) I'm confident a purchase agreement could easily be made that 2nd owner gets the car but the ownership transfer only occurs 1yr+1day after the original sale date.
An excellent answer to a different question!
The problem with this is that if someone loses a job they can end up deep underwater on what they owe and what they can reasonably sell the car for. In essence the car manufacturer is in a position to indenture unsophisticated buyers into servitude because they assumed that they would not have any negative financial events happen to them in their first year of ownership. I can understand this if the manufacturer makes allowances for changes in circumstance.
Doesn't this suggest the quality is poor? If it was good quality this threat would mean very little and you buy it anyway. So GMs threat basically admits poor quality.
This isn’t about warranties but a story you might like. In the very early ‘80’s I worked for a government regulatory agency and we did cargo inspections at ports of entry. At this particular port they had foreign car imports as some of the vessels were Ro/Ro (roll on, roll off). So the vehicles were just driven off the ships. Well, 2 cars got driven off the dock completely and disappeared.
It was a mystery for almost 2 years. No one knew what became of the cars. I learned their fate from my cousin who happened to work for the company insuring the car import.
The thieves bided their time then after tried to register the cars in our state. That’s when the hammer fell and the thieves were arrested and cars recovered. The thieves were longshoreman at the facility and got their buddy at the gate to look the other way and housed both cars in a garage just half a mile from the port.
I am not sure of what became of the thieves. If you want the particulars I can send to you in a pm/email
There is a "used" ford lightning for sale at a local dealership. It has 38 miles and a 45,000 dollar markup from the new price. Seems rather dirty, but dealerships are known for being dirty.
Imagine! The effrontery of wanting to buy a product at a lower price and then resell it at a higher price! Who ever heard of such a thing? I mean, just think of what would happen if every single store in the entire world did that....oh wait, they do.
Back in the 80s, it was not uncommon for new car warranties to be extended to the first owner only. If you bought a low mileage used car, you often got no warranty, just like any other high mileage car.
So basically transferability of the [limited, new vehicle] warranty is *expected* in the car market, but it isn't necessarily *legally mandated* . Any manufacturer *could* legally state that there is *no* transferability of the warranty of any kind and therefore a used car buyer would never get any manufacturer warranty on their purchase. GM doing this only for certain models, and only for ones that are flipped prior to one year of ownership...that ain't so bad. Because, it seems it could be a lot worse if all manufacturers just up and said, "Hey that's not a bad idea, let's just make *all* warranties non-transferable, period." 😐
Credit where it's due, GM is actually trying to deal with flippers on the two fronts where it matters. Doesn't matter if it's a PS5, a car or anything in between, resellers can't resell if nobody is willing to buy or if they can't get the items themselves. This concept addresses both aspects. It "discourages" individuals from buying from a reseller as well as taking steps to prevent resellers from continuing this "business model." Is it the best idea/will it work? Too soon to say, but it's an attempt.
I’ve got a bare bones GT3. Only a couple options. Perfect track car
Entirely different scenario but parallels it in a sense. The terms of the Hyundai warranty change for any subsequent owner after the original owner. The 10 year/100,000 mile warranty only applies to the original owner. It becomes a a 5 year/60,000 mile warranty beginning with owner number two, presumably even if the first owner sold it after only a few weeks of purchase. Point being, the terms of a new car warranty can change with changes of ownership.
Sounds like all you have to do is Lease it to the buyer to hit the 12 month warranty mark before sale.
Not in the U/K. When you buy any product from a seller then it is the seller that has to give you the warranty. For Steves example. The battery on your new car brakes down. The seller has to renew it, then the seller takes it up with the battery company.
To cut it short. You are buying a product from a seller NOT from a MANUFACTURER.
It's the same when you use your CREDIT CARD to buy something ( highly recommened ).
If you have a problem with a purchase then it is upto you bank to sort the problem out because when you use a CREDIT CARD ( AGAIN HIGHLY RECOMMENED ) it is the bank making that purchase not YOU. Moral of the story, NEVER use a DEBIT CARD to make a purchase. ALWAYS, ALWAYS use you CREDIT CARD.
Even if you make a deposit on something, use your CREDIT CARD. Let's suppose you put $2000 down deposit on a car. You pay cash or debit card. Two weeks latter that company goes bust. Well you can kiss YOUR money GOODBYE !!! HOWEVER if you used you CREDIT CARD then YOUR MONEY is safe and YOU loose NOTHING !!!