Inflatable Warrany Warning

[Moody Hobo]

Earlier this season,having missed the chance to buy Strait Shooter's used dinghy,I bought a Suzuki/Suzamar inflatable from a UK chandlery and paid them extra(£130)to ship it to Leros.
On raising concerns re possible manufacturing defect,seeking maybe a warranty extension,I was amazed to be advised by Suzuki that,AS THE DINGHY ISBEING USED IN THE MED,THERE IS NO WARRANTY AT ALL!
In addition,having complained that towing and other rings are showing signs of rust after 2 weeks,I was advised to clean with fresh water after each use.
Am I really the only one who doesn't treat the tender like that?
To give Suzuki a little credit,they have made a welcome gesture of £200,but I still thought it worth flagging up to other Med yachties.

 

[charles_reed]

Earlier this season,having missed the chance to buy Strait Shooter's used dinghy,I bought a Suzuki/Suzamar inflatable from a UK chandlery and paid them extra(£130)to ship it to Leros.
On raising concerns re possible manufacturing defect,seeking maybe a warranty extension,I was amazed to be advised by Suzuki that,AS THE DINGHY ISBEING USED IN THE MED,THERE IS NO WARRANTY AT ALL!
In addition,having complained that towing and other rings are showing signs of rust after 2 weeks,I was advised to clean with fresh water after each use.
Am I really the only one who doesn't treat the tender like that?
To give Suzuki a little credit,they have made a welcome gesture of £200,but I still thought it worth flagging up to other Med yachties.

If the transaction was under UK law you still have your comeback via the Sale of Goods Act. That applies anywhere in the EC so Suziki-Suzamar might find the Commission leaning on them fairly heavily.

 

[macd]

I can't believe they came up with that: astonishing. As Charles wrote, whether there is a warranty or not is neither here nor there with something so new: Sale of Goods Act applies.
Equally, if there was nothing in their literature to the effect that the warranty was limited in the absurd way they claim, and you bought it under the understanding that the warranty applied to the product wherever it was, they may well be in breach of contract. Sellers offer warranties for one reason only: to attract buyers. If they then unilaterally abandon the warranty, then the goods were sold by deception.

 

[Tranona]

There is a big difference between a "warranty" and rights under SOG. The former is an addition to your legal rights and is usually more specific about what it covers and what it excludes. if you claim under warranty you just have to show that the terms cover the claim, but under SOG you have to show fitness for purpose or merchantable quality. If the manufacturer says it is not suitable for use in the Med then an SOG claim would be difficult, equally if their warranty terms specifically excluded med usage they would be right to reject a claim. Might be different if they were introducing these exclusions retrospectively, so would have to be clearly stated at time of purchase.

Not a good advert for their products, though!

 

[GrahamM376]

There is a big difference between a "warranty" and rights under SOG. The former is an addition to your legal rights and is usually more specific about what it covers and what it excludes. if you claim under warranty you just have to show that the terms cover the claim, but under SOG you have to show fitness for purpose or merchantable quality. If the manufacturer says it is not suitable for use in the Med then an SOG claim would be difficult, equally if their warranty terms specifically excluded med usage they would be right to reject a claim. Might be different if they were introducing these exclusions retrospectively, so would have to be clearly stated at time of purchase.
Not a good advert for their products, though!

Speaking as an ex-retailer, I disagree with some of the above. It's obvious the retailer was aware where the dinghy was to be used so, unless they pointed out at the time it isn't suitable for Med use, then there's a clear claim under the Sale of Goods Act if it's not fit for purpose or, under the "durability" test faulty with a reasonable time - which can be much longer than 12 months depending on the goods. As the retailer failed to advise that it isn't suitable for use in the Med, there may be a good case for returning it for a refund but Trading Standards advice should be sought first, including details about refund of postage costs.

I get fed up with retailers who try to pass the buck to manufacturer's guarantees. The retailer is responsible, NOT the manufacturer although under some circumstances their guarantee can be claimed against.

I've seen two Suzimar grp bottom inflatables which had to be binned with extensively failing seams due to UV exposure so would never buy one.

 

[vyv_cox]

Sorry you missed our Quicksilver, 10 years old but still excellent, only sold because it was too big for our foredeck. We replaced it with a Sun-Sport, which is a Quicksilver by another name. We bought it from Boating Mania, which turned out to be a good choice. Delivery to Leros cost us £50. We had a problem with the rowlocks, which they sorted out for us very promptly, sending replacements FOC. Good company to deal with.

 

[silver-fox]

Contrasts very sharply with my experience with Honda!

I had a problem with the rings showing rust on an inflatable bought in the UK. I sent a couple of photos to Honda who immediately apologised, said it was a manufacturing defect and arranged for me to collect a new one from their dealer in Mallorca - where I was anchored at the time.

The new one has been faultless.

Suggest you get your money back and buy a Honwave.

Life is too short to argue with idiots

 

[duncan99210]

Vyv, we're looking for a new dinghy to take back out to Greece. You mention a problem with the rowlocks: can I ask what the problem was and how easy it was to fix once they'd sent you new ones? Thanks.

 

[AndrewB]

Speaking as an ex-retailer, I disagree with some of the above. It's obvious the retailer was aware where the dinghy was to be used so, unless they pointed out at the time it isn't suitable for Med use, then there's a clear claim under the Sale of Goods Act if it's not fit for purpose or, under the "durability" test faulty with a reasonable time - which can be much longer than 12 months depending on the goods. As the retailer failed to advise that it isn't suitable for use in the Med, there may be a good case for returning it for a refund but Trading Standards advice should be sought first, including details about refund of postage costs.

I get fed up with retailers who try to pass the buck to manufacturer's guarantees. The retailer is responsible, NOT the manufacturer although under some circumstances their guarantee can be claimed against.

I've seen two Suzimar grp bottom inflatables which had to be binned with extensively failing seams due to UV exposure so would never buy one.

I've been having a similar argument with Braun (or actually, Proctor & Gamble) over their ubiquitous electric toothbrushes. As was reported here some years ago, the chargers are irrepairably damaged if connected to an on-board inverter. I didn't know this, and when two of mine failed this way, I demanded replacements arguing that they should have included a warning with the instructions for the toothbrush. "Customer Support" first advised that they were not responsible for how the customer chose to use the product, and they would not honour the warranty. Subsequently, when I drew their attention to the thread here, as a 'gesture of goodwill' they did send me a voucher for £30 that I could use for a replacement.

Caveat emptor!

 

[Tranona]

Speaking as an ex-retailer, I disagree with some of the above. It's obvious the retailer was aware where the dinghy was to be used so, unless they pointed out at the time it isn't suitable for Med use, then there's a clear claim under the Sale of Goods Act if it's not fit for purpose or, under the "durability" test faulty with a reasonable time - which can be much longer than 12 months depending on the goods. As the retailer failed to advise that it isn't suitable for use in the Med, there may be a good case for returning it for a refund but Trading Standards advice should be sought first, including details about refund of postage costs.

I get fed up with retailers who try to pass the buck to manufacturer's guarantees. The retailer is responsible, NOT the manufacturer although under some circumstances their guarantee can be claimed against.

I've seen two Suzimar grp bottom inflatables which had to be binned with extensively failing seams due to UV exposure so would never buy one.

Not sure what you are disagreeing with as you are saying exactly the same as me, except that you are assuming the retailer is somehow not doing his job - and the OP did not mention the retailer.

The OP does have a claim - against the retailer - if the boat is not fit for purpose or is not of merchantable quality AND if the retailer (or manufacturer) did not advise the boat was not suitable for use in the Med. Whether he can claim against the manufacturers warranty will depend on the terms and conditions of the warranty.

Quite difficult to press a claim when the goods are in a different country from the supplier, but may well be worth making a claim through the Small Claims track if negotiation fails, although as the manufacturer has offered £200 compensation this does rather weaken the case.

 

[GrahamM376]

Not sure what you are disagreeing with as you are saying exactly the same as me, except that you are assuming the retailer is somehow not doing his job - and the OP did not mention the retailer.

It was this bit - If the manufacturer says it is not suitable for use in the Med then an SOG claim would be difficult

It doesn't matter what the manufacturer says, the retailer should have pointed this out at the time of purchase when the delivery address/area of usage became known. If the retailer's staff weren't aware of the suitability, they need to bone up on product knowledge.

 

[Tranona]

It was this bit - If the manufacturer says it is not suitable for use in the Med then an SOG claim would be difficult

It doesn't matter what the manufacturer says, the retailer should have pointed this out at the time of purchase when the delivery address/area of usage became known. If the retailer's staff weren't aware of the suitability, they need to bone up on product knowledge.

If the manufacturer had stated that it was unsuitable for the Med in all the material related to the boat then an SOG claim would be difficult as the retailer would just fall back on the manufacturers recommendation. Might be different if the retailer had said ignore what the manufacturer recommends, I say it is OK.

However, that is all supposition as I doubt whether there is any mention of unsuitability in the brochure, handbook etc (or even the warranty) as it seems from what the OP has said this only became an issue when he tried to claim under the warranty. My only reason for making that statement was to emphasise that the unsuitability would have to be known at the time of the sale, and it seems it was not.

So it is back to the practical difficulty of enforcing rights where the goods are in a different country. For example, not easy to return to supplier for inspection and repair. For a claim to succeed through the courts one would have to go through the process of negotiation then if that failed build a documented case to show the product was at fault. The manufacturer has made that more difficult by offering monetary compensation to offset the loss - as a goodwill gesture so not admitting liability. Clearly tempting to take the money rather than go through the hassle of a court action. And of course post on a website to warn others of the poor product and back up from the manufacturer!

 

[vyv_cox]

Vyv, we're looking for a new dinghy to take back out to Greece. You mention a problem with the rowlocks: can I ask what the problem was and how easy it was to fix once they'd sent you new ones? Thanks.

It was a stupid little fault, mainly because the design is not great but also because the person assembling it did a poor job. The rowlock is attached to the boat by a short length of plastic pipe, 10 cm long, 1.5 cm diameter. This is retained in the rubber supports by two self tapping screws. The screws should go into the wall of the tube but because their pilot holes in the rubber are tangential to them, the screws prefer to go underneath it. As soon as we rowed the dinghy the tube worked out of the holes and the oar fell off. Boat Mania sent us two new lengths of plastic tube and screws. I drilled pilot holes for the screws, which then assembled perfectly.

 

[duncan99210]

It was a stupid little fault, mainly because the design is not great but also because the person assembling it did a poor job. The rowlock is attached to the boat by a short length of plastic pipe, 10 cm long, 1.5 cm diameter. This is retained in the rubber supports by two self tapping screws. The screws should go into the wall of the tube but because their pilot holes in the rubber are tangential to them, the screws prefer to go underneath it. As soon as we rowed the dinghy the tube worked out of the holes and the oar fell off. Boat Mania sent us two new lengths of plastic tube and screws. I drilled pilot holes for the screws, which then assembled perfectly.

Thanks for that. Narrowing down choices is fun with so many makes out there.

 

[Chris_Robb]

I've been having a similar argument with Braun (or actually, Proctor & Gamble) over their ubiquitous electric toothbrushes. As was reported here some years ago, the chargers are irrepairably damaged if connected to an on-board inverter. I didn't know this, and when two of mine failed this way, I demanded replacements arguing that they should have included a warning with the instructions for the toothbrush. "Customer Support" first advised that they were not responsible for how the customer chose to use the product, and they would not honour the warranty. Subsequently, when I drew their attention to the thread here, as a 'gesture of goodwill' they did send me a voucher for £30 that I could use for a replacement.

Caveat emptor!

Off thread here, but I have a Philips sonicare, and I have been charging it through one of Mr Sterlings inverters (Quasi Sinewave) for 3 years - no problems seen. I did however note that it charged considerably faster, which might indicate a problem.