hmm.. i really hate to rain on your parade, but there's
SEVERAL assumptions you have made, which totally and completely invalidate your claim. i hope you don't spend more time and money in this, because a small claims judge is going to point out the exact same things i'm pointing to right now.
- the spirit of civil code 1793.03 is such that if a company is providing a warranty, that they have to make available the part necessary to make the repairs to a repair shop. the idea is that a consumer is not left with NO options to repair their purchase. it's like Microsoft, they provide product support for XP, even though they no longer sell it.
- you are assuming that if you can claim that YOU are capable of conducting the repairs, that Neptune (in this case) will have to provide you with the information to conduct the repair, as well as the parts
- however, what you're failing to take into account, is that Neptune IS complying with the law, they DO provide a repair company the parts and know-how to repair it. that company is NEPTUNE.
aside from that very important factor, there's also the fact that the civil code only deals with california
professional code 9801, sections
(h), (i), (j), and (k).
the apex does not even remotely fall into one of those categories. If anything, it would be in (m)
sorry to burst you bubble dude, but you're gonna lose this if you take it to court.
all the judge is going to do it point out that Neptune
DOES provide repair parts and service, they are under no obligation to provide it to YOU, and they are under no obligation to provide it for free