2023 Author: Eric Donovan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-05-21 15:44
Motorists must adhere to maintenance guidelines so that the guarantee does not expire. In addition, maintenance must be carried out in authorized workshops.
Car manufacturers are allowed to bind their customers to their authorized workshops through generous guarantee promises. This was decided by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the case of a 30-year rust-through guarantee for Mercedes cars. According to a judgment on Wednesday, it does not disadvantage customers inappropriately if warranty claims are dependent on regular maintenance being carried out in Mercedes-Benz workshops. In doing so, the Karlsruhe court dismissed the action brought by a Mercedes driver who made claims about rust spots on the tailgate of his used car acquired in 2002. He hadn't followed the maintenance schedule. (Az: VIII 187/06 of December 12, 2007)
Permissible instrument for customer loyalty
With this clause, DaimlerChrysler granted a "mobilo-life" guarantee against rust perforation for up to 30 years for all Mercedes vehicles it has delivered since 1998. From the fifth year after delivery, the clause provides for maintenance in Mercedes-Benz workshops. The Regional Court of Braunschweig considered the provision to be ineffective because it would unduly disadvantage the buyer.
On the other hand, the BGH decided that the guarantee was a permissible instrument for customer loyalty. The long-term promise of claims is only given to customers at the price of regular maintenance in Mercedes workshops. "It is up to him to decide whether and from when he refrains from regular maintenance - for example with regard to the age of the vehicle - or has it carried out at other (cheaper) workshops," the verdict says. If he adheres to the guidelines, he can at least keep the claims for 30 years.
Protection for used car customers
In a slightly different case, the BGH had recently strengthened the protection of used car buyers against loss of warranty claims. It was about a contractual clause that made the guarantee claim dependent on compliance with certain inspection intervals.
The BGH declared the contractual provision to be ineffective because, according to its wording, the customer should go away empty-handed even if the defect has nothing to do with the missed maintenance. In the case that has now been decided, however, the judges affirmed that the car company had a “legitimate interest” in establishing customer loyalty to its network of authorized workshops. (dpa)
