Kioti warranty termination after *any* DIY work? Really?!?!

[DVVT]

Reading the fine print on my new CK3510 warranty. Section D: "The warranty for any tractor or product immediately terminates if any of the following occur: ... 2. Any replacement parts used on the tractor are other than genuine Kioti brand parts. 3. Any repair made or parts replaced or modified by anyone other than an authorized Kioti dealer."

So, as a DIY action, replacing the factory 3-pt lift arm with an aftermarket leveler? Replacing the factory 3-pt stabilizer with an aftermarket telescoping style? Adding a non-Kioti toolbox? Adding a bolt-on grapple to the loader bucket?

Holy cow, really?!?! Am I missing something? With all the DIY tractor modifications and repair going on out there, are we really all sitting ducks if we have warranty claim? (Haven't called the dealer on this yet ... curious what TBN readers think first).

 

[Root Cause]

Even replacing a lost bolt with one from your bolt bin is technically a warranty killer.
Sounds like an "At our discretion" at best and a virtually useless piece of paper at worst.

Moving forward, I would assume to be on my own and pleasantly surprised if they paid for something.

 

[plowhog]

Changing your own oil and filter seems to violate their warranty.

 

[jaydee325]

What you're missing is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Basically, it is up to the manufacturer to prove that a modification or non factory part was the cause of the failure you are trying to get warrentied.

 

[Midniteoyl]

This is just 'catch-all' phrasing.

Service and replaceable wear items are not a cause to void the warranty.

Adding a Top and Tilt will not void the warranty on it's own. If its proven that there was a failure due to that TnT kit, however, could (like the cylinder internals broke and killed the pump, however unlikely that is). Its the same with a car. Add a suspension mod or a transmission cooler or supercharger or even an aftermarket light kit, and they don't have to fix any failures caused by it.

It all depends on if they can show that the modification or aftermarket replacement part caused the failure. Different States also have different laws regarding these things, so best to check with your state government or a lawyer as well.

 

[oosik]

I was going to purchase a new Ham radio ( HF ) and instal in the Taco Wagon. Then I read the fine print in the warrantee section. You have to go thru the Seven Gates to Hell to meet warrantee requirements. Besides I'm not too sure that all this new fangled digital technology on my truck is compatible with Ham radio.

I have a better idea now. Nice folding table/chair - heavy duty tripod to hold a Ham radio antennae - long 12V extension cord to power a Ham radio.

What the Hay - I'll be DXing from the mountain tops.

 

[DVVT]

This is just 'catch-all' phrasing.

Service and replaceable wear items are not a cause to void the warranty.

Adding a Top and Tilt will not void the warranty on it's own. If its proven that there was a failure due to that TnT kit, however, could (like the cylinder internals broke and killed the pump, however unlikely that is). Its the same with a car. Add a suspension mod or a transmission cooler or supercharger or even an aftermarket light kit, and they don't have to fix any failures caused by it.

It all depends on if they can show that the modification or aftermarket replacement part caused the failure. Different States also have different laws regarding these things, so best to check with your state government or a lawyer as well.

Yes, probably catch-all, CYA language. Indeed the “Owner’s” manual maintenance section is full of language instructing one (presumably the owner!) to replace all sorts of things.

 

[DVVT]

What you're missing is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Basically, it is up to the manufacturer to prove that a modification or non factory part was the cause of the failure you are trying to get warrentied.

Yeah, I was aware of the MM act but shocked by the blatant language to the contrary in the warranty. I guess meant to scare off folks not aware of MM.

 

[Stan B]

Yeah, I was aware of the MM act but shocked by the blatant language to the contrary in the warranty. I guess meant to scare off folks not aware of MM.

A surprising amount of legalese is there to scare off people from pursuing a remedy. A good example is that little disclaimer on parking stubs, like for a parking building, that says "We aren't responsible for damage". In many states, yes, they are, but they still put that on there since if it saves them one claim, it was worth it. Many people just assume because it is printed and sounds legit, it is.

Still, kind of crappy to print that on the manual for a class of machine that is, probably more often than other things, worked on and repaired by the owner.

 

[Torvy]

They have to do that to protect against extremes the other way. This give a them an out. If they enforced it that way, they would probably not stay in business.