[Mr. Stacy]

§ 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
gives state and federal courts jurisdiction
over suits for breach of warranty
and service contract.

§ 700.10 Section 102(c).
(c) No warrantor may condition the
continued validity of a warranty on the
use of only authorized repair service
and/or authorized replacement parts
for non-warranty service and maintenance.
For example, provisions such as,
‘‘This warranty is void if service is performed
by anyone other than an authorized
‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement
parts must be genuine ‘ABC’
parts,’’ and the like, are prohibited
where the service or parts are not covered
by the warranty. These provisions
violate the Act in two ways. First, they
violate the section 102 (c) ban against
tying arrangements. Second, such provisions
are deceptive under section 110
of the Act, because a warrantor cannot,
as a matter of law, avoid liability
under a written warranty where a defect
is unrelated to the use by a consumer
of ‘‘unauthorized’’ articles or
service. This does not preclude a warrantor
from expressly excluding liability
for defects or damage caused by
such ‘‘unauthorized’’ articles or service;
nor does it preclude the warrantor
from denying liability where the warrantor
can demonstrate that the defect
or damage was so caused.