Originally Posted by
DirectNova
Here in the province of Quebec tires has never been in the warranty clause.
Tires are covered by the TIRE manufacturers warranty in the USA not by the vehicle manufacturer. The issue SHOULD not be the tires but the fact that a defective rear axle wore the tires prematurely, but then you get stuck between the manufacturers warranty and the tire manufacturers warranty.
The best position to take legally (in my opinion) is if the rear alignment is eating up the tires, then it is also contributing to stability issues that could cause a catastrophic chain of events with potentially deadly consequences.
That is NOT a tire defect. I went through this whole scenario with Toyota almost 10 years ago. They gave me a new set of tires at 18k miles. They tried to tell me it was because I did not rotate and balance the tires every 5k miles, which is bull crap that they recommend to try to cover up the fact that a lot of cars are not properly aligned as manufactured.
"Implied warranty of merchantibility" means I have a "reasonable" expectation that my wheels and tires are pointed in the direction "specified by the manufacturer. I doubt that is interpreted much differently in Canada versus the US since the legality goes back to old English law preceeding the
colonization of both Canada and the USA, prior to the revolution.
I have rotated the tires on the wife's Sorento once in 44k miles. That way I know the wear pattern is correct and alignment is close enough to not cause any irregular wear of the tires.
Never rebalanced them and they do not need it now.
regards
mech
Last edited by deleted user; 08-26-2015 at 11:08 AM.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage de 1.2 manual: 55.7 mpg (US) ... 23.7 km/L ... 4.2 L/100 km ... 66.9 mpg (Imp)