But if they are going to claim the cam failure was a 'design defect'
I'm re-reading this clause, which itself is a bit confusing in the semantics: "Repairs required as a result of other than a manufacturing defect (such as a design defect or normal wear)"
It LOOKS to me that the parenthesis are defining the "other than a manufacturing defect", BUT, what's in the parenthesis could also be referring to "manufacturing defect" itself... BECAUSE, it doesn't make sense that they would sell an extended warranty (or service contract) that specifically doesn't cover their own "DESIGN DEFECT"...??? Right?
I mean, if your motor goes up because of a faulty piston, it would be hard for them to say "well, that piston failed because we designed it wrong and it's our fault but now we don't have to pay to fix it even though we charged you thousands of dollars for an extended warranty... BUT if it was a 'manufacturing defect', which would also have been our fault, we would have paid for it to be repaired. It's just that it's the fault of our DESIGN department instead of our MANUFACTURING department is why we're off-the-hook, as per the fine print - sorry, sir".
So, this sounds like maybe, by logic, the "design defect" should be covered, therefore the parenthesis refer to "manufacturing defect"... HOWEVER, what conflicts this logic, is we know that "NORMAL WEAR", which is also in parenthesis and under this logic would also be referred to as a "manufacturing defect", is definitely technically NOT a manufacturing defect...?
WOW - they've really got you with the ambiguous wording... you could end up with a Supreme Court case trying to argue that one... LOL