+0
Hi!

I read the following label in a TOEIC book:

Warranted 40,000 Miles / Full Warranty

During the one-year warranty period, if the size and load-range rating of the tire are equal to or greater than that which the manufacturer specified, we will replace the tire free of charge or refund the cost if either of the following occurs: (1) failure relating to material or workmanship of the tire on normal road hazards; (2) tread wearout (2/32 in. or less remaining). Warranty must be presented to verify mileage.” ((Longman Preparation Series for the New TOEIC Test, Advanced Course, 4th Edition, by Lin Lougheed, p. 187))

What does “the cost” mean in the above? Does it mean ‘full price of the tire (that the purchaser paid)’?

Would you please help me?

Thanks in advance.
Comments  
NiueWhat does “the cost” mean in the above? Does it mean ‘full price of the tire (that the purchaser paid)’?
That's how I understand it.
yes
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Thanks, Grammar Geek.

Then, what do you think of the following?:

“Q2. What does the manufacturer guarantee?

(A) Full rebate on materials or workmanship

(B) Replacement or full refund

(C) Either the cost or a new product

(D) Size and load range

(Answer: C)” ((Longman Preparation Series for the New TOEIC Test, Advanced Course, 4th Edition, by Lin Lougheed, p. 187))

I can’t understand why B is NOT the correct answer.

Can you understand?

Thanks in advance.
No, and I don't see a difference between them.
Replacement= new product
Thanks, everyone.

So, you mean the original question does NOT have a clear-cut answer because both B and C are correct, does it? (Thus, the original question is a POORLY-MADE question, isn't it?)

Then, let me post the following answer:

"What the manufacturer warranty says is; if during the one-year warranty period, the tire's load-range rating remained unchanged (in perfect condition) it will be replaced without cost to the customer.

If however, failure occurred because of workmanship or abnormal tread wearout, a proportionate cost will be refunded to the customer. NOT a full refund.

Several court cases of this type have been settled based on fairness for the benefit of the manufacturer and the customer as well.

Court verdicts ruled that: since the customer had benefited from the use of the tire before it failed, it is only fair to deduct the proportionate amount that the customer is entitled to.

This is generally called PRO RATA basis. (prorated in simple terms.)" ((Posted by urban yokel at http://www.lydbury.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3312 ))

What do you think? Do you agree with Urban Yokel?

If you agree with him, (maybe) the original question is NOT a poor one BUT a WELL-MADE one because it requires for the test-takers to have a very thoughtful approach to the (original) article and question. I really want to know your opinions.

Thanks in advance.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Is this a test of English comprehension or product liability law?

If it's the former, it's a horrible question - I can't see any difference between B and C.

If it's the latter, then please post this question in a legal forum, because I still can't see the difference between B and C.
Niuewe will replace the tire free of charge or refund the cost
Hi, I have to disagree with the previous answers and have to agree with your book. There IS a difference between B and C:
The warranty simply says that if the prescribed situation occures, the company will:
a) replace the tire free of charge - they will give you a new tire AND fit the tire as well
b) refund the cost (BUT not just the costs of purchasing a tire, but all costs that would occur if you will choose to replace the tire by yourself - also the costs of its fitting) - so this does not only mean that the company will refund the price of the new tire bought but also the costs of its fitting (if such costs are reasonable)
The important thing is that there was no remark on FULL refunding in the warranty (as opposed to the B) - the full refunding could include also damages for the loss incured from the defective tire, or costs UNREASONABLY spent for replacement.
If this issue is still interesting for you, I had a chance to experience such lawsuit on goods with lack of conformity (and it even included defective car wheels!!!) Emotion: smile