Warranty shipping costs

[tamiller1952]

Originally Posted by Ramesses

The price you paid for the guitar included a warranty without shipping. A warranty with shipping would simply increase the price of the guitars.

If a guitar company paid shipping, the number of guitars they would receive would go up astronomically because people would be sending in guitars for all sorts of minor/non issues. Making the owner pay shipping keeps the number of guitars repaired lower and helps to ensure that the issue is legitimate. Not only would the guitar maker be paying the shipping on inspecting and repairing more guitars, but then they have to hire more people to do this job. These costs are always passed on to the buyer.

I can't buy into that. The determination of whether or not it is a warranty issue and repair is done by the manufacturer, not the consumer. Fret wear and a back seam separation are two different things entirely. One should be covered, the other not. At the very least they should pay the return shipping on a problem that they determine to be a warranty issue.

[Ramesses]

Originally Posted by fishstick_kitty

The guitar company could have the owner pay shipping...and then re-imburse the owner if the issue turned out to be a valid warranty issue.

Thats fine, but it would still increase the cost of the guitars at purchase.

[tamiller1952]

Originally Posted by Ramesses

Thats fine, but it would still increase the cost of the guitars at purchase.

If they are paying that much out in warranty shipping costs perhaps they should be examining their manufacturing techniques.

[Ramesses]

Originally Posted by tamiller1952

If they are paying that much out in warranty shipping costs perhaps they should be examining their manufacturing techniques.

Thats just the way the world works. If you buy a can of spinach at the grocery store, you're paying for the shipping costs, the damaged returned cans and everything in between. Thats how it works with everything everywhere.

[bohemian]

Reality check:

When you bought the guitar, the warranty was an attachment for all to read. It clearly states that the customer is responsible for getting the guitar to Martin and responsible for the return shipping.

That was all a part of the original "contract".

Now you want a do over and re-write the contract.

Whether or not I agree with the policy is not relevant ( matter of fact I strongly disagree given my horrendous repeat failures with the guitar company that America reveres above all others) I was out over $500 in expenses for a guitar I had played only 10 minutes and was in the manufacturer's possession longer than mine, and two years with no guitar.. only a refund not to include my expenses) I lost $500.. while not fair.. it was a part of the contract as stated in thre warranty.

There is such a thing as "good will".. or a company's effort to compensate or satisfy owners above, beyond, and outside the warranty. I worked for many years as a factory field service rep for such a company, Mercedes-Benz of No America. Tghey did not call customers consumers and did in fact pay for incidental expenses as a result of warranty failure.. etc.

However, in the OP's case... wanting to re-write a contract ? you had the option not to buy the guitar, and in doing so, agreed to the terms of the warranty.. buyer/owner pays shipping both ways.

As to Martin refusing repairs..
reasons..
They are overwhelmed with warranty repair and guitars that do not make it through quality control.

One solution to that is simple..
I do not recommend it, but did it myself when they told me they were 8-10 months out on repairs... I sent the guitar to them anyway as their recommendation of the local "official Martin Repair/Service" person was not acceptable to me.

[Watt]

A warranty is a contract, not a moral or ethical obligation. If it says that the buyer pays shipping both ways, then the buyer pays shipping. It's a different story when a new guitar turns out to be defective. Then, even if the maker might characterize the repair as being performed under the express warranty, it is also responding to implied warranties for fitness and the like.

But you'd be hard pressed to say that a guitar was defective when sold because a seam split after three years. Granted, it shouldn't happen, but there are lots of factors that could contribute to the failure. A reputable manufacturer will give you the benefit of the doubt when the repair is potentially subject to a warranty claim.

It's great that we have the benefit of lifetime guitar warranties. In many parts of the world, warranties are much more limited. But I wouldn't make more of the warranty than what it is. My opinion, anyway.

[teleamp]

Originally Posted by tamiller1952

On warranty work you don't have the option of taking it to a local luthier. The warranty specifically states it must be returned to the manufacturer.

It is the owners choice to use mfr/trusted luthier/repairman, or not...

[tamiller1952]

Originally Posted by teleamp

It is the owners choice to use mfr/trusted luthier/repairman, or not...

Not so. Here is how it is stated, cut and pasted from their website:
Unless purchaser is notified in writing that repairs and service under this Limited Warranty may be made by an authorized dealer or authorized warranty repair center, claims for warranty performance and service shall be made by sending the instrument, shipping and insurance prepaid by the purchaser, to XXXXXX at the address shown on the face of this Limited Warranty.

[tamiller1952]

Some of you jump to a lot of unfounded conclusions. I paid the shipping, and I'll pay the return. I knew when I sent it that they COULD deny the claim by saying it was my fault but they didn't, they admitted that it was a defect and offered to fix it. I only question WHY it is done this way at considerable expense to the owners of expensive instruments.

I knew when I sent it that it wasn't my fault as I've got a McILroy sitting in it's case less than three feet from this guitar and it's fine, and it's older, same top, similar back and sides.

I can't accept the cost factor being the problem since surely the return rate for warranty repair doesn't exceed 1 in 50 guitars. At that rate a price increase of $3 would cover shipping on warranties so it can't be the money. Even if they got back one in 20 guitars for warranty it would only add about $7 to the price of an instrument.

[tamiller1952]

Originally Posted by Ramesses

Would you be willing to pay 10-15% more for the guitar in order for there to be free shipping on warranties?

That's kind of far fetched. 10% more on a $3000 guitar would pay the cost of shipping both ways twice. Even if every guitar was returned for warranty service it would still be excessive, and surely they don't expect to get every guitar back for warranty.....twice.

[rz1]

Originally Posted by fishstick_kitty

The guitar company could have the owner pay shipping...and then re-imburse the owner if the issue turned out to be a valid warranty issue.

This is how it should be. But I realize that's not how it is. If it's truly an issue not caused by the owner, I think it should be that you pay to ship it to the factory and they pay to ship it back. If the factory determines that it was an issue caused by the user, then they should be able to say it's up to the user to pay to ship it back.

[patticake]

a while ago i bought a $25 stick blender. it broke due to manufacturer issue, and the manufacturer wanted me to pay shipping, which would have added up to $20 total, almost the cost of the blender. instead i used my third party warranty, which reimbursed me for the stick blender. from now on, i have made a point of not buying this brand of kitchen equipment, as i don't want to pay shipping on something that has an error that was on the manufacturer end of things. i buy from brands with products that cost the same but they pay for shipping when it's a manufacturer error.

if it were something i did wrong, i'd feel differently about paying shipping, but somehow their error - and some companies (i'm NOT saying martin is one of those companies) are pretty careless with their manufacturing - means i have to pay money for shipping, which can get pretty expensive.

it also occurs to me that i've known people who didn't make much money and saved for years to buy their martin guitars, and they probably wouldn't even have the money for shipping both ways, so if martin makes an error in manufacturing, the owners are stuck.

some manufacturers DO manage to pay shipping or find a local alternative to having the item shipped across country. and they do it without charging more. maybe they take it out of their profits, but they often are the companies that get my money. martin and taylor are in luck with this, as they're iconic companies and you can't buy another guitar just like them.

[sawdustdave]

My 2 cents worth...

Warranty work should be free. I can understand a fee to ship TO the manufacturer to determine the legitimacy of the repair needed, but it should be refunded if warranted.

Return should be free.

If I warrant something I make, it's my responsibility to 1) do the best I can to insure all is well and will not need warranty work, and 2) to take care of things that do happen. That's part of my cost of doing business. If I do #1 well there will me minimal costs for repair work.

There are no authorized Martin Luthiers in my area, so that is never an option. Just aren't any. And local luthiers who are not in the business of building their own guitars ain't worth a plug nickel.

[tamiller1952]

Originally Posted by nkatsonis

A warranty is a contract, not a moral or ethical obligation. If it says that the buyer pays shipping both ways, then the buyer pays shipping. It's a different story when a new guitar turns out to be defective. Then, even if the maker might characterize the repair as being performed under the express warranty, it is also responding to implied warranties for fitness and the like.

But you'd be hard pressed to say that a guitar was defective when sold because a seam split after three years. Granted, it shouldn't happen, but there are lots of factors that could contribute to the failure. A reputable manufacturer will give you the benefit of the doubt when the repair is potentially subject to a warranty claim.

It's great that we have the benefit of lifetime guitar warranties. In many parts of the world, warranties are much more limited. But I wouldn't make more of the warranty than what it is. My opinion, anyway.

I think an expressed warranty is a moral and ethical obligation. I don't see how you can call it anything else. It's also a legal obligation but that doesn't exclude the other two.

The representative said that this sometimes happens when a seam isn't glued well. If the guitar is stable the finish and the reinforcement inside will hold it in place. There is no separation of the wood, only a fine crack in the finish that follows the seam, and it's backed up by the back strip on the inside, so it can't be determined if it goes all the way through. It's about 6 inches long and perfectly straight, right in the middle of the lower bout. The guitar is obviously not dry, not been dropped, spotless and perfect in every way except for fret wear. No benefit of the doubt was given here, there was no doubt. I don't think it was a failure of the joint, I don't think it was glued well and just not apparent at the time of manufacture.

If this guitar was a BTO it would cost nearly $7000 to build, so it's not a small thing on an expensive guitar. If it was a $150 Silver Creek I'd just play it.

[bizango1]

Manufacturers can't control where we choose to live. If they included shipping for warranty repairs they'd have to plan for worst case as if all owners lived on the other side of the country from the factory and then we'd all pay higher prices to purchase the guitars. We'd all be paying up front for warranty shipping while most of us would never need warranty service and the mfr's would keep most of the built-in shipping fees as extra margin dollars.