Warranty Denial / Recourse?

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Holy shit, some people on this board are assholes.........

Who cares where he bought them?

100% guarantee that any good-great manufacturer would want those skis back to warranty them.

ANY snowboard manufacturer in the USA would honor a warranty claim like this, in a heartbeat......again, assholes in this thread.

God damn, some of you fuckers are assholes.

They retailer is willing to give him a refund. The retailer and manufacturer aren't refusing to warranty the skis. To warranty the skis, the manufacturer needs to see them to understand the defect. The OP was asked to ship the skis back.

I don't think anyone was being an asshole. Now I know why folks here refer to you as DasCunt, I had never paid much attention before.

[Jordo]

Aaron, manufacturer doesn't want skis back, is not processing warranty through retailer. Manufacturer is telling me to try to seek a refund from retailer. No warranty dealings at all.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Aaron, manufacturer doesn't want skis back, is not processing warranty through retailer. Manufacturer is telling me to try to seek a refund from retailer. No warranty dealings at all.

That's queer. How much difference in the weight of the skis?

[XXX-er]

It is what it is, someone being assholes doesn't really change anything does it and notice OP is in a foreign country

[GeezerSteve]

Sheez. Okay, I'll play.

Warranties are creatures of contract. The contractual privity (relationship) is between you and the retailer. You have no contractual privity with the manufacturer. Thus the retailer, not the manufacturer, is the party obligated to address your breach of warranty claim.

[single]

What brand?

[PNWbrit]

No warranty dealings at all.

So there can't have been a warranty denial?

Can there?

What brand?

PM gear?

I think the guy who runs that place has been busy this week.

[old goat]

Do we even know that the manufacturer is responsible for the problem. Could be the retailer broke up matched pairs. I got some Atomics on line this summer--they were wrapped separately. Only thing keeping them together was a rubber band. Mine are fine, but it's easy to see how a retailer could let a pair get broken up.

When I think warranty, I think of a product that seems to be OK and then fails in use. When I order something on line that isn't right it's never even occurred to me to contact the manufacturer. I just send it back.

Asshole: anyone who doesn't agree with me ( Das Blunt English Dicktionary ).

[shirk]

one of the skis is much heavier than the other, has way more sidewall material, and a completely different flex than the other ski.

How much heavier? By more sidewall do you mean one ski is thicker than the other?

hmmm let's play guess the indie ski brand game.

[Stairmaster]

Aaron, manufacturer doesn't want skis back, is not processing warranty through retailer. Manufacturer is telling me to try to seek a refund from retailer. No warranty dealings at all.

I'm a bit confused because this seems really really straight forward for you to get your money back. So let me make sure I have this correct...you bought a pair of skis from Europpe and they arrived with a defect (so you think). The retailer you bought them from has offered you a full refund for the skis pending you shipping them back to the retailer not the manufacture.

So why don't you just ship them back and get your money back. If the retailer sent you shitty skis, try to make them pay for the return shipping. Who cares about the warranty at this point unless you are trying to get a new pair of skis.

[Peruvian]

I recommend sending photos of the skis back to the retailer and explaining how they should have never been mailed without prior inspection. As a result you are requesting that they cover shipping costs for the return.

This isn't a warranty issue.

[Jordo]

Yeah I think I should just try that. Thanks for suggestions everybody.

[GeezerSteve]

This isn't a warranty issue.

Nah. It's a warranty issue. All members of the EU have adopted laws that confer to a retail consumer an implied warranty of fitness for intended use, akin to UCC 2-314 warranty of merchantability (which has been adopted in some form by all U.S. states). An equivalent warranty also conferred by Article 35(2)(a) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, which might be more directly applicable to OP's purchase. Two skis comprising an ostensibly matched pair that have materially different flexes and weights are not merchantable nor fit for their intended use.

[Peruvian]

Nah. It's a warranty issue. All members of the EU have adopted laws that confer to a retail consumer an implied warranty of fitness for intended use, akin to UCC 2-314 warranty of merchantability (which has been adopted in some form by all U.S. states). An equivalent warranty also conferred by Article 35(2)(a) of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, which might be more directly applicable to OP's purchase. Two skis comprising an ostensibly matched pair that have materially different flexes and weights are not merchantable nor fit for their intended use.

Is a US manufacturer that simply retails in the US responsible or is the retailer?

Oh and does any of that apply to a US consumer?

[Stairmaster]

Is a US manufacturer that simply retails in the US responsible or is the retailer?

Oh and does any of that apply to a US consumer?

The manufacture is responsible for honoring the warranty not the retailer. The retailer is responsible for taking care of the customer and to help facilitate the warranty. Its not the retailers fault the manufacture pressed skis that are defective( and its ludicrous to have them inspect every set of skis that they ship), however its the retailers responsibility to take the skis back if they arrived with a defect. The retailer should be able to reach out to the manufacture and get a credit or replacement skis on their end after the customer is taken care of.

Bottom line is that the retailer should pay for the skis to get sent back and then they can deal with the manufactures warranty. The OP should get refunded in full for the skis IMO.

[GeezerSteve]

Is a US manufacturer that simply retails in the US responsible or is the retailer?

See my first post re warranty being creature of contract. Contractual privity exists between consumer and retailer, and thus consumer's direct recourse for breach of implied warranty is against retailer. Manufacturer is one step removed from consumer, no direct privity. This can be modified by express contract, of course.

Oh and does any of that apply to a US consumer?

See my other previous post

[Peruvian]

Are euro consumer laws applicable to the OP as a US citizen?

[GeezerSteve]

That's a conflict of law issue, fact-specific, no one size fits all answer. See my prior post about the U.N. convention re contracts for international sales of goods.

[Harry]

Are euro consumer laws applicable to the OP as a US citizen?

I don't think OP is in the USA. His profile says "north Van", which is Canuckistan.

[glademaster]

What is the difference in weights? If it is less than 100 grams, you've got no recourse, that's pretty much the standard accepted variance, and many manufacturers do not weight skis as a part of the quality control process. Since they don't QC them for weight, they aren't going to warranty them for weight unless it is truly an egregious difference.

[PNWbrit]

I don't think OP is in the USA. His profile says "north Van", which is Canuckistan.

I think the broader point still applies though.

[Stairmaster]

See my first post re warranty being creature of contract. Contractual privity exists between consumer and retailer, and thus consumer's direct recourse for breach of implied warranty is against retailer. Manufacturer is one step removed from consumer, no direct privity. This can be modified by express contract, of course.

See my other previous post

This is why the manufactures prefer to deal with the vendor rather than the general public. This shit is straight forward and easy to deal with.

[creaky fossil]

See my first post re warranty being creature of contract. Contractual privity exists between consumer and retailer, and thus consumer's direct recourse for breach of implied warranty is against retailer. Manufacturer is one step removed from consumer, no direct privity. This can be modified by express contract, of course.

this is somewhat misleading
K privity is academic when it comes to prodliab litigation
it's a cross claim subject among Ds
see how well your malp insurer likes you
rep a P sue only the seller
P doesn't question your strategy until post-settlement/-verdict
learns about K privity ruse
smacks you with malp lawsuit
judge says "K privity WHAT?"

[joetron]

this is somewhat misleading
K privity is academic when it comes to prodliab litigation
it's a cross claim subject among Ds
see how well your malp insurer likes you
rep a P sue only the seller
P doesn't question your strategy until post-settlement/-verdict
learns about K privity ruse
smacks you with malp lawsuit
judge says "K privity WHAT?"

That read like SFB went to law school

[GeezerSteve]

K privity is academic when it comes to prodliab litigation

True but irrelevant
No evidence of injury to person or property nor of dangerous defect
This is not about products liability law which is premised in tort
Apples (prodliab/tort) vs. oranges (warranty/contract)