2023 Author: Eric Donovan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-05-21 15:44
Anyone who waives the prescribed maintenance intervals for their vehicle during the guarantee period will lose their guarantee. The situation is different with the follow-up guarantee, as can be seen from a ruling by the Federal Court of Justice.
Anyone who extends the warranty period for their car from the vehicle manufacturer for a fee does not necessarily have to adhere to the special maintenance intervals. If a defect occurs that would have occurred regardless of regular maintenance, the so-called extended warranty applies and the manufacturer has to pay for the repair costs. This has now been decided by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).
Regular vehicle maintenance is generally required for the normal manufacturer warranty. Many car manufacturers require an inspection visit to the workshop once a year or after 20,000 kilometers. Anyone who does not follow these intervals must pay for any damage and the associated costs; the guarantee does not apply. The so-called follow-up guarantee follows the manufacturer's guarantee. It is taken out voluntarily for a one-off payment and offers the same protection for the contractually agreed period, usually one year.
Follow-up guarantee even without inspection visits
In the negotiated case, a Saab vehicle had a defect in the diesel injection pump after almost 70,000 kilometers. Since the owner had taken out a follow-up guarantee, she asked the manufacturer to pay for the necessary repairs. But this is exactly what he refused because the maintenance required for 60,000 kilometers had not been carried out. Whether that was the cause of the damage is still a matter of dispute.
For the Federal Court of Justice, however, this does not matter: the normal manufacturer's guarantee expires without observing the maintenance intervals, but this does not necessarily apply to the extended guarantee. Because the customer pays a corresponding fee for the extended guarantee. It is thus a consideration for money paid. If it is now also linked to compliance with the maintenance regulations, the judges believe that this represents an unreasonable disadvantage for the customer, especially if it is not even clear whether the defect would have been avoided by visiting the workshop (BGH, Az. VIII ZR 293/10). (mid)
