Can No Longer Recommend Prius

Wow, this thought that just popped into my head. It goes back a long time. Isn't the auto industry required by law or regulation to keep a supply of spare parts for models 10 years old you newer? Maybe the "in Toyota U.S." is the loophole.

 

Contracts don't rely on error bars and statistics. That's why the odometer is there. AFAIK there is no clause requiring a 3 sigma probability that the vehicle has driven over 100,000 miles.

"Looking so much better" will only sell so many cars or provide so much profit and it will definitely add cost that was not factored into the original sale. This is a case of diminishing returns and taking increasing risk.

When one's policy becomes arbitrary rather than within contractual limits you get into all sorts of legal quandaries. Consistency with written policies is protection against lawsuits. If something fails within the warranty limit I expect it to be fixed as per the written information. If it fails outside of that I don't expect it to be covered.

No, they would be honoring the warranty. The warranty is based on the odometer you bought from them. This same odometer is considered adequate for titles/registration and the IRS. Trying to put error bars around it creates an unnecessary Pandora's box of consequences. Mileage is as stated by the odometer. It doesn't include changes in tire diameter, variation of accuracy with speed/pressure/temperature, slippage due to different road surfaces/rain/snow/ice, time spent on a flatbed, or miles travelled across the ocean. It doesn't account for revolutions of the earth, orbits of the planet, movement around the galactic center, or the expansion of the universe.

Just a customer of Toyota. I'm not impressed by the Toyota dealerships in general but that is the result of specific experiences in other regions. Toyota designs aren't perfect and I've had some failures outside of warranty, the biggest disappointment being a very weak rear end on the Tundra 4WD. That's the only major drive component I've ever had fail in any of my personal vehicles and it was friggin' spectacular when it went.

My one warranty "fight" was with Nissan and was fairly amicable. I had documentation from the dealership for when an intermittent problem first appeared under powertrain warranty. It could not be identified and disappeared until outside of warranty. At the point it recurred I had the repair done, paid for it, then submitted my documentation and letter to Nissan. Without my doing that the dealer's hands were effectively tied as Nissan would have to approve paying the out-of-warranty claim. (The dealer could have eaten it, but it was clearly a problem with an OEM part.) I would have been happy with meeting halfway (I didn't mention that in my letter of course), but Nissan reviewed it and paid the full amount. It wasn't a high dollar repair--probably $500-700 in today's dollars.

 

Contracts rely on nothing. People doing business rely on interpretation of contracts. And I have seen many, many poorly written contracts. Thankfully, not all of them get to the point of disagreement over interpretation. When that point is reached, however, there is very little reason for cheer.

In this case it is the contractual limit that is arbitrary. And, as you've suggested, vague contract provisions are not good things. This is the case except when only one party has participated in the writing of the contract. Whenever there is vague provision it is interpreted so as to give the benefit to the party who was not the writer of the contract. If I read 8 years or 100,000 miles, I do not see that as being "exactly 8 years" or "exactly 100,000 miles" - not only because it doesn't give the exact number of minutes or fractions of miles, but because there is no constant measure (reference point) of each. What you are saying is that the car arriving at the dealership with an odo of 99,999.9 gets the full benefit of the warranty, while the car that arrives at 100,000.1 is denied?

Well, at least you are not given to hyperbole.

Still, the best point you make is that we have just one measuring point upon which all parties are forced to rely. That is the car's odometer. I agree with the simplicity of it and the fact that everyone can read the same number on the odometer. That odometer, though, is hardly the same measuring device as all other odometers. Drive two cars side-by-side, and it will not take that long before their odometers read different numbers, despite the fact they've driven the same distances. Therefore, the question remains: Whether the car's odo at 100,000 vs. 102,000 or 98,000 is really any different when the measure is 100,000 miles? If the contract were to say: "100,000 miles means any mileage shown on your car's odometer up to and including 100,000.0 but not extending to 100,000.1" -- well, then, I think it would be pretty clear where things stood.

As it stands, Toyota's policy is that I remain within the warranty so long as I properly maintain my car. This includes oil changes every 5,000 miles. I've checked: oil changes at 5,100, 11,200, 15,080 and 19,100 fulfill the requirements.

 

What if the odometer can be proven wrong?

 

I've seen poorly written contracts too, this doesn't really look that way. In the absence of any extenuating information the warranty ends at the mileage indicated. Not some random number later (and what you propose is indeed a random number.)

It comes down to what a reasonable person would expect and/or specific legal definitions. I'm sure that after 100's of millions of car warranties these matters have been resolved and I seriously doubt there is any chance your interpretation would be accepted as reasonable. If they did then the manufacturer could decline warranty service at 90,000, 95,000, or 98,000 using the exact same argument. Nobody is going to conclude that is reasonable so neither is the converse.

 

call up customer experience- see if they won't cover the part and the rental to get you through until the battery gets here. paying for labor only is a lot better than parts + labor.

the time, well that's one of the failures of "just in time" parts supply...