16 C.F.R. § 700.8
Warrantor's decision as final
A warrantor shall not indicate in any written warranty or service contract either directly or indirectly that the decision of the warrantor, service contractor, or any designated third party is final or binding in any dispute concerning the warranty or service contract. Nor shall a warrantor or service contractor state that it alone shall determine what is a defect under the agreement. Such statements are deceptive since section 110(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(d), gives state and federal courts jurisdiction over suits for breach of warranty and service contract.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1999–2019 · leading case: Borowiec v. GATEWAY 2000, INC., 808 N.E.2d 957 (Ill. 2004).
Borowiec v. GATEWAY 2000, INC., 808 N.E.2d 957 (Ill. 2004). “" 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 (2003). In 1999, the FTC affirmed that the regulations "will continue to prohibit warrantors from including binding arbitration clauses in their contracts with consumers that would require consumers to submit warranty disputes *965 to binding arbitration.”
Thomas E. Walton Le'ellen Walton v. Rose Mobile Homes Llc, S. Energy Homes, Inc., 298 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2002). “” 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 (2001). Pointing to the Supreme Court’s holding that a mere statutory grant of jurisdiction to federal or state courts does not preclude enforcement of a mandatory arbitration provision under the FAA, see, e.”
Michael Shane Davis v. S. Energy, 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002). “” 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 . The FTC further explained that binding arbitration agreements are not allowed in written warranties for several reasons: First, as the Staff Report indicates, Congressional intent was that decisions of Section 110 Mechanisms not be legally binding.”
Borowiec v. GATEWAY 2000, INC., 772 N.E.2d 256 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “The first evidence appears in 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 (2001). The section is entitled “Warrantor’s decision as final” and states: “A warrantor shall not indicate in any written warranty *** either directly or indirectly that the decision of the warrantor *** or any designated third…”
Homes of Legend, Inc. v. McCollough, 776 So. 2d 741 (Ala. 2000). “See 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 . Section 700.8 provides: "A warrantor shall not indicate in any written warranty or service contract either directly or indirectly that the decision of the warrantor, service contractor, or any designated third party is final or binding in any dispute…”
In Re Van Blarcum, 19 S.W.3d 484 (Tex. App. 2000). “16 C.F.R. § 700.8 (emphasis added). It further characterizes any such statements as "deceptive" because the Act "gives state and federal courts jurisdiction over suits for breach of warranty and service contract.”
S. Energy Homes, Inc. v. Lee, 732 So. 2d 994 (Ala. 1999). “" 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 (1998) (emphasis added).”
Jones v. Gen. Motors Corp., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Ariz. 2009). “In 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 , the FTC reasons that warrantors may not designate third parties to finally resolve disputes because “section 110(d) of the Act gives state and federal courts jurisdiction over suits for breach of warranty and service contract.”
Pitchford v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 958 (W.D. Va. 2000). “16 C.F.R. § 700.8 ; see also 40 Fed.Reg. 60168, 60211 (1975) (“reference within the written warranty to any binding, non-judicial remedy is prohibited by the Rule and the [Magnuson-MossJ Act”).”
Patriot Mfg., Inc. v. Dixon, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Ala. 2005). “See 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 (“A warrantor shall not indicate in any written warranty .”
Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Yaeger, 818 N.E.2d 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “(quoting 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 ). Interestingly, the FTC has declared that it "is not now convinced that any guidelines which [referred to *538 binding arbitration] could ensure sufficient protection for consumers.”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Matthews, 848 A.2d 577 (Del. Ch. 2004). “See 16 C.F.R. § 700.8 ("A warrantor shall not indicate in any written warranty or service contract either directly or indirectly that the decision of the warrantor, service contractor, or any designated third party is final or binding in any dispute concerning the warranty or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.