Tow a Landmark with a goose Neck Hitch??

[Bones]

This seems to be a commonly held belief. But in looking at the law and at the interpretation of the law, there appears to me to be quite a significant burden on the consumer, not on the manufacturer.

If anyone has found something that shows the burden on the manufacturer, I'd appreciate having it pointed out with a link.

I agree. All the dealer states he has this on his vehicle and denied. It doesn't matter if it had any bearing on the failed part.

 

[danemayer]

I believe it's part of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (1975)

Yes, but the legislation doesn't say what was claimed about manufacturers having a burden of proof. Nor does the FTC interpretation of the Magnuson-Moss Act. And so far as I have looked, court rulings involving M-M don't say it either.

 

[Lynn1130]

I had a vehicle (one of those with the aircraft propeller on the hood) that the company bought back under Moss-Magnuson and it really did not take much more than providing repair information.