If that is the case then the original poster really got screwed. He agreed
to and paid for a transmission "remanufactured" in a factory, and got
something "rebuilt" in a shop. Going to a dealer is no guarantee of getting
a better deal though. Dealers are just as likely as anyone else to
"rebuild" a transmission on the premises, or to order a "remanufactured"
unit from a supplier of such.

About all this thread is good for now, is for you to read it, so you don't
get screwed the same way.

Earle

"Coasty" <uscg_ret at comcast dot net> wrote in message
news:3vCdnQzCD_o_-bfZRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> Jeep along with all other manufacturers define the following:
>
> Rebuilt means worn parts and seals are replaced old parts still with in
> tolarances are left in, fluids are refilled.
>
> Remanufactured or Programmed means all parts are repaced to original OEM
> specifications with any upgrades between model years.
>
> There is a big differance if he had gone to the Dealer it would of cost
him
> about the same $$ and there would be no issues along with getting a
> programmed transmission (remanufactured).
>
> Coasty
>
> "Earle Horton" <nurse--NOSPAM--busters@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:4429e476$0$20703$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.c om...
> > Realize that "rebuilt" and "remanufactured" are not precisely defined
> > terms,
> > and in many cases they are considered synonyms. The relevant difference
> > appears to be what is contained in your state law. I suggest that you
get
> > a
> > copy of that law, to see what you are entitled to. If they agreed to
> > supply
> > you with a "remanufactured" unit for $1,200, then that is what they owe
> > you.
> > Legally, you could probably make them put a "remanufactured" unit in
your
> > Jeep, but that might be more trouble than it is worth.
> >
> > The shop should have called you about the torque converter and flex
plate.
> >
> > It sounds as if the shop manager might have simply confused the terms
> > "rebuilt" and "remanufactured", but if the two terms have legal
> > ramifications in your state, that is a mistake he had no business
making.
> > Maybe you can get a refund of the difference?
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > <lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1143593192.017220.233480@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >> Went to pick up my '96 JGC Loredeo from the shop tonight and got 3
> >> surprises. After learning my transmission was shot beyond reuild (so
> >> they said), I asked the shop how much would a used one cost, and how
> >> much for one of their remanufactured units. The manager said he would
> >> have to call around for a used one and get back to me. Well on-line I
> >> shopped two and learned there were used units, rebuilt units, and
> >> remanufactured units.
> >>
> >> The manager quoted me $850 for a used unit, and when I asked, said,
> >> "yes they remanfuacture transmissions"....he quoted me $1,200 for a
> >> remanufactured transmission. I then said, "you remanufacture them
> >> yourself there right?", He said, "Yes" and so I said, and that would
> >> then come with a "warranty", and he said, "yes". I on the phone
> >> "greenlighted" and told him to go with one of his reman units. (The
> >> labor quoted was $375 + whatever for oil, etc.).
> >>
> >> I get to the shop tonight and my bill is about $250 higher than I was
> >> told it would be. Why The "converter" needed replacing, some ring next
> >> to the engine and some other incidental parts that he had itemized. I
> >> said, "no one ever called me to inform me of this and at least check
> >> and make sure it was Okay with me", He apoligized for that. I then see
> >> on the work order receipt I am supposed to sign it says 3 months or
> >> 4,000 miles for a warranty and the line item reads "Transmission
> >> Rebuild".
> >>
> >> I said, "Why does it not say Remanufactured Transmission"? The shop
> >> manager then explains to me how there was no real difference, the word
> >> rebuild is the same, etc. I told him "No, language matters and that's
> >> why I specifically and only asked you about a remanufacturered
> >> transmission, not a used or rebuilt transmission". He then
> >> relunctantly concedes if he places the word "Remanufactured" on there
> >> with transmission, by State law he has to provide a 12 month/1 year
> >> warranty. I said, "yes, I know that, that's why I chose that option
> >> and not a used transmission and that precise language in speaking with
> >> you at every point". He then says, "tell you what, I'll offer you a 6
> >> month/8,000 mi warranty". I said that's not the point.
> >>
> >> I paid the $2,000 bill in full but would not sign the paper work or
> >> accept my Jeep as the paper work is not consistent or congruent with
> >> what he represented and I agreed to. I told him I have to think about
> >> this matter for a few days and I will get back to them.
> >>
> >> Any ideas on what I should do? I am really pissed I don't have a
> >> remanufactured transmission in my jeep and who knows, the shop might
> >> have simply installed a used one. The warranty issues is also
> >> important to me. Why? I was planning on selling this Jeep once out of
> >> the shop, With only 125K miles and a reman transmission w/warranty and
> >> in great shape...I figured it would be a safe used buy for someone.
> >>
> >> Any hints, tips or clues on how I should resolve this? I paid the bill
> >> because I am a straight shooter and would have paid the bill even with
> >> the additional needed parts assuming I was getting what was
> >> represented. I did not sign the paper work or accept the car because
> >> it's not what we agreed to.
> >>
> >> By the way, what is the difference between a remanufactured and a
> >> rebuild? I chose reman due to it being covered by state laws
> >> w/warranty but am not sure on the difference between the two.
> >>
> >
> >
> > *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
> > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
> > http://www.SecureIX.com ***
>
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

 

If that is the case then the original poster really got screwed. He agreed
to and paid for a transmission "remanufactured" in a factory, and got
something "rebuilt" in a shop. Going to a dealer is no guarantee of getting
a better deal though. Dealers are just as likely as anyone else to
"rebuild" a transmission on the premises, or to order a "remanufactured"
unit from a supplier of such.

About all this thread is good for now, is for you to read it, so you don't
get screwed the same way.

Earle

"Coasty" <uscg_ret at comcast dot net> wrote in message
news:3vCdnQzCD_o_-bfZRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> Jeep along with all other manufacturers define the following:
>
> Rebuilt means worn parts and seals are replaced old parts still with in
> tolarances are left in, fluids are refilled.
>
> Remanufactured or Programmed means all parts are repaced to original OEM
> specifications with any upgrades between model years.
>
> There is a big differance if he had gone to the Dealer it would of cost
him
> about the same $$ and there would be no issues along with getting a
> programmed transmission (remanufactured).
>
> Coasty
>
> "Earle Horton" <nurse--NOSPAM--busters@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:4429e476$0$20703$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.c om...
> > Realize that "rebuilt" and "remanufactured" are not precisely defined
> > terms,
> > and in many cases they are considered synonyms. The relevant difference
> > appears to be what is contained in your state law. I suggest that you
get
> > a
> > copy of that law, to see what you are entitled to. If they agreed to
> > supply
> > you with a "remanufactured" unit for $1,200, then that is what they owe
> > you.
> > Legally, you could probably make them put a "remanufactured" unit in
your
> > Jeep, but that might be more trouble than it is worth.
> >
> > The shop should have called you about the torque converter and flex
plate.
> >
> > It sounds as if the shop manager might have simply confused the terms
> > "rebuilt" and "remanufactured", but if the two terms have legal
> > ramifications in your state, that is a mistake he had no business
making.
> > Maybe you can get a refund of the difference?
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > <lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1143593192.017220.233480@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >> Went to pick up my '96 JGC Loredeo from the shop tonight and got 3
> >> surprises. After learning my transmission was shot beyond reuild (so
> >> they said), I asked the shop how much would a used one cost, and how
> >> much for one of their remanufactured units. The manager said he would
> >> have to call around for a used one and get back to me. Well on-line I
> >> shopped two and learned there were used units, rebuilt units, and
> >> remanufactured units.
> >>
> >> The manager quoted me $850 for a used unit, and when I asked, said,
> >> "yes they remanfuacture transmissions"....he quoted me $1,200 for a
> >> remanufactured transmission. I then said, "you remanufacture them
> >> yourself there right?", He said, "Yes" and so I said, and that would
> >> then come with a "warranty", and he said, "yes". I on the phone
> >> "greenlighted" and told him to go with one of his reman units. (The
> >> labor quoted was $375 + whatever for oil, etc.).
> >>
> >> I get to the shop tonight and my bill is about $250 higher than I was
> >> told it would be. Why The "converter" needed replacing, some ring next
> >> to the engine and some other incidental parts that he had itemized. I
> >> said, "no one ever called me to inform me of this and at least check
> >> and make sure it was Okay with me", He apoligized for that. I then see
> >> on the work order receipt I am supposed to sign it says 3 months or
> >> 4,000 miles for a warranty and the line item reads "Transmission
> >> Rebuild".
> >>
> >> I said, "Why does it not say Remanufactured Transmission"? The shop
> >> manager then explains to me how there was no real difference, the word
> >> rebuild is the same, etc. I told him "No, language matters and that's
> >> why I specifically and only asked you about a remanufacturered
> >> transmission, not a used or rebuilt transmission". He then
> >> relunctantly concedes if he places the word "Remanufactured" on there
> >> with transmission, by State law he has to provide a 12 month/1 year
> >> warranty. I said, "yes, I know that, that's why I chose that option
> >> and not a used transmission and that precise language in speaking with
> >> you at every point". He then says, "tell you what, I'll offer you a 6
> >> month/8,000 mi warranty". I said that's not the point.
> >>
> >> I paid the $2,000 bill in full but would not sign the paper work or
> >> accept my Jeep as the paper work is not consistent or congruent with
> >> what he represented and I agreed to. I told him I have to think about
> >> this matter for a few days and I will get back to them.
> >>
> >> Any ideas on what I should do? I am really pissed I don't have a
> >> remanufactured transmission in my jeep and who knows, the shop might
> >> have simply installed a used one. The warranty issues is also
> >> important to me. Why? I was planning on selling this Jeep once out of
> >> the shop, With only 125K miles and a reman transmission w/warranty and
> >> in great shape...I figured it would be a safe used buy for someone.
> >>
> >> Any hints, tips or clues on how I should resolve this? I paid the bill
> >> because I am a straight shooter and would have paid the bill even with
> >> the additional needed parts assuming I was getting what was
> >> represented. I did not sign the paper work or accept the car because
> >> it's not what we agreed to.
> >>
> >> By the way, what is the difference between a remanufactured and a
> >> rebuild? I chose reman due to it being covered by state laws
> >> w/warranty but am not sure on the difference between the two.
> >>
> >
> >
> > *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
> > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
> > http://www.SecureIX.com ***
>
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

 

I'm wondering how he "refurbed" your original torque converter, as from
memory they are a steel, welded shut unit.

Nobody "refurbs" a torque converter in a shop that can't remanufacture a
transmission.

Maybe he cleaned it up and sold it to someone else, maybe he cleaned it up
and sold it back to you, who knows, but he didn't refurb it.

Spdloader



<lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143655357.211987.63970@v46g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
> >Since you've already paid the man, the only thing left to work out is
> the warranty length.
> _
>
> Spoke to the shop manager today and told him I was uncomfortable with
> signing the work order/invoice form with pick up of the car as it was
> not consistent with our agreement in 3 areas, and also let him know
> those 3 areas amounted to a violation of NY State law.
>
> He conceded on 2 of these areas they dropped the ball (not informing me
> of additional parts, etc.) and revising the warranty after the fact
> (they want me to come in at the mid-way point of the warranty for a $95
> transmission servicing to keep the warranty valid). I did not mention
> this nugget in my OP however what they laced into the invoice/work
> order to sign off. It's not an issue of it being good/wise after
> receiving a transmission job, it's an issue of another term,
> undisclosed on the front end, and dropped on me at the back end.
>
> I said, "why did you not tell me the warranty required this condition"?
> He minimized its importance as having to be mentioned on the front
> end. I told him ethically he should say the warranty requires a $95
> check-up servicing midway. If you're going to verbally present it as a
> carrot....he should disclose this pivotal condition, no? He agreed to
> eat the $95 mid-way check up. I said, "that's not the point", "the
> point is being ethically straight and clear up front before the fact"
> and not allowing for any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, etc.
>
> Which all lead to the major point of concern, a reman transmission
> versues a rebuild. He parsed words, was extremely defensive but
> generally spoke to me like I was incapable of discerning the
> distinction between the two. I had to tell him there are clear
> distinctions, written in law, between reman and used/rebuild, etc.
> He finally said to me, "what do you want me to do?", I said, "honor the
> agreement". He said they don't do remans, only rebuilds.
>
> He said if I want I can have a transmission sent to his shop and he'll
> install it and all I will pay is labor. I can do that for $550 (get a
> trans over there delivered). I sent him a fax telling him at this
> juncture I would agree to the following; Take the Jeep now and Pay him
> $975 (price he originally quoted for a used trans) + $375 labor + oil.
> I told him the Torque Converter thing he pulled (by the way, he
> salvaged and refurbed my original for some other customer or something)
> was a violation of law but I will meet him 1/2 on that price. In sum
> with tax the whole job would cost me $1,600. I paid him the $2K with a
> credit card so I can reverse that.
>
> I told him this was my best effort to make the most out of the
> situation at this point and not something I would be satisfied with but
> would deal with. Either this or have all my parts returned, pull out
> the trans installed, and I will have my Jeep towed else way. And if
> this was not acceptable we would just be heading into the direction of
> a legal quagmire, something I want to avert.
>
> So who knows. I think what happend here is the vendor (repair shop)
> did not appreciate the customer might well know the distinction between
> "reman" and used and or refurbed or rebuilt. Beyond the
> mechancial/procedural distinctions, there are legal distinctions,
> actual State Laws governing this auto repair shops and parts when this
> "remanufactured" language is used. Even this Torque Convert itemized
> on my invoice...it does not say used or reman'ed and the absence of
> that language makes one believe it's new. However state law in NY
> requires used parts to be, on record identified as indeed "used parts".
> Failure to do so is technically a violation of law.
>
> There are few things as cherished to people than a straight shooting
> mechanics that you can trust. God Bless all you that instill
> confidence and comfort in your clients. I would not even get upset
> over a mechanic performing something without informing me and paying
> him. My only problem with that in this case is the series of "things"
> done not quite right ultimately add up and paint a suspect picture...
>

 

I'm wondering how he "refurbed" your original torque converter, as from
memory they are a steel, welded shut unit.

Nobody "refurbs" a torque converter in a shop that can't remanufacture a
transmission.

Maybe he cleaned it up and sold it to someone else, maybe he cleaned it up
and sold it back to you, who knows, but he didn't refurb it.

Spdloader



<lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143655357.211987.63970@v46g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
> >Since you've already paid the man, the only thing left to work out is
> the warranty length.
> _
>
> Spoke to the shop manager today and told him I was uncomfortable with
> signing the work order/invoice form with pick up of the car as it was
> not consistent with our agreement in 3 areas, and also let him know
> those 3 areas amounted to a violation of NY State law.
>
> He conceded on 2 of these areas they dropped the ball (not informing me
> of additional parts, etc.) and revising the warranty after the fact
> (they want me to come in at the mid-way point of the warranty for a $95
> transmission servicing to keep the warranty valid). I did not mention
> this nugget in my OP however what they laced into the invoice/work
> order to sign off. It's not an issue of it being good/wise after
> receiving a transmission job, it's an issue of another term,
> undisclosed on the front end, and dropped on me at the back end.
>
> I said, "why did you not tell me the warranty required this condition"?
> He minimized its importance as having to be mentioned on the front
> end. I told him ethically he should say the warranty requires a $95
> check-up servicing midway. If you're going to verbally present it as a
> carrot....he should disclose this pivotal condition, no? He agreed to
> eat the $95 mid-way check up. I said, "that's not the point", "the
> point is being ethically straight and clear up front before the fact"
> and not allowing for any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, etc.
>
> Which all lead to the major point of concern, a reman transmission
> versues a rebuild. He parsed words, was extremely defensive but
> generally spoke to me like I was incapable of discerning the
> distinction between the two. I had to tell him there are clear
> distinctions, written in law, between reman and used/rebuild, etc.
> He finally said to me, "what do you want me to do?", I said, "honor the
> agreement". He said they don't do remans, only rebuilds.
>
> He said if I want I can have a transmission sent to his shop and he'll
> install it and all I will pay is labor. I can do that for $550 (get a
> trans over there delivered). I sent him a fax telling him at this
> juncture I would agree to the following; Take the Jeep now and Pay him
> $975 (price he originally quoted for a used trans) + $375 labor + oil.
> I told him the Torque Converter thing he pulled (by the way, he
> salvaged and refurbed my original for some other customer or something)
> was a violation of law but I will meet him 1/2 on that price. In sum
> with tax the whole job would cost me $1,600. I paid him the $2K with a
> credit card so I can reverse that.
>
> I told him this was my best effort to make the most out of the
> situation at this point and not something I would be satisfied with but
> would deal with. Either this or have all my parts returned, pull out
> the trans installed, and I will have my Jeep towed else way. And if
> this was not acceptable we would just be heading into the direction of
> a legal quagmire, something I want to avert.
>
> So who knows. I think what happend here is the vendor (repair shop)
> did not appreciate the customer might well know the distinction between
> "reman" and used and or refurbed or rebuilt. Beyond the
> mechancial/procedural distinctions, there are legal distinctions,
> actual State Laws governing this auto repair shops and parts when this
> "remanufactured" language is used. Even this Torque Convert itemized
> on my invoice...it does not say used or reman'ed and the absence of
> that language makes one believe it's new. However state law in NY
> requires used parts to be, on record identified as indeed "used parts".
> Failure to do so is technically a violation of law.
>
> There are few things as cherished to people than a straight shooting
> mechanics that you can trust. God Bless all you that instill
> confidence and comfort in your clients. I would not even get upset
> over a mechanic performing something without informing me and paying
> him. My only problem with that in this case is the series of "things"
> done not quite right ultimately add up and paint a suspect picture...
>

 

I'm wondering how he "refurbed" your original torque converter, as from
memory they are a steel, welded shut unit.

Nobody "refurbs" a torque converter in a shop that can't remanufacture a
transmission.

Maybe he cleaned it up and sold it to someone else, maybe he cleaned it up
and sold it back to you, who knows, but he didn't refurb it.

Spdloader



<lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143655357.211987.63970@v46g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
> >Since you've already paid the man, the only thing left to work out is
> the warranty length.
> _
>
> Spoke to the shop manager today and told him I was uncomfortable with
> signing the work order/invoice form with pick up of the car as it was
> not consistent with our agreement in 3 areas, and also let him know
> those 3 areas amounted to a violation of NY State law.
>
> He conceded on 2 of these areas they dropped the ball (not informing me
> of additional parts, etc.) and revising the warranty after the fact
> (they want me to come in at the mid-way point of the warranty for a $95
> transmission servicing to keep the warranty valid). I did not mention
> this nugget in my OP however what they laced into the invoice/work
> order to sign off. It's not an issue of it being good/wise after
> receiving a transmission job, it's an issue of another term,
> undisclosed on the front end, and dropped on me at the back end.
>
> I said, "why did you not tell me the warranty required this condition"?
> He minimized its importance as having to be mentioned on the front
> end. I told him ethically he should say the warranty requires a $95
> check-up servicing midway. If you're going to verbally present it as a
> carrot....he should disclose this pivotal condition, no? He agreed to
> eat the $95 mid-way check up. I said, "that's not the point", "the
> point is being ethically straight and clear up front before the fact"
> and not allowing for any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, etc.
>
> Which all lead to the major point of concern, a reman transmission
> versues a rebuild. He parsed words, was extremely defensive but
> generally spoke to me like I was incapable of discerning the
> distinction between the two. I had to tell him there are clear
> distinctions, written in law, between reman and used/rebuild, etc.
> He finally said to me, "what do you want me to do?", I said, "honor the
> agreement". He said they don't do remans, only rebuilds.
>
> He said if I want I can have a transmission sent to his shop and he'll
> install it and all I will pay is labor. I can do that for $550 (get a
> trans over there delivered). I sent him a fax telling him at this
> juncture I would agree to the following; Take the Jeep now and Pay him
> $975 (price he originally quoted for a used trans) + $375 labor + oil.
> I told him the Torque Converter thing he pulled (by the way, he
> salvaged and refurbed my original for some other customer or something)
> was a violation of law but I will meet him 1/2 on that price. In sum
> with tax the whole job would cost me $1,600. I paid him the $2K with a
> credit card so I can reverse that.
>
> I told him this was my best effort to make the most out of the
> situation at this point and not something I would be satisfied with but
> would deal with. Either this or have all my parts returned, pull out
> the trans installed, and I will have my Jeep towed else way. And if
> this was not acceptable we would just be heading into the direction of
> a legal quagmire, something I want to avert.
>
> So who knows. I think what happend here is the vendor (repair shop)
> did not appreciate the customer might well know the distinction between
> "reman" and used and or refurbed or rebuilt. Beyond the
> mechancial/procedural distinctions, there are legal distinctions,
> actual State Laws governing this auto repair shops and parts when this
> "remanufactured" language is used. Even this Torque Convert itemized
> on my invoice...it does not say used or reman'ed and the absence of
> that language makes one believe it's new. However state law in NY
> requires used parts to be, on record identified as indeed "used parts".
> Failure to do so is technically a violation of law.
>
> There are few things as cherished to people than a straight shooting
> mechanics that you can trust. God Bless all you that instill
> confidence and comfort in your clients. I would not even get upset
> over a mechanic performing something without informing me and paying
> him. My only problem with that in this case is the series of "things"
> done not quite right ultimately add up and paint a suspect picture...
>

 

Sounds like a case for a small claims court. If they have violated your
state laws, you should be able to get your money back for the areas where
they violated the law.

<lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143655357.211987.63970@v46g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
> >Since you've already paid the man, the only thing left to work out is
> the warranty length.
> _
>
> Spoke to the shop manager today and told him I was uncomfortable with
> signing the work order/invoice form with pick up of the car as it was
> not consistent with our agreement in 3 areas, and also let him know
> those 3 areas amounted to a violation of NY State law.
>
> He conceded on 2 of these areas they dropped the ball (not informing me
> of additional parts, etc.) and revising the warranty after the fact
> (they want me to come in at the mid-way point of the warranty for a $95
> transmission servicing to keep the warranty valid). I did not mention
> this nugget in my OP however what they laced into the invoice/work
> order to sign off. It's not an issue of it being good/wise after
> receiving a transmission job, it's an issue of another term,
> undisclosed on the front end, and dropped on me at the back end.
>
> I said, "why did you not tell me the warranty required this condition"?
> He minimized its importance as having to be mentioned on the front
> end. I told him ethically he should say the warranty requires a $95
> check-up servicing midway. If you're going to verbally present it as a
> carrot....he should disclose this pivotal condition, no? He agreed to
> eat the $95 mid-way check up. I said, "that's not the point", "the
> point is being ethically straight and clear up front before the fact"
> and not allowing for any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, etc.
>
> Which all lead to the major point of concern, a reman transmission
> versues a rebuild. He parsed words, was extremely defensive but
> generally spoke to me like I was incapable of discerning the
> distinction between the two. I had to tell him there are clear
> distinctions, written in law, between reman and used/rebuild, etc.
> He finally said to me, "what do you want me to do?", I said, "honor the
> agreement". He said they don't do remans, only rebuilds.
>
> He said if I want I can have a transmission sent to his shop and he'll
> install it and all I will pay is labor. I can do that for $550 (get a
> trans over there delivered). I sent him a fax telling him at this
> juncture I would agree to the following; Take the Jeep now and Pay him
> $975 (price he originally quoted for a used trans) + $375 labor + oil.
> I told him the Torque Converter thing he pulled (by the way, he
> salvaged and refurbed my original for some other customer or something)
> was a violation of law but I will meet him 1/2 on that price. In sum
> with tax the whole job would cost me $1,600. I paid him the $2K with a
> credit card so I can reverse that.
>
> I told him this was my best effort to make the most out of the
> situation at this point and not something I would be satisfied with but
> would deal with. Either this or have all my parts returned, pull out
> the trans installed, and I will have my Jeep towed else way. And if
> this was not acceptable we would just be heading into the direction of
> a legal quagmire, something I want to avert.
>
> So who knows. I think what happend here is the vendor (repair shop)
> did not appreciate the customer might well know the distinction between
> "reman" and used and or refurbed or rebuilt. Beyond the
> mechancial/procedural distinctions, there are legal distinctions,
> actual State Laws governing this auto repair shops and parts when this
> "remanufactured" language is used. Even this Torque Convert itemized
> on my invoice...it does not say used or reman'ed and the absence of
> that language makes one believe it's new. However state law in NY
> requires used parts to be, on record identified as indeed "used parts".
> Failure to do so is technically a violation of law.
>
> There are few things as cherished to people than a straight shooting
> mechanics that you can trust. God Bless all you that instill
> confidence and comfort in your clients. I would not even get upset
> over a mechanic performing something without informing me and paying
> him. My only problem with that in this case is the series of "things"
> done not quite right ultimately add up and paint a suspect picture...
>

 

Sounds like a case for a small claims court. If they have violated your
state laws, you should be able to get your money back for the areas where
they violated the law.

<lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143655357.211987.63970@v46g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
> >Since you've already paid the man, the only thing left to work out is
> the warranty length.
> _
>
> Spoke to the shop manager today and told him I was uncomfortable with
> signing the work order/invoice form with pick up of the car as it was
> not consistent with our agreement in 3 areas, and also let him know
> those 3 areas amounted to a violation of NY State law.
>
> He conceded on 2 of these areas they dropped the ball (not informing me
> of additional parts, etc.) and revising the warranty after the fact
> (they want me to come in at the mid-way point of the warranty for a $95
> transmission servicing to keep the warranty valid). I did not mention
> this nugget in my OP however what they laced into the invoice/work
> order to sign off. It's not an issue of it being good/wise after
> receiving a transmission job, it's an issue of another term,
> undisclosed on the front end, and dropped on me at the back end.
>
> I said, "why did you not tell me the warranty required this condition"?
> He minimized its importance as having to be mentioned on the front
> end. I told him ethically he should say the warranty requires a $95
> check-up servicing midway. If you're going to verbally present it as a
> carrot....he should disclose this pivotal condition, no? He agreed to
> eat the $95 mid-way check up. I said, "that's not the point", "the
> point is being ethically straight and clear up front before the fact"
> and not allowing for any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, etc.
>
> Which all lead to the major point of concern, a reman transmission
> versues a rebuild. He parsed words, was extremely defensive but
> generally spoke to me like I was incapable of discerning the
> distinction between the two. I had to tell him there are clear
> distinctions, written in law, between reman and used/rebuild, etc.
> He finally said to me, "what do you want me to do?", I said, "honor the
> agreement". He said they don't do remans, only rebuilds.
>
> He said if I want I can have a transmission sent to his shop and he'll
> install it and all I will pay is labor. I can do that for $550 (get a
> trans over there delivered). I sent him a fax telling him at this
> juncture I would agree to the following; Take the Jeep now and Pay him
> $975 (price he originally quoted for a used trans) + $375 labor + oil.
> I told him the Torque Converter thing he pulled (by the way, he
> salvaged and refurbed my original for some other customer or something)
> was a violation of law but I will meet him 1/2 on that price. In sum
> with tax the whole job would cost me $1,600. I paid him the $2K with a
> credit card so I can reverse that.
>
> I told him this was my best effort to make the most out of the
> situation at this point and not something I would be satisfied with but
> would deal with. Either this or have all my parts returned, pull out
> the trans installed, and I will have my Jeep towed else way. And if
> this was not acceptable we would just be heading into the direction of
> a legal quagmire, something I want to avert.
>
> So who knows. I think what happend here is the vendor (repair shop)
> did not appreciate the customer might well know the distinction between
> "reman" and used and or refurbed or rebuilt. Beyond the
> mechancial/procedural distinctions, there are legal distinctions,
> actual State Laws governing this auto repair shops and parts when this
> "remanufactured" language is used. Even this Torque Convert itemized
> on my invoice...it does not say used or reman'ed and the absence of
> that language makes one believe it's new. However state law in NY
> requires used parts to be, on record identified as indeed "used parts".
> Failure to do so is technically a violation of law.
>
> There are few things as cherished to people than a straight shooting
> mechanics that you can trust. God Bless all you that instill
> confidence and comfort in your clients. I would not even get upset
> over a mechanic performing something without informing me and paying
> him. My only problem with that in this case is the series of "things"
> done not quite right ultimately add up and paint a suspect picture...
>

 

Sounds like a case for a small claims court. If they have violated your
state laws, you should be able to get your money back for the areas where
they violated the law.

<lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143655357.211987.63970@v46g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
> >Since you've already paid the man, the only thing left to work out is
> the warranty length.
> _
>
> Spoke to the shop manager today and told him I was uncomfortable with
> signing the work order/invoice form with pick up of the car as it was
> not consistent with our agreement in 3 areas, and also let him know
> those 3 areas amounted to a violation of NY State law.
>
> He conceded on 2 of these areas they dropped the ball (not informing me
> of additional parts, etc.) and revising the warranty after the fact
> (they want me to come in at the mid-way point of the warranty for a $95
> transmission servicing to keep the warranty valid). I did not mention
> this nugget in my OP however what they laced into the invoice/work
> order to sign off. It's not an issue of it being good/wise after
> receiving a transmission job, it's an issue of another term,
> undisclosed on the front end, and dropped on me at the back end.
>
> I said, "why did you not tell me the warranty required this condition"?
> He minimized its importance as having to be mentioned on the front
> end. I told him ethically he should say the warranty requires a $95
> check-up servicing midway. If you're going to verbally present it as a
> carrot....he should disclose this pivotal condition, no? He agreed to
> eat the $95 mid-way check up. I said, "that's not the point", "the
> point is being ethically straight and clear up front before the fact"
> and not allowing for any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, etc.
>
> Which all lead to the major point of concern, a reman transmission
> versues a rebuild. He parsed words, was extremely defensive but
> generally spoke to me like I was incapable of discerning the
> distinction between the two. I had to tell him there are clear
> distinctions, written in law, between reman and used/rebuild, etc.
> He finally said to me, "what do you want me to do?", I said, "honor the
> agreement". He said they don't do remans, only rebuilds.
>
> He said if I want I can have a transmission sent to his shop and he'll
> install it and all I will pay is labor. I can do that for $550 (get a
> trans over there delivered). I sent him a fax telling him at this
> juncture I would agree to the following; Take the Jeep now and Pay him
> $975 (price he originally quoted for a used trans) + $375 labor + oil.
> I told him the Torque Converter thing he pulled (by the way, he
> salvaged and refurbed my original for some other customer or something)
> was a violation of law but I will meet him 1/2 on that price. In sum
> with tax the whole job would cost me $1,600. I paid him the $2K with a
> credit card so I can reverse that.
>
> I told him this was my best effort to make the most out of the
> situation at this point and not something I would be satisfied with but
> would deal with. Either this or have all my parts returned, pull out
> the trans installed, and I will have my Jeep towed else way. And if
> this was not acceptable we would just be heading into the direction of
> a legal quagmire, something I want to avert.
>
> So who knows. I think what happend here is the vendor (repair shop)
> did not appreciate the customer might well know the distinction between
> "reman" and used and or refurbed or rebuilt. Beyond the
> mechancial/procedural distinctions, there are legal distinctions,
> actual State Laws governing this auto repair shops and parts when this
> "remanufactured" language is used. Even this Torque Convert itemized
> on my invoice...it does not say used or reman'ed and the absence of
> that language makes one believe it's new. However state law in NY
> requires used parts to be, on record identified as indeed "used parts".
> Failure to do so is technically a violation of law.
>
> There are few things as cherished to people than a straight shooting
> mechanics that you can trust. God Bless all you that instill
> confidence and comfort in your clients. I would not even get upset
> over a mechanic performing something without informing me and paying
> him. My only problem with that in this case is the series of "things"
> done not quite right ultimately add up and paint a suspect picture...
>

 

I haven't worked in this industry for quite some time, but I understand that
torque converters cannot be rebuilt, refurbished, remanufactured or whatever
you want to call it. It was decades ago when they stopped putting drain
plugs in them, so you cannot even change the oil properly. In 1978, they
told us that if a transmission had burned oil in it, the torque converter
was junk.

It is fraud, a criminal offense, to sell used parts as new. They have to be
identified on an invoice, as "used torque converter", "used widget", etc.
Failure to do so is a form of theft.

In my experience it takes a little work to be honest and ethical, but it is
easier in the long run, not to have to make up all those excuses, and you
get to sleep at night. Sadly, the majority of people don't even try to be
honest. They just do whatever is convenient, or what they think other
people are doing. One thing you can count on though, is consistency. If
people are honest, they are honest all the time. If people are dishonest,
they are dishonest all the time. You should call your state's attorney
general. If they have laws, then maybe they have someone to enforce them.

Earle
<lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143655357.211987.63970@v46g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
> >Since you've already paid the man, the only thing left to work out is
> the warranty length.
> _
>
> Spoke to the shop manager today and told him I was uncomfortable with
> signing the work order/invoice form with pick up of the car as it was
> not consistent with our agreement in 3 areas, and also let him know
> those 3 areas amounted to a violation of NY State law.
>
> He conceded on 2 of these areas they dropped the ball (not informing me
> of additional parts, etc.) and revising the warranty after the fact
> (they want me to come in at the mid-way point of the warranty for a $95
> transmission servicing to keep the warranty valid). I did not mention
> this nugget in my OP however what they laced into the invoice/work
> order to sign off. It's not an issue of it being good/wise after
> receiving a transmission job, it's an issue of another term,
> undisclosed on the front end, and dropped on me at the back end.
>
> I said, "why did you not tell me the warranty required this condition"?
> He minimized its importance as having to be mentioned on the front
> end. I told him ethically he should say the warranty requires a $95
> check-up servicing midway. If you're going to verbally present it as a
> carrot....he should disclose this pivotal condition, no? He agreed to
> eat the $95 mid-way check up. I said, "that's not the point", "the
> point is being ethically straight and clear up front before the fact"
> and not allowing for any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, etc.
>
> Which all lead to the major point of concern, a reman transmission
> versues a rebuild. He parsed words, was extremely defensive but
> generally spoke to me like I was incapable of discerning the
> distinction between the two. I had to tell him there are clear
> distinctions, written in law, between reman and used/rebuild, etc.
> He finally said to me, "what do you want me to do?", I said, "honor the
> agreement". He said they don't do remans, only rebuilds.
>
> He said if I want I can have a transmission sent to his shop and he'll
> install it and all I will pay is labor. I can do that for $550 (get a
> trans over there delivered). I sent him a fax telling him at this
> juncture I would agree to the following; Take the Jeep now and Pay him
> $975 (price he originally quoted for a used trans) + $375 labor + oil.
> I told him the Torque Converter thing he pulled (by the way, he
> salvaged and refurbed my original for some other customer or something)
> was a violation of law but I will meet him 1/2 on that price. In sum
> with tax the whole job would cost me $1,600. I paid him the $2K with a
> credit card so I can reverse that.
>
> I told him this was my best effort to make the most out of the
> situation at this point and not something I would be satisfied with but
> would deal with. Either this or have all my parts returned, pull out
> the trans installed, and I will have my Jeep towed else way. And if
> this was not acceptable we would just be heading into the direction of
> a legal quagmire, something I want to avert.
>
> So who knows. I think what happend here is the vendor (repair shop)
> did not appreciate the customer might well know the distinction between
> "reman" and used and or refurbed or rebuilt. Beyond the
> mechancial/procedural distinctions, there are legal distinctions,
> actual State Laws governing this auto repair shops and parts when this
> "remanufactured" language is used. Even this Torque Convert itemized
> on my invoice...it does not say used or reman'ed and the absence of
> that language makes one believe it's new. However state law in NY
> requires used parts to be, on record identified as indeed "used parts".
> Failure to do so is technically a violation of law.
>
> There are few things as cherished to people than a straight shooting
> mechanics that you can trust. God Bless all you that instill
> confidence and comfort in your clients. I would not even get upset
> over a mechanic performing something without informing me and paying
> him. My only problem with that in this case is the series of "things"
> done not quite right ultimately add up and paint a suspect picture...
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

 

I haven't worked in this industry for quite some time, but I understand that
torque converters cannot be rebuilt, refurbished, remanufactured or whatever
you want to call it. It was decades ago when they stopped putting drain
plugs in them, so you cannot even change the oil properly. In 1978, they
told us that if a transmission had burned oil in it, the torque converter
was junk.

It is fraud, a criminal offense, to sell used parts as new. They have to be
identified on an invoice, as "used torque converter", "used widget", etc.
Failure to do so is a form of theft.

In my experience it takes a little work to be honest and ethical, but it is
easier in the long run, not to have to make up all those excuses, and you
get to sleep at night. Sadly, the majority of people don't even try to be
honest. They just do whatever is convenient, or what they think other
people are doing. One thing you can count on though, is consistency. If
people are honest, they are honest all the time. If people are dishonest,
they are dishonest all the time. You should call your state's attorney
general. If they have laws, then maybe they have someone to enforce them.

Earle
<lanceandrew@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143655357.211987.63970@v46g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
> >Since you've already paid the man, the only thing left to work out is
> the warranty length.
> _
>
> Spoke to the shop manager today and told him I was uncomfortable with
> signing the work order/invoice form with pick up of the car as it was
> not consistent with our agreement in 3 areas, and also let him know
> those 3 areas amounted to a violation of NY State law.
>
> He conceded on 2 of these areas they dropped the ball (not informing me
> of additional parts, etc.) and revising the warranty after the fact
> (they want me to come in at the mid-way point of the warranty for a $95
> transmission servicing to keep the warranty valid). I did not mention
> this nugget in my OP however what they laced into the invoice/work
> order to sign off. It's not an issue of it being good/wise after
> receiving a transmission job, it's an issue of another term,
> undisclosed on the front end, and dropped on me at the back end.
>
> I said, "why did you not tell me the warranty required this condition"?
> He minimized its importance as having to be mentioned on the front
> end. I told him ethically he should say the warranty requires a $95
> check-up servicing midway. If you're going to verbally present it as a
> carrot....he should disclose this pivotal condition, no? He agreed to
> eat the $95 mid-way check up. I said, "that's not the point", "the
> point is being ethically straight and clear up front before the fact"
> and not allowing for any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, etc.
>
> Which all lead to the major point of concern, a reman transmission
> versues a rebuild. He parsed words, was extremely defensive but
> generally spoke to me like I was incapable of discerning the
> distinction between the two. I had to tell him there are clear
> distinctions, written in law, between reman and used/rebuild, etc.
> He finally said to me, "what do you want me to do?", I said, "honor the
> agreement". He said they don't do remans, only rebuilds.
>
> He said if I want I can have a transmission sent to his shop and he'll
> install it and all I will pay is labor. I can do that for $550 (get a
> trans over there delivered). I sent him a fax telling him at this
> juncture I would agree to the following; Take the Jeep now and Pay him
> $975 (price he originally quoted for a used trans) + $375 labor + oil.
> I told him the Torque Converter thing he pulled (by the way, he
> salvaged and refurbed my original for some other customer or something)
> was a violation of law but I will meet him 1/2 on that price. In sum
> with tax the whole job would cost me $1,600. I paid him the $2K with a
> credit card so I can reverse that.
>
> I told him this was my best effort to make the most out of the
> situation at this point and not something I would be satisfied with but
> would deal with. Either this or have all my parts returned, pull out
> the trans installed, and I will have my Jeep towed else way. And if
> this was not acceptable we would just be heading into the direction of
> a legal quagmire, something I want to avert.
>
> So who knows. I think what happend here is the vendor (repair shop)
> did not appreciate the customer might well know the distinction between
> "reman" and used and or refurbed or rebuilt. Beyond the
> mechancial/procedural distinctions, there are legal distinctions,
> actual State Laws governing this auto repair shops and parts when this
> "remanufactured" language is used. Even this Torque Convert itemized
> on my invoice...it does not say used or reman'ed and the absence of
> that language makes one believe it's new. However state law in NY
> requires used parts to be, on record identified as indeed "used parts".
> Failure to do so is technically a violation of law.
>
> There are few things as cherished to people than a straight shooting
> mechanics that you can trust. God Bless all you that instill
> confidence and comfort in your clients. I would not even get upset
> over a mechanic performing something without informing me and paying
> him. My only problem with that in this case is the series of "things"
> done not quite right ultimately add up and paint a suspect picture...
>


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***