Amsoil Challenges Ski-Doo E-Tec/Rotax Claim!

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
One question I'm left with this is: Is BRP specifically stating that no other lube meets their requirements? I don't think that was their position.


It is their position. They said others don't meet. I have no idea if they do or they don't. Point here is Amsoil absolutely meets the requirements. For sure one poster here got it wrong, the poor saps are the people believing Bombardier's line of malarkey. Nothing wrong with their oil by the looks of it, but it certainly isn't the only oil that will work and to say Amsoil won't work is a lie. A complete lie. That is the point.

 

[demarpaint]

Who honors Bombardier's warranty? Bombardier or Amsoil? As far as poor saps, they'd be the people who have a warranty claim denied and had to pony up for a lawyer to make it right. How it plays out in court would be interesting that's for sure.

 

[dnewton3]

If BRP is stating that no other oils meet their specs, and they require the use of BRP lubes to qualify for warranty, then they MUST supply the lube at no charge. (See the link I provided for "tie in sales" topic).

I would think not just Amsoil, but Pennzoil and Mystik (two of many prominently popular two-stroke lubes) would jump on this right along with Amsoil, if the facts are being presented accurately.


I'm with Amsoil on this; BRP would have to prove that BRP could exclude the use of other lubes. Says so right on the FTC sight. Allow me to quote:
"Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition."

As best I can tell after much searching, BRP has no registered exclusion on record with the FTC. If they do, they must prominently claim it as such. Further, that exclusion would only be granted if alternatives cannot prove their worthiness. I suspect Amsoil and SOPUS would be able to prove their products more than adequate.

This isn't just about the M/M act, but also the years of case-law decisions that have come down better defining this topic.

In general, if BRP want's to exclusively require their lube for warranty to apply, they must provide it free of charge. Or, if they want to deny warranty after use of non-OEM products, the burden of proof of inapplicability shifts.