Sorry for the repost PhilFromMaine. I hadnt seen that you had the video posted already. Wasnt trying to step on your toes.
But yes, you are hitting the nail on the head for what my concern was when seeing the video. It was strictly the part about "revocation of acceptance". The dealers know that these RVs are so low quality that they needed to resort to these tactics to insulate themselves from having to deal with the consequences of garbage products. Instead of forcing the manufacturer to build better products, they are putting everything on the buyer. That aspect just doesnt sit well with me as a consumer.
With regard to which part was still broken, it sounds to me like the broken part was the vehicle side of the RV, not the house side. So I agree the plaintiff was barking up the wrong tree for that. But can you blame them? Seems like common sense would be that you bought an RV from a dealer. The RV has problems. You bring it back to the dealer. The dealer facilitates repairs. In this case the dealer essentially told them "not my problem, you signed documents at the time of purchase that it was not my problem, so f**k off". Legally, sure the dealer covered themselves and was able to behave that way. But should a dealer be treating a customer that way? There is certainly more to the story, what were the interactions between the dealer and the buyer prior to the lawsuit, etc, but it further goes to show that once you leave the lot, the dealers (generally speaking) have no use for you and dont even want to see your face again, until its time to buy again. Any issue you have the dealer puts on the manufacturer. Then the manufacturer sends you back to the dealer. Then the dealer sends you back to the manufacturer, etc etc etc.