On 1/15/2017 9:55 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 9:40 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to
>>>>> uphold
>>>>> the warranty.
>>>>
[snip]
>>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>>> warranties up to that point.
>>
>> Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the bank
>> saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's depositors?
>> LOL!
>
> I suspect this did happen in the past, pre depression era time. But
> there are regulations that prevent this and in the case of default, FDIC.
>
>
>>
>> It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when a
>> company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes, by
>> law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty would be
>> one such debt or liability.
>
> Yes, but the new owner does not necessarily have to assume the liability
> on past sales, know as the warranty. But some one does, and that may be
> a required acquisition of a third party insurance to cover that detail.
I own a GM car. GM (Government Motors) is sold to Ford. I suffer
damages due to a crash determined to caused by something GM did in their
manufacturing process prior to selling to Ford. My claim and any
damages provided by the courts are the responsibility now of Ford. When
you buy a corporation you buy the corporation - the good, the bad and
the ugly. If that were not the case, don't you think Volkswagen would
have turned around and sold to a quickly formed shell corporation called
PeopleScooter to avoid paying the $1,000,000,000 fine?
Corporations can enter into all sorts of agreements in the sales process
but they cannot legally do something that affects certain contractual
rights of third parties who have done business with them to those
parties detriment.
Frankly, all of our discussion is much ado about nothing, IMO.
Stanley/B&D bought Craftsman because they want to continue to make money
off the brand loyalty. The last thing they want is a black eye because
you or I take a ratchet back for replacement under the Craftsman
Lifetime Warranty and we're told to pound sand.