dleslie125 wrote:

The troublesome thing here is that the MH only had 300 miles on it when they bought it. To me that means someone hardly got it off the lot before trading. Does that smack you as a vehicle that should now have no warranty? It confirms to me that Thor is not a MH manufacturer I'd even think of giving my money.

Westronics wrote:



Should have a warranty? Maybe so. Does have a warranty. Clearly not.

It is the buyer's responsibility to check that the original warranty will survive a change in ownership. It is a very sad situation, certainly, but the buyer failed to ensure he actually had warranty coverage and, as it turns out, he did not have any warranty.

It would be a whole different conversation if there was any indication that the dealer misrepresented the situation and told the original poster that he had warranty coverage, but there is no indication that this happened, nor is there any obligation on the dealer's part to ensure that the new owner is aware that there is no warranty coverage - it is the new owner's responsibility to check on this before finalizing the purchase. I am very, very sorry that he did not think of doing this but, at this point, there is on real recourse for him.

It's a sad situation, but the responsibility for buying a vehicle without any warranty lies on the shoulders of the buyer. Any time one buys something used, it is sold "as is" unless there are clear terms to the contrary.

If this happened to me would I be upset? Sure I would. Would I try to get the manufacturer to help me out? Certainly. But, in the end, I'd have to accept it as an expensive life lesson and move on.

dleslie125 wrote:

We part company on this one completely my friend. Given the mileage an ethical dealer WOULD make it very clear that there was no warranty. A shyster dealer would not. IMO the purchase price with and without a warranty would be significantly different. Most MHs have MORE than 300 miles on them when they arrive at the dealer. As I stated earlier, I can't imagine buying a Thor product given the frequency of problems I've read about and heard about from owners.

Your belief seems to be that it is the goal of the dealer to take the buyer for all they can. Maybe most are like that, and if that is the case none of them deserve to survive the turmoil we are seeing.

Westronics wrote:



Well, I agree they have a moral duty to make sure the purchaser understands the warranty issue, especially on a transaction like this one, but they have no obligation to do so.

There is simply no excuse for a purchaser of ANY used vehicle to not be absolutely certain of what warranty they do and do not have. It's part of the responsibility of making such a purchase.

I do think that a dealer/manufacturer really should have a warranty on such a nearly-new vehicle, but neither is under any obligation to do so.

One simply must understand what one is getting into, and not rely on someone else to tell you that. The dealer's job is to sell, and the buyer's to understand what they are buying.

A good dealer will really care about their customers and really want satisfied customers to get repeat business. However, not all, or even most, perhaps, dealers are like this which is why buyers must take responsibility for understanding things like what warranty exists.