REI="Return Every Item" is no more

[stfu&gbtw]

How do you know? Where is the 2 year chair warranty? I only return items that I feel are defective, generally speaking, that I feel like failed when they shouldn't have. In the previous policy, I just returned the item. Now, I have to prove to some REI drone that the item is defective. How do I go about proving that the $35 chair should last more than 2 years? That's still subjective. And if they take away the subjective component and go by something like MFR warranty, they won't accept the chair return.

And good for you for fixing shit and paying a higher price for everything to subsidize those who game the system. Do you need an oxygen mask up there in that rarefied air you're breathing, looking down on us little people?

The reason that seems hard to do is because it IS hard to do. A defective item will fail in a lot less than 2 years of normal use. If an item provides 2 years of good service and then breaks, it's not defective, it's worn out.

[GeezerSteve]

How do you know? Where is the 2 year chair warranty?

Again, REI's limited warranty re defects in workmanship in materials and workmanship is not limited by time. If the fabric or stitching fails within two years of normal use, that's pretty damn good evidence of a defect in materials (fabric) or stitching (workmanship).

And good for you for fixing shit and paying a higher price for everything to subsidize those who game the system. Do you need an oxygen mask up there in that rarefied air you're breathing, looking down on us little people?

It's tough. Wave your hands and maybe I can see you down there. Also, our household pays more taxes than 90% of households and much of that pays for things we don't use, e.g., public schools cuz we don't have kids and for wars that we we adamantly opposed.

[XavierD]

I'm not totally sure, but I thought many REI products have a long if not lifetime warrenty.

Anyway,
Danno, the satisfaction guarantee was not aimed at providing replacements if things broke before their time, it was aimed at products that did not live up to expectations. For example, a couple years ago I bought a pair of goretex hiking boots, after a month of use or so I noticed that they had terrible traction on wet surfaces. I returned them, no questions asked. Or in your case, if you bought the chairs and after a bit of use, realized that they were ridiculously uncomfortable.
As for things breaking down, I liked it since I did not have to deal with the hassles of going through the manufactorer. I just handed them across the desk to customer service.

[GeezerSteve]

. . . I will no longer choose to spend $35 on a camp chair at REI.

The ripple effect on Western economies could be devastating. Stay tuned.

[Danno]

The reason that seems hard to do is because it IS hard to do. A defective item will fail in a lot less than 2 years of normal use. If an item provides 2 years of good service and then breaks, it's not defective, it's worn out.

Again, you are not grasping what I'm saying. As I already explained, it's not a year of use, it's a year of ownership. Is your "year of use" the same as mine? You use subjective terms like "normal use" and "provides 2 years of good service" without acknowledging that the policy change doesn't speak to those terms at all. It is based solely on length of ownership.

To stick with the camp chair example, I used to go camping most weekends in the summer, but my life has changed and the past few years I have gone camping only a small handful of times. So let's say I bought that camp chair in 2011, and it broke today. You say "it gave you two years of good use! Not defective!" Now, let's say I camped a total of 8 nights in that time, and the camp chair broke on night 8. Was that two years of good use? A few years ago, that camp chair could have broken on me in the first month, because I could easily have camped 8 nights in a month. So, the heavy user me gets to return the item under the one year of ownership policy, and the light user me doesn't, because I got "two years of good use"? Under the old policy, light user me didn't get "penalized" for not using the item as much.

I get what Steve is saying, I understand why the policy has changed (and not being privy to the discussions or the determinative facts, I have no idea if the change was needed or not). They preferred to go with a more objective standard of one year of ownership. All I was doing was refuting Steve's notion that only abusers of the policy would ever return an item after a year of ownership.

[ianjk]

Return Everything Indefinitely

As it is known in these parts.

[Danno]

The ripple effect on Western economies could be devastating. Stay tuned.

never said it would. You said that anyone who returns an item after a year is automatically an abuser of the old policy. I disagree.

[GeezerSteve]

Now, let's say I camped a total of 8 nights in that time, and the camp chair broke on night 8.

A chair that fails after 8 days of use is obviously defective. REI will warranty it under the revised policy. Any time limitation would be imposed by the applicable statute of limitations. That would vary from state to state. In WA, an action for breach of an express warranty covered by UCC Article 2 (sales of goods) must be commenced within 4 years after the cause of action has accrued. When the action accrued in your example -- upon purchase or upon failure of the chair -- would be a good law school question.

All I was doing was refuting Steve's notion that only abusers of the policy would ever return an item after a year of ownership.

Refutation unsuccessful. See above.

[Cross]

Again, you are not grasping what I'm saying. As I already explained, it's not a year of use, it's a year of ownership. Is your "year of use" the same as mine? You use subjective terms like "normal use" and "provides 2 years of good service" without acknowledging that the policy change doesn't speak to those terms at all. It is based solely on length of ownership.

To stick with the camp chair example, I used to go camping most weekends in the summer, but my life has changed and the past few years I have gone camping only a small handful of times. So let's say I bought that camp chair in 2011, and it broke today. You say "it gave you two years of good use! Not defective!" Now, let's say I camped a total of 8 nights in that time, and the camp chair broke on night 8. Was that two years of good use? A few years ago, that camp chair could have broken on me in the first month, because I could easily have camped 8 nights in a month. So, the heavy user me gets to return the item under the one year of ownership policy, and the light user me doesn't, because I got "two years of good use"? Under the old policy, light user me didn't get "penalized" for not using the item as much.

I get what Steve is saying, I understand why the policy has changed (and not being privy to the discussions or the determinative facts, I have no idea if the change was needed or not). They preferred to go with a more objective standard of one year of ownership. All I was doing was refuting Steve's notion that only abusers of the policy would ever return an item after a year of ownership.

Your example is not what is being effected by the new policy. Your example is for a defective chair and is covered under that warranty. 9 times out of 10 when one of those camp chairs has broken it was due to miss use not defective parts. Sure you could argue bad/weak materials but user error is what lead to the parts failing.

If you need more then a year to see if you are satisfied with a purchase you probably made a bad purchase to begin with and should not expect a company to take the hit for you.

[stfu&gbtw]

Again, you are not grasping what I'm saying. As I already explained, it's not a year of use, it's a year of ownership. Is your "year of use" the same as mine? You use subjective terms like "normal use" and "provides 2 years of good service" without acknowledging that the policy change doesn't speak to those terms at all. It is based solely on length of ownership.

To stick with the camp chair example, I used to go camping most weekends in the summer, but my life has changed and the past few years I have gone camping only a small handful of times. So let's say I bought that camp chair in 2011, and it broke today. You say "it gave you two years of good use! Not defective!" Now, let's say I camped a total of 8 nights in that time, and the camp chair broke on night 8. Was that two years of good use? A few years ago, that camp chair could have broken on me in the first month, because I could easily have camped 8 nights in a month. So, the heavy user me gets to return the item under the one year of ownership policy, and the light user me doesn't, because I got "two years of good use"? Under the old policy, light user me didn't get "penalized" for not using the item as much.

I get what Steve is saying, I understand why the policy has changed (and not being privy to the discussions or the determinative facts, I have no idea if the change was needed or not). They preferred to go with a more objective standard of one year of ownership. All I was doing was refuting Steve's notion that only abusers of the policy would ever return an item after a year of ownership.

You know what - the whole world is not here to cater to your every preference and whim. What if you only camp once a decade? How could REI not take the chair back in 130 years when your great great grandkids break it after only 13 camping trips!? If you camp 3 times a year, maybe you don't need a bunch of fancy equipment... Buy the chair and use it. If it fails when you sit on it, return it. If it works, keep it. If you've had it for a few years and it breaks before you thought it should, buy something else next time.

Christ almighty - this country is going to hell.

[El Chupacabra]

If you were to buy a pair of knock off north face pants in Honk Kong for $30. One could potentially return them at REI in the states for around $400.

Bingo.

Even easier to buy from Goodwill or Craigslist and do the same.

you can return stuff to rei that wasnt bought at rei?

I've only tried returning something to REI once or twice where I couldn't find the receipt -- they look it up under your membership number. IIRC, if they can't locate a record of you having purchased the item, they won't take it back.

[GeezerSteve]

You said that anyone who returns an item after a year is automatically an abuser of the old policy.

No no no no no. I never said that. Indeed, I have confirmed that REI will continue to have a warranty that covers defects that manifest after one year. I stick by my contention that those who return non-defective items after one year are in all likelihood gaming the system.

[Danno]

I chair that fails after 8 days of use is obviously defective. REI will warranty it under the revised policy. Any time limitation would be imposed by the applicable statute of limitations. That would vary from state to state. In WA, an action for breach of an express warranty covered by UCC Article 2 (sales of goods) must be commenced within 4 years after the cause of action has accrued. When the action accrued in your example -- upon purchase or upon failure of the chair -- would be a good law school question.

Refutation unsuccessful. See above.

So, when the REI customer service counter person looks at my acct, sees that I bought the chair 2 years ago, and says "sorry, you got 2 years of good use", I can say "but BigSteve told me that if I only used the chair for 8 nights and it broke, that means it is defective. He even cited law terms like statute of limitations and UCC and stuff!" And they will say "sorry, it doesn't look defective to me, and you've owned it for 2 years, and our satisfaction policy is for 1 year".

I'll be cursing you, BigSteve. Or I just won't buy camp chairs at REI, one or the other. But the policy change WILL effect people who aren't abusers of the old policy; for items purchased over a year ago, they now will be forced to hope that the guy at REI believes them that the item is defective. Some of you seem to think that this is a given, like somehow there's some writ of common wisdom that the customer service rep will consult, and know that it truly is defective.

[Danno]

No no no no no. I never said that. Indeed, I have confirmed that REI will continue to have a warranty that covers defects that manifest after one year. I stick by my contention that those who return non-defective items after one year are in all likelihood gaming the system.

who is the arbiter of what is defective?

[Danno]

Christ almighty - this country is going to hell.

It's all my fault, sorry. If only I could be more like you.

[schuss]

After seeing the piles of completely blasted climbing shoes that people "returned", I can't really blame them. If a-holes hadn't gamed the system so much, it probably would have stuck around.

[spook]

seems like lawyers would appreciate those who game the system.

[stfu&gbtw]

It's all my fault, sorry. If only I could be more like you.

Well, now you don't have to worry about putting the receipt in your will.

[GeezerSteve]

who is the arbiter of what is defective?

A judge or jury

Seems that you are in a Chicken Little loop. Now that REI can clear out the abusers, they can be more receptive to those people who return items that are actually defective.

[String]

I've only tried returning something to REI once or twice where I couldn't find the receipt -- they look it up under your membership number. IIRC, if they can't locate a record of you having purchased the item, they won't take it back.

Creative people can figure it out. It's shady and shouldn't be done though.

[Danno]

A judge or jury

Seems that you are in a Chicken Little loop. Now that REI can clear out the abusers, they can be more receptive to those people who return items that are actually defective.

A judge or jury? Really? You do realize how silly that is, don't you?

I'm by no means claiming the sky is falling, just not sure I have tremendous faith in REI customer service folks. And what's the opposite of a Chicken Little loop? I think that's what you're in, trusting REI to be receptive to returns of defective merchandise even after a year of ownership.

[stfu&gbtw]

You do realize how silly that is, don't you?

Irony. You haz it.

[GeezerSteve]

A judge or jury? Really? You do realize how silly that is, don't you?

That's the final arbiter of a warranty for everything else you buy -- a house, a car, your insurance policies, medical services, etc., etc., etc. Why should REI be different?

[hutash]

This just in, Patagonia's warranty is STILL awesome.

My old Torrent shell just lost a good potion of the seam taping. I brought it to the Ventura store with the hope they could just re-tape the affected seams, if only a temp fix. At the most I thought they might give me store credit for the original price. Turns out it was 18 years old, or at least they found it in an 18 year old catalog, I don't think it was that old. Instead they just gave me a brand new shell. FNKA.

They could have told me to pound sand and I think they would be totally justified. Hell, if they could fix it I was just going to use seam sealer.

They did tell me if this shell failed in 18 years not to bring it back and just call it even. So much for a lifetime warranty

[concretejungle]

who is the arbiter of what is defective?

The morans on either side of this whole thing?

Your just pissed because your bi-yearly Patigucci wardrobe switcheroo game is over and you'll be shunned at the Southern Sun.