 Poster: A snowHead
|
| stuarth wrote: |
I can more see the point with edges and wanting to check for rock damage before covering under warranty (even then I gave my Volkls a real hammering and never broke an edge), but surely for the number of skis that fail like this, I would have thought Atomic could just suck it up no matter how it happened - would build much better brand loyalty and reputation.
IMHO this refelects badly on all involved. |
I understand where you are coming and dont disagree completely but let me give you an example that explains why it is not always possible to suck it up.
retailer x sells really good skis, but a couple of years running he decides to bump up the sales and also perhaps get rid of some of the stock that will be put of date next season. I know what lets have an end of season sale... Year 1 he gets rid of all the kit and makes a few quid extra profit. Year 2 he does it again and once again has a bumper end of season. Year 3 he finds he has a little more kit left over than year 1 or year 2,but again he sells it all, this trend continues and after year 5 he finds he is selling 30% more gear but only making 1% more profit. The morale, some people get savvy to a sellers practices and will use and abuse these to the detriment of the seller. I know one person who regularly complains at a pub 3/4 of the way through his meal and as they have a no quibble guarantee he usually gets it free.
Not in anyway excusing poor service, but just saying some people abuse service at all costs.
So back to the original subject, if Atomic just took every claim for damage or failure and just replaced kit without challenge, you can bet your life it would be abused.
just my 2p worth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
So back to the original subject, if Atomic just took every claim for damage or failure and just replaced kit without challenge, you can bet your life it would be abused.
|
it is abused, frequently, which is why each case is looked at individually, last season we had a claim for a delamination on a ski, about 30mm of edge had started to come away from the base/sidewall, i really wish i still had the picture to post as it showed very clearly where a screwdriver (or similar) had been jammed between the edge and the phenol of the sidewall, even down to the direction that the blade had been twisted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Why hasn't the retailer sought a returns number from Atomic yet? Shouldn't that have happened by now? Comes across as dragging their heels a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
| Given me all know who the expert is, why is no-one mentioning who the retailer is? |
I would like to make this absolutely clear, the retailer will not be identified under any circumstances.
The expert is known as CEM because he identified himself. The retailer is aware of this thread and if that party chooses to identify themselves then that will be their decision and only their decision.
I originally posted here looking for advice and for options that I hadn't realised that were available to me. I brought the legal route up because it is an option, however on further review it is not something that I see appropriate at this current time, if ever at all. I would like to end all conversation on the subject of the law there please.
| Quote: |
| a few calls made and the skis are being shipped from the retailer so we can have a full inspection of them, until then, not a lot more that i can say about them |
As CEM has said, there won't be much more that can be debated until the skis have been inspected.
I am not looking for a hand out, I have no intention for screwing or abusing anyone (I, like everyone else, have a social responsibility), I understand why and I agree that the skis should be examined by a professional. I just want to be treated fairly. I'm not pointing any figures at why, the point is I don't feel I've been given a chance.
If CEM's decision doesn't change then there is nothing I can do about that.
This issue is now starting to spill over into other aspects of my life. I'm feeling extremely disgruntled, frustrated and very defeated over the whole thing, I've just had enough really. I bought the skis in confidence and I would like to remind everyone that I didn't want this to happen. I will now ask the vast majority of dissuasion on this to cool off until I have any further information and decided to release it here. I came here looking for help and advice, I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known that the whole thing was going to be played out on the stage of the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Elston wrote: |
If I use some entry level bindings, marker squire or something similar, then is it the manufacturers fault when I break them? Not really . |
I'd say yes - bindings at least you expect to have a certain durability. If the manufacturer wants to compete at that price point they need to have a product that is fit for purpose. Of course most serious skiers won't touch them wth a bargepole because the consequences of a ruined day or week are more than the incremental cost of buying a more durable binding, warranty or no warranty.
Most of us who use kit accept that sometimes something will fail through no fault of our own and sometimes through our own lack of skill in using it. It's nice if the warranty holds in the former, it's a black mark against that brand forever if it doesn't (or it fails in month 13 of a 12 month warranty).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
fatbob, all equipment should stand up to a certain amount of (ab)use because after all it isn't fine china but where is the line between what a product should be able to withstand and what it shouldn't? For example, I'd say that it is not unreasonable for entry level plastic binding to break if you start dropping cliffs. Responsibility is not only with the retailer and manufacturer but sometimes with the customer in order to make an appropriate purchase. Now, I am certainly not saying that that is what has happened with this poor chap because for all I know the product may have been faulty or miss sold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hojkoff, I'm still trying to understand when the ski snapped? Can you clarify??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elston, I dunno where the line is but given some kit is explicitly marketed through sponsorship of FWT skiers & photos and films of them hucking big stuff I always think manufacturers are on tricky grounds in arguing that is beyond intended use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
fatbob, I totally agree. Marketing is terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elston, I would expect low end bindings to release rather than break, this thread isn't really about bindings though is it.
I have carried an extra 80kg on skis without breaking them, they were race skis though and I wasn't skiing bumps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
hojkoff, Keep your chin up, good things come to those who wait. It looks to me like you're a reasonable person with a valid claim for an accident that was outside your control. Hope the retailer ultimately deals with you in a manner that reflects the value of the original purchase, and you get a satisfactory outcome. To date it appears that you've been treated not particularly well but now at least the skis are going to be inspected, rather than a photo, which should be the case I would think as a minimum - looks like you're moving forwards. My advice is forget the ski manufacturer, sadly their supplier is more important to them than you are and thats where their loyalty lies............. your purchase was from the supplier, and it is them who need to sort it, but keep cool! You'll laugh about this in a few months when you are ripping down the piste on your new skis in the sunshine and they are stuck in a shop somewhere. Good luck.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Thu 25-10-12 15:23; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
rjs, no its not but the same principles apply to skis. I was using it as an example. If I started using piste skis in the park then I don't think that you would have much grounds for complaint if they fell to bits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stuarth wrote: |
IMHO this refelects badly on all involved. |
Bump to that. Makes TGR look like the WI !, - "welcome new guy" - I don't think so!!
Plus 10k post retailer slamming in as well ... who I guess is being paid/on retainer to Atomic?
Really likely to buy Atomic gear going forward ....
Major Fail all round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I guess the "get lawyered up" posts didn't really help keep things calm 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
mishmash, The difficulty is I suspect that many people on this thread who've broken a fair amount of kit are a bit cynical re the original "just skiing along" story. I've no reason to doubt CEM's expertise although clearly his having to work from photos isn't ideal.
Incidently I did have a just skiing along incident myself this year when I cracked a heeltrack in some bindings. A top quality retailer (not S&R who couldn't have been less helpful when I asked themm how to deal with it) sorted it with the rep and a new pair of parts were in the post to me. Accordingly I attribute most of the issues to the retailer-customer relationship in these problems.
It doesn't help when brands are happy to be distributed globally and over the internet and in snowsports that is very likely you'll actually break kit when you are nowhere near the original retailer.
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Fri 26-10-12 14:23; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| ansta1 wrote: |
So back to the original subject, if Atomic just took every claim for damage or failure and just replaced kit without challenge, you can bet your life it would be abused.
just my 2p worth. |
I've dealt with another company in the same group, and they do pretty much exactly that. When there is a problem, even when it is user error and stupidity (including damage caused by a user either trying to fix it or doing something silly that results in damage) they just send out a replacement unit.
As a result they sell an awful lot of units to people like me who look after things, but don't go out of our way to be especially careful with anything really, because we know that if there is an issue we can contact helpful and friendly UK distributor who asks me to post back broken unit with my name and address for return with the receipt and they replace it.
In a market where a manufacturer should have a markup of 50%+ and sells several thousand pairs of skis every year, including repeat business from the customer like me that isn't particularly careful, accepting the few dozen returns with open arms, even when abuse is the cause, doesn't really damage profit margin much. Instead, I suspect a case like this will result in a user never dealing with Atomic again for any of their purchases (including any other products in their range) which would probably have a cost of maybe £200-£300 profit that Atomic would otherwise be getting.
If I was a manufacturer, I wouldn't pay someone to inspect returned skis and ascertain whether they were genuine or not. I would just have a pool of skis every year that go out to cover it, and any ski less than 2 years old gets replaced automatically by that person/company - the cost of shipping it back, working it all out, talking to the customer, working out what happened etc isn't worth it for something that costs the manufacturer a comparatively small amount to resolve. The retailer would be obliged to swap the binding over, I'd just ship out a replacement ski, or if a binding failed then send a replacement pair of bindings. Retailer just sends a photo of the damage and replacement goes out.
Then again, I am not a manufacturer. Not on any significant scale anyhow. I guess if I was then I'd get all funny about losing money, while losing money on situations like this. Even better if they go to small claims court or similar, which will cost a whole bunch of cash even if I won.
And the lesson for today is that when everyone starts throwing crap around, nobody comes out looking good. Everyone just gets covered in crap.
To add to this, I've dealt with CEM and he is a nice guy who is very straight and fair. The issue here is not with the inspector. I have no doubt he is right. But it is with the approach that the manufacturer tells him to take. He will act on instruction from them, doing what he can to help and make the experience as painless as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
/\ This fellow speaks sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I have called Jeremy Kyle and he is happy to 'resolve' this dispute.
He is lubing up the truth machine as we speak so all those involved shouldn't eat anything for 12 hours before the sitting down and getting shouted at thing.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
(I, like everyone else, have a social responsibility),
|
Seriously???? He hasn't come across Whitegold, has he? Or George W Bush. Or Shaka Zulu, for that matter. The Unibomber also springs to mind. Jack the Ripper, Exxon etc, etc.
Monium, somehow I ever doubt you were in business for yourself. There's a reputation issue which you are ignoring. Yes, you may get known as the really, really nice guy who will always pony up a ski OR you may get known as the company that has such faith in it's product that it keeps a whole cupboard full of skis to replace the ones it seems to anticipate breaking every season. And the first place this little detail will be raised is in the court case that some beginner who falls over their own fat feet brings because they want to be compensated by, said, ski manufacturer - 'cos the skis didn't work proper, like'.
This is a risk industry. We have all seen people carried off the slopes. NO ONE is going to buy skis from a company that seems to anticipate a certain percentage of breakages. I certainly wouldn't and I can pretty much guarantee that, said, ski manufacturer would last about, oh ... one season prior to collapsing under the weight of law suits for medical bills and ruined holidays alone. Whatever their wishes, there is no way that a ski company can foster that reputation.
I believe the above demonstrates my general opinion of my fellow man beyond a reasonable doubt. Happy Friday, everybody!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
Monium, somehow I ever doubt you were in business for yourself. |
Erm, wrong. Sorry. I ran three really very successful businesses. They were based on plain old fashioned common sense, and big old profit margins. When someone complained, you gave them something that cost very little (a replacement product) and they kept coming back again and again and again. The profit from future sales was always worth the loss of a product that was worth a lot to the general public and cost me very little to produce. The same was not true of refunds. I don't think I have ever issued a refund, and customers that started off wanting one were soon persuaded by a better offer in the form of a replacement product that would have otherwise cost them more than the refund amount.
A ski retailer would be well advised, instead of flogging off their old stock, to retain their 2011 range for exactly this purpose - you can offer like for like replacement, or even an upgraded replacement, and the customer goes away happy. Instead they flog off their old stock like it is the proverbial hot potato and devalue their brand for the coming season doing it - sell off 2012 stock at £200 and who wants to buy and almost identical 2013 product at £500?
A ski manufacturer offering no quibble type replacements wouldn't be admitting any liability regarding their product, any accident as a result of using their product, or anything else of the sort. You don't advertise it to sell more skis. You just do it. People come away with good feeling about it. They buy your product in future, even though they've had it fail (which might have been your fault) which is the best kind of turnaround in customer service that there is - negative experience turns into positive experience because you delight the customer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Monium, + lots, this is good business practice, everyone is happy! By far the best outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While these are noble sentiments, it doesn't really apply to a product which is used in anger, fine if you are buying a sweater or t-shirt, but we are talking about equipment which in most cases is abused to some extent on a daily basis.
Picture this, seasonairre (not sayng that these would be the typical people to do this, just an example) is going down a nice run early/late season and its a rental ski slope, as in a bit cruddy and a bit brown and rocky.
Now most people who look after their gear would probably go very carefully, said skier thinks, hold on i can do what i like because in a coule of weeks i can just snap the ski in half and get a free replacement from atomic! happy days what do you think the answer will be, add to that the very small number of unscrupulous hire places, or people who "buy" skis or other gear and then return them after one weeks use because it was cheaper than hiring.
cynical, yes indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ansta1, if the seasonnaire knew about my splendid generosity, i guess they could. But compared to the cost of managing all the legitimate returns,the lost future business, the business gained by the free marketing from seasonnaires using my skis, i would accept one or two fraudulent claims - of course i will have their details, if someone makes two claims in one season i might have a little chat with them about being more careful. But yes, i would happily open myself up to that in return for the business gained by knowing i back my product 110%.
As an illustration, kia give you a 7 year warranty on their product. How many people have claimed against that? How many might they have to in future? Who knows. How many cars have they sold from people being sucked in to this piece of marketing? Bucketloads. Probably vastly more than the cost of fixing millions of cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
RattytheSnowRat, I have no doubt that this thread has come to the attention of Atomic UK ( or whatever they may call themselves ). Consider their position: here we have a customer who is proclaiming to the world that a) Atomic skis break for no discernible reason and b) Atomic is denying that the breakage is their problem. Further consideration will reveal that snowheads is a well known skiing site in the UK ( and possibly in Holland as well ) and that this thread is being read by a fair proportion of the ski buying population of Great Britain.
If you were Alois Rohrmoser's heir, what would you do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ansta1 wrote: |
While these are noble sentiments, it doesn't really apply to a product which is used in anger, fine if you are buying a sweater or t-shirt, but we are talking about equipment which in most cases is abused to some extent on a daily basis.
Picture this, seasonairre (not sayng that these would be the typical people to do this, just an example) is going down a nice run early/late season and its a rental ski slope, as in a bit cruddy and a bit brown and rocky.
Now most people who look after their gear would probably go very carefully, said skier thinks, hold on i can do what i like because in a coule of weeks i can just snap the ski in half and get a free replacement from atomic! happy days what do you think the answer will be, add to that the very small number of unscrupulous hire places, or people who "buy" skis or other gear and then return them after one weeks use because it was cheaper than hiring.
cynical, yes indeed. |
Cynical indeed 
But for the minority out to fleece the ski manufacturers you'd certainly hope you have a lot who are not, and who by treating like the fleecers you are going to lose as a customer as they feel (rightly or wrongly) cheated.
When my friend snapped his ski last year he also broke the toe peice of his (high end) bindings and was extremely fortunate not to break himself extensively. It was at the end of the season so I guess he could have been chancing breaking his legs off to get a new pair of skis, but instead the ski manufacturer (who probably run much tighter margins than Atomic) decided to cover his skis under warranty, which IMHO they would have been well within reason to refuse.
Result good vibes for the shop he bought them from who tried to get them covered, and good vibes for the ski manufacturer who have demonstrated they stand by their product and customers.
maybe all us snowheads are too naive and trusting(trustworthy?)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Having said that, if I were a ski manufacturer, I think I would have customers return their skis for warranty consideration. That way even if internally I had a policy of replacing them whatever, it would discourage the fleecers a bit
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Sat 27-10-12 0:11; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I've run a small business in Somerset for the last 15 years making and selling chainsaw carvings, sculptures and giant furniture. It happens very rarely, but if a customer complains about anything , my standard reply is "I'll fix it, replace it or give you your money back". A couple of times customers have turned up and ranted at me. As soon as I say that it is lovely to see how they deflate and say "WHAT?" I have never had to give a refund, which would be the worst case scenario for me. In real terms the cost of fixing or replacing is negligible compared to a refund.
Well, it works for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and i run my own business and also have a no quibble response to customer problems. My point is the product is different, to put it another way who wants to show me a car manufacturer that has a no quibble type arrangement. With a product that by its nature is going to get bashed about from day 1 it doesnt make sense.
someone doesnt like your carving, sure you refund them, but the carving can go right back on the shop floor at the original price. You cant do that with a pair of ski's, once they have binding fitted or have been tail walked to the gondola they have lost their retail value and become second hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
| NO ONE is going to buy skis from a company that seems to anticipate a certain percentage of breakages. I certainly wouldn't and I can pretty much guarantee that, said, ski manufacturer would last about, oh ... one season prior to collapsing under the weight of law suits for medical bills and ruined holidays alone. Whatever their wishes, there is no way that a ski company can foster that reputation. |
Ever heard of Burton Snowboards? They do extremely good business using precisely the model you're guaranteeing won't work.
Burton are a snowboard company, but I'm sure there are ski companies who operate in a similar manner.
The facts would appear to fly in the face of your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
RattytheSnowRat, But then you shouldn't buy anything from any company that gives manufacturer's warranty, which actually means that the breakage of the product is possible even if not likely. Skis have one year warranty usually which doesn't guarantee nothing can happen to them in this year, it just guarantees replacement. Why giving warrantees if you are 100% certain nothing will happen? And where there is a warranty there is a certain reserve to cover it. Generally as skiing is considered a dangerous sport which can even result in a death of participant it limits legal responsibility, particularly for "ruined holidays". People who don't accept a chance that their holiday might be ruined usually take up something safer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I guess what you would ideally want to be able to do is offer an unlimited warranty to encourage customer confidence, safe in the knowledge you'll rarely have to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
but a warranty only covers you for a failure on behalf of the manufacturer and not for abuse by the purchaser. I am pretty sure if i decided to run my Kia (not that i have one) without oil and water and it went pop the warranty discussion would be a pretty short one.
Back on the original topic, the failure here has been the way the retailer who the OP does not want to name has dealt with the claim and not at this moment in time with the manufacturer.
________________________________________________________________________________________
there you go i've drawn a line under it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| mishmash wrote: |
| stuarth wrote: |
IMHO this refelects badly on all involved. |
Bump to that. Makes TGR look like the WI !, - "welcome new guy" - I don't think so!!
Plus 10k post retailer slamming in as well ... who I guess is being paid/on retainer to Atomic?
Really likely to buy Atomic gear going forward ....
Major Fail all round. |
was that was a hit from a 59 post poster at me...... hey guess you can't please all the people
FYI i am not paid a retainer by atomic, we deal with their warranty inspections and spare parts, the details of that is none of your business really, but suffice to say i am NOT paid a retainer or being paid for that part of the work.
if you had bothered to read the posts, currently i am waiting for the skis to be returned to us for inspection, until this happens there is not a lot more we can do. when we have assessed the skis i will give the outcome to the OP, if he wishes to broadcast it onto Snowheads then that is entirely up to him, however if you or anyone else things that i will just bend the procedure and put hands up to an instant replacement because it has been posted on here think again.
based on the number of skis that Atomic sell in the UK i would say the failure rate is pretty low compared to many other brands, IF the ski is a warranty then it will be replaced if not then it won't can't say more than that
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
philwig, yeah, suuuuuuree they do:
"Burton Snowboards warrants all products sold by Burton to be free of defects in material or workmanship for a period of one (1) year from the date of purchase unless otherwise specified on the product. A “lifetime” warranty means the lifetime of the original owner. If a product is found to be defective by Burton, in its sole discretion, Burton's only responsibility shall be limited to repair or replacement of the defective product. Burton will not be responsible for any costs, losses or damages incurred as a result of loss or use of product.
This warranty is subject to the following limitations in addition to any imposed by virtue of applicable law.
1.The warranty applies only to Burton products purchased from Authorized Burton Snowboard Dealers and is valid for the original purchaser only.
2.All products returned to Burton for warranty inspection must receive prior return authorization which can be given over the phone. Ship products freight prepaid and insured. Burton assumes no responsibility for products during shipment from the customer to our Warranty Department. Shipping charges are not refundable.
3.Excluded from coverage under this warranty are the following:
1.Damage caused by misuse, abuse or neglect.
2.Damage caused by improper mounting or adjustment of the bindings.
3.Damage caused from chairlift breakage.
4.Normal wear and tear.
5.Damage caused by anything other than defects in material or workmanship.
6.Damage caused by use of solvents, adhesives or LOC-TITE®.
7.Damage caused by use on non-Burton hardware for mounting bindings.
8.Damage to Burton products caused by non-Burton products.
9.Any and all claims for consequential or incidental damages
4.All coverage under this warranty is void if any modification, change or alteration has been made to the product that is not specifically authorized in writing by Burton.
5.Repaired or replaced products are covered for the remainder of the original warranty only.
6.Repaired items will be subject to available parts. We will do our best to match colors and styles but we cannot guarantee that you will receive they exact product back.
7.All warranty claims must be accompanied by the original purchase receipt from an Authorized Burton Dealer. Invoice or charge receipt must clearly identify the dealer.
8.Burton product is not covered by any verbal warranties. ROCK DAMAGE AND ANY OTHER IMPACT RELATED DAMAGE IS NOT COVERED UNDER THIS WARRANTY. ALL WARRANTIES IMPLIED BY STATE LAW, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE HEREBY LIMITED TO THE DURATION OF THE WRITTEN WARRANTY. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATIONS ON HOW LONG AN IMPLIED WARRANTY LASTS, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ANY WARRANTIES IMPLIED BY STATE LAW AS HEREBY LIMITED, THE FOREGOING EXPRESS LIMITED WARRANTY IS EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, GUARANTEES, AGREEMENTS AND SIMILAR OBLIGATIONS OF MANUFACTURER OR SELLER. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM STATE TO STATE."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
What some of you seem to be forgetting is that the case as it stands at the moment is that an expert - CEM - has stated that the ski was abused (although that may change). Who here is suggesting that any manufacturer should - or would - replace in those circumstances?
Monium,
Did any of the products you sold have the potential to kill the user if they malfunctioned? Did you have full legal restrictions in place in respect of liability for use and misuse? How about insurance?
Ski manufacture has become seasonally sensitive and more international than ever before and does not run on the margins that you, obviously, used to charge and think they do (c.f. the demise of CoreUPT and various other manufacturers and the merger/takeover of Nordica et al). A ski is not 'a very cheap repalcement product'. In order to cover the costs of what you are proposing you would have to change the fundamentals of the bulk ski industry. To some extent I think that what you propose is already in operation with the high end manufacturers but I don't see it ever being feasible for the broad market for the legal and fraud related reasons cited above.
In any event, let's get real - 3D printing is going to put this industry out of business at some point along with many others. Disposable skis built to your personal specifcations on demand? Game killer for manufacturers. They'll be a transition period for retailers who will run this sort of stuff up in store until the price point drops too low to not justify home printing. As with most things (books, CD's, movies) this industry is going to shrink and become the preserve of high end/custom builders (e.g. Idris) and the general populace are going to deal directly with the 'manufacturer', their home printer.
As to the car references, a lot of the highly contested consumer law cases relate to car manufactuers (c.f. Pamson's). If the primary, secondary and tertiary testing that are imposed on car manufacturers were applied to ski makers then there would be much less choice in the market, I can assure you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
RattytheSnowRat, no i said the SYSTEM gets abused, not mentioned anything to do with the ski in this case as yet, please read my post before commenting on it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the purpose of clarifying, CEM wrote:
| Quote: |
the pictures that were sent to me were of a ski which had been snapped through either impact or hitting something
|
when I referred to 'abuse' above I was refering to this comment rather than anything else. CEM, m8, I count that as abuse - if you feel there is a distinction then please accept my appologies for having unintentionally misrepresented you. It was not my intention.
For the record, I have removed the edge of more than one pair of skis via rocks hit on piste. I have never claimed under warranty for this (although I suppose I could, in theory, have done so) as I regard this as an occupational hazzard - in the most literal sense. It was these experiences and the subsequent experiences with snow tech's making repairs that lasted all of 30 seconds that led me to learn more about skis, ski manufacture and ski repair. All part of life's rich tapestry. The point I am making is that I do not think that reaching for the litigation big stick is the right move most of the time. Life is not fair and it is not the business or purpose of the courts to make it so. I generally suck it up, try to get an 'upside' out of the expereince and move on, even where I feel I may be in the right. Try to screw me over, however, and I make Keyser Soze look like Little Bo Peep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RattytheSnowRat wrote: |
What some of you seem to be forgetting is that the case as it stands at the moment is that an expert - CEM - has stated that the ski was abused (although that may change). Who here is suggesting that any manufacturer should - or would - replace in those circumstances?
|
As a general business policy, if there is any doubt, I'd replace it. I can't imagine how a person (even an expert like CEM) works out whether there was abuse involved, but unless it is really very clear cut, like customer telling you that it fell out of the back of a truck, or a video of them taking a saw to the thing, I'd replace it.
Abuse, to me, doesn't include accidentally hitting a rock or dropping a ski onto something hard when carrying it. If the manufacturer chose to cover that kind of accidental damage, it would be one I would choose to deal with over another. That is clealy not Atomics policy, and CEM is clearly working to their policy and instructions, but if I were a manufacturer selling thousands of skis every year, I'd take the hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
I can't imagine how a person (even an expert like CEM)
|
err I guess because he's a recognised expert with multiple years of experience. Sure there may be an element of doubt and always a degree of disagreement (either factual or bluster) in most cases.
I'd suggest we leave it to CEM, the Retailer, Atomic and the OP to resolve and if they are happy to, advise as to the outcome as clearly there are different opinions of the facts (which we don't have full info of).
anyone care to comment on the Ski show?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monium,
If that's the case then please start manufacturing high quality skis at a reasonable price now, please. I'll take two pairs .... hold on, make that one.
I'm not disputing your largesse or intention - I can just see your approach open to a ton of abuse. My favorite legal consumer story is the guy who ironed a shirt. Trouble is he was wearing it at the time. He sued for personal injury. He won. As a result if you look at various iron manufacturers instructions for use you will now see a clear warning stating that you should not be wearing the clothes when you attempt to iron them. I think they already had the warning with regard to not using a clothing iron to flatten hair as a result of a previous claim. And don't start me on McDonalds and coffee!
People can be really dumb. I do not see it as the role of a ski manufacturer to underwrite that idiocy. We have all seen video of 'yuff' freestyling around urban environments (rails, etc). Even on park skis I would regard that as sking at your own risk and if a ski failed after being planked through a parked car, I would not expect the manufacturer to have to replace it.
I dont know what happened in this case and it may well be - as I said above - that various issues are in play of which we know nothing. I accept that a ski should not fall apart in normal use. I don't, however, think that you can expect a mid level ski manufacturer to cover skiing on rocks IF they state the ski was not designed for that. I would expect a Volkl type ski to take a resonable amount of abuse for a reasonable period of time.
If you want to see how common this issue is, look at the thread that sit ski started in the Buy/Sell/exchange section and see how many surving single planks are lying around.
BTW- did the OP have insurance? Unlikley but it may cover 'accidental damage'. If he can convince the insurance company that might be another route for him to look at.
And, no, I don't want to talk about the Ski Show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
