Musto hpx-lifetime promise

[KellysEye]

>None of the above is acceptable.

OK. As has been said Goretex does fail - everything fails at some point. One reason is folding it. If it had failed early on I think you would have a good case but ten years...

>I spoke with a Gill Rep around September last year & they look at each case sympathetically

They would say that wouldn't they.

By the way, well said Quandry, it's been driving me mad that people haven't read the guarantee properly. I do wonder whether some of the comments are libel. Any lawyers here?

 

[westernman]

>None of the above is acceptable.

OK. As has been said Goretex does fail - everything fails at some point. One reason is folding it. If it had failed early on I think you would have a good case but ten years...

>I spoke with a Gill Rep around September last year & they look at each case sympathetically

They would say that wouldn't they.

By the way, well said Quandry, it's been driving me mad that people haven't read the guarantee properly. I do wonder whether some of the comments are libel. Any lawyers here?

They warranted that the garment from free from defects in workmanship and materials for the lifetime of it.

The garment was not worn out in any conventional sense, was not torn or abused in any way. it was delaminating. That is a material defect in any normal definition.

Now may be 10 years is a long time for some of these fancy high tech materials, but if it was a traditional oiled fishermans pull over or the like it would still be going strong.

If 10 years is too long, then Musto should never have warranted it for its lifetime but have specified 10 years; 8 years or whetever.

It is not up to the consumer to judge what is the normal lifetime of the material - normal clothing materials last forever if properly cared for and not worn through etc.

A lifetime guarantee should be that - and not some arbritary period which is unspecified and unkown to the buyer.

If it was some arbitrary period; then they could have specified "guaranteed for 7 years and months" or whatever.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Granted 10 years is pushing things, but a lifetime guarantee should be for a lifetime. As others have said, they could have offered any period they wanted. They should honour their promise.

Having said that surely it is the retailer who should be sorting this out?

Interestingly, as far as I can see on their website, Musto now offer no guarantee other than 28 days.

 

[Phideaux]

The Lifetime Warranty shown in a earlier posts states:
1. ...warranted to be free from defects in workmanship or materials.
2. In the unlikely event that the garment fails to come up to standard, Musto promise to repair or replace, at their discretion, free of charge.
3. This promise is valid for the lifetime of the product, as long as it is owned by the original purchaser.
4. Repairs necessary due to normal wear and tear or misuse can be carried out... at a very reasonable price.

If the waterproofs are no longer waterproof then is it:
(a) normal wear and tear, or damage?
(b) failure of the material or workmanship?

The warranty says nothing about 'during manufacture' as stated by another here.

The warranty gives no time limit for the failure of the material, other than the garment must still be owned by the original purchaser.

Wear and tear is usually accepted as 'Physical deterioration as the result of use, weathering, and age.'

Weathering is a function of use and there would be significant differences between an item worn once or twice a year and then carefully hung up in storage and that of an item used everyday for work in sometimes extreme conditions and generally neglected. However, the external appearance of the garment would indicate the sort of use it has had.

Age is another matter, but Musto appear to imply that age is related to the original ownership of the item, not to the passage of time.

It's claimed that Musto state that the failure is due to de-lamination of the materials. Presumably they are arguing that even if the items had been unused the de-lamination of the Goretex would still occur over time, due to the inherent nature of the materials rather than to any defect.

As others have commented, perhaps Musto is relying on the vast majority of original purchasers either not retaining ownership, not retaining their receipts as proof of purchase, or not wanting the hassle of returning the items under warranty. For the tiny minority that do return items under warranty, Musto will take a view in each case. In this instance it would appear that they've declined on the grounds of age.

It would be interesting to hear if Goretex consider that their material would normally de-laminate within this time frame.

I'd be tempted to ask for the items back and then send them to Goretex for comment.

 

[sailorman]

The Lifetime Warranty shown in a earlier posts states:
1. ...warranted to be free from defects in workmanship or materials.
2. In the unlikely event that the garment fails to come up to standard, Musto promise to repair or replace, at their discretion, free of charge.
3. This promise is valid for the lifetime of the product, as long as it is owned by the original purchaser.
4. Repairs necessary due to normal wear and tear or misuse can be carried out... at a very reasonable price.

If the waterproofs are no longer waterproof then is it:
(a) normal wear and tear, or damage?
(b) failure of the material or workmanship?

The warranty says nothing about 'during manufacture' as stated by another here.

The warranty gives no time limit for the failure of the material, other than the garment must still be owned by the original purchaser.

Wear and tear is usually accepted as 'Physical deterioration as the result of use, weathering, and age.'

Weathering is a function of use and there would be significant differences between an item worn once or twice a year and then carefully hung up in storage and that of an item used everyday for work in sometimes extreme conditions and generally neglected. However, the external appearance of the garment would indicate the sort of use it has had.

Age is another matter, but Musto appear to imply that age is related to the original ownership of the item, not to the passage of time.

It's claimed that Musto state that the failure is due to de-lamination of the materials. Presumably they are arguing that even if the items had been unused the de-lamination of the Goretex would still occur over time, due to the inherent nature of the materials rather than to any defect.

As others have commented, perhaps Musto is relying on the vast majority of original purchasers either not retaining ownership, not retaining their receipts as proof of purchase, or not wanting the hassle of returning the items under warranty. For the tiny minority that do return items under warranty, Musto will take a view in each case. In this instance it would appear that they've declined on the grounds of age.

It would be interesting to hear if Goretex consider that their material would normally de-laminate within this time frame.

I'd be tempted to ask for the items back and then send them to Goretex for comment.

The items have been returned on Friday with just a "Comps Slip" no other report or comment
i await Nigel Musto`s reply to the letter he would have received Thursday / Friday.

 

[KenMcCulloch]

Hmmm I must(o) struck lucky then as mine were around 4/5 years old and "delaminating" so i rang Musto and told them about the problem and they asked me to send them in for inspection.

I have subsequenty received a brand spanking new set in the post so my personal dealings with Musto have been good.

I had exactly the same experience with a set of 3 year old HPX oilies purchased in 1999 and returned , delaminating, in 2002. Replaced without a quibble. I must say though I wouldn't be too critical of Musto. I understand from my late mother that my body came 60 years ago with a lifetime guarantee but that it was up to me to look after it and no guarantee in relation to duration of said lifetime was implied.

 

[sailorman]

I had exactly the same experience with a set of 3 year old HPX oilies purchased in 1999 and returned , delaminating, in 2002. Replaced without a quibble. I must say though I wouldn't be too critical of Musto. I understand from my late mother that my body came 60 years ago with a lifetime guarantee but that it was up to me to look after it and no guarantee in relation to duration of said lifetime was implied.

similar time of purchase

Duff Batch ???

 

[Phideaux]

I had exactly the same experience with a set of 3 year old HPX oilies purchased in 1999 and returned , delaminating, in 2002. Replaced without a quibble. I must say though I wouldn't be too critical of Musto. I understand from my late mother that my body came 60 years ago with a lifetime guarantee but that it was up to me to look after it and no guarantee in relation to duration of said lifetime was implied.

So it would appear that Musto acknowledge that they have a problem with delamination of the material at 3, 4-5 years (and probably ages younger and perhaps older) that they'll replace under warranty.

I wonder where they've set the cutoff for replacement; six years, is that reasonable? What about 7, 8, or 9 years (we know they've refused at 10)?

 

[LONG_KEELER]

similar time of purchase

Duff Batch ???

I understand from my late mother that my body came 60 years ago with a lifetime guarantee but that it was up to me to look after it and no guarantee in relation to duration of said lifetime was implied.

Too true !

Our creator would not produce a duff product.

Unfortunately, I have never been able to find the instruction manual for myself.

 

[robp]

Perhaps you have discovered something here.

Gortex is an excellent material but perhaps has a relatively short life and is it worth the cost ?

What about Gill ? They use a breathable material that is not Gortex. I understand that they enjoy a good reputation and are much cheaper to buy.

I used to own Henri LLoyd Azores for many years and I was often bathed in sweat. It was not a breathable material though.

I've got a breathable Gill deck coat, (knee length overcoat), that cost GBP140about seven years ago. I'd like to say it's ok as they seem like a nice company but same problem; I get soaked in heavy rain. Plus the interior of the pockets loses it's rubberised lining over anything that I put in there!

Form over function?

Hope my HPX suit doesn't give up the ghost too. It'll be cheapies on whatever deal comes along after that.

 

[Tin Tin]

Have you heard from Nigel Musto yet?
Would be interested to learn what he says - and if anyone at Musto's aware of this thread.

I'm in a similar situation - sent 12 year old MPX jacket & trousers back to be re-waterproofed. Came with the same lifetime warranty.

Holding my breath - like you, I feel that a lifetime warranty should mean just that. Otherwise, just say 10 year warranty.

 

[sailorman]

Have you heard from Nigel Musto yet?
Would be interested to learn what he says - and if anyone at Musto's aware of this thread.

I'm in a similar situation - sent 12 year old MPX jacket & trousers back to be re-waterproofed. Came with the same lifetime warranty.

Holding my breath - like you, I feel that a lifetime warranty should mean just that. Otherwise, just say 10 year warranty.

I have not as yet told musto about the post.
No reply From Nigel Musto yet but live in hope

 

[Fascadale]

Has anything been heard from Musto yet.

I had been thinking of an new set of oilies, and may have got Mustos, not so sure now.

 

[sailorman]

Has anything been heard from Musto yet.

I had been thinking of an new set of oilies, and may have got Mustos, not so sure now.

a week down the line & still awaiting a reply from Mr Nigel Musto.
i have emailed the customer services to ensure he received it last Friday, they replied that he had but guess he is too busy.
still 2400 views to date

 

[sailorman]

Just had a phone call from Musto
They have offered a 50% Discount on 2 new HPX Suits & very sorry for badly handling the problem & have learnt from it.
So a result in the end

 

[photodog]

Thats a not bad result!
Huzzah!

 

[Quandary]

Not bad, but it is not costing them. My wife bought a HPX jacket (small) last year in Gaelforce, we were bargaining hard as it was an oddment, late season, and the only one they had left. They said they could not accept a half price offer because when they checked their computer that was the price they had paid for it. Got it for just a few pounds more though.

 

[rallyveteran]

They said they could not accept a half price offer because when they checked their computer that was the price they had paid for it. Got it for just a few pounds more though.

Two possiblities

1 GaelForce were telling the truth
2 GaelForce paid less than half for the oilskins but wanted you to pay a little more.

I have no idea which is correct, but you did pay a little more

 

[StephenSails]

The wording says "for the lifetime of the purchaser" not 10 years. It is black and white, I would not have settled for 50% on such an expensive purchase with such little use but that is just me.

 

[sailorman]

The wording says "for the lifetime of the purchaser" not 10 years. It is black and white, I would not have settled for 50% on such an expensive purchase with such little use but that is just me.

it did say "Lifetime of the Product" as long as owned by the original purchaser.
+ they have agreed to replace 2 complete suits not just the 3 items i sent back