PM 2 horizontal blade play help

A "technically" voided warranty is still void, which is why I adhere to the part that begins with "bottom line" and take away the option of honoring the warranty or not.

I have only had one issue with a Spyderco and rather than disassemble and try to fix it myself, I contacted them and sent it in. About two weeks later I get a brand new knife in the mail along with the 2014 catalogue. I was so pleased that I started a thread about my experience in FGB&U.

See, by not disassembling the knife, I was afforded a no nonsense, no questions asked response, and the whole hate thread thing was avoided.
 
Last edited:
breakdown52 said:
"Spyderco’s warranty does NOT cover DAMAGE CAUSED BY abuse, misuse, loss, improper handling, alterations, accident, neglect, DISASSEMBLY , or improper sharpening."
You've been reading it wrong. It is only voided if you damage it during disassembly.
Click to expand...

No....you've been reading it wrong. Sal has recently written the final word on the matter. He decides if the warranty covers a knife or not. Hs company, his rules.
 
The language in the warranty and the discretion of Sal seems to try to avoid someone sending in a bag of broken parts for reassembly under warranty. I think this is true of most honest companies. Benchmade has the same language in their warranty, but are well known for having excellent customer service, even for those who have obviously taken apart their knife a thousand times.

The question now becomes will the OPs warranty be void since he went against the advice of spyderco, didn't send it in, and moded it himself. Also, that girl on the phone isn't returning his calls and he is on his third PM2 with the same issue. OP, did you send any of them in?

No matter what, send it in, if there is a fee, pay it. Either that or get rid of the knife and try something else.
 
breakdown52 said:
Well I didn't see that but I copied the warranty from the spyderco site
Click to expand...

Well if you go to he spyderco sub forum you'll find a 20 something page thread where spyderco fanboys with reading comprehension issues will argue otherwise.

You are correct in your understanding of the warranty as it's written. Legally, it's unclear whether "damage" applies only to "abuse" or each subsequently enumerated action. Sal says it's ambiguous on purpose so that spyderco gets the final say on whether or not a knife is repaired.

While I love spyderco knives and never had issues with their customer service, what transpired from this thread kinda left a sour taste in my mouth.

If spyderco wants to void the warranty of a knife that has been disassembled by the owner they should be clear about it and do like benchmade does:

"...Do not disassemble your knife...any of these acts will void your warranty."

That's clear.

Spyderco's warranty clause, on the other hand, is clear as mud and that's a bad business practice. Period.
 
craytab said:
The language in the warranty and the discretion of Sal seems to try to avoid someone sending in a bag of broken parts for reassembly under warranty. I think this is true of most honest companies. Benchmade has the same language in their warranty, but are well known for having excellent customer service, even for those who have obviously taken apart their knife a thousand times.

The question now becomes will the OPs warranty be void since he went against the advice of spyderco, didn't send it in, and moded it himself. Also, that girl on the phone isn't returning his calls and he is on his third PM2 with the same issue. OP, did you send any of them in?

No matter what, send it in, if there is a fee, pay it. Either that or get rid of the knife and try something else.
Click to expand...

On your first point, benchmade does not have the same language. My post above quoted their website directly...there is nothing ambiguous about that.

Spydercos warranty clause on the other hand is ambiguous as it's unclear whether "damage" only applies to "abuse" or to all subsequently enumerated actions.
 
Are we really having this discussion again. It's been talked about add nauseum and we have confirmation from spyderco as to how the warranty is interpreted.
 
You appear to have a significant problem reading plain language. From the Benchmade website:

WHAT IS NOT COVERED?

The Warranty does not cover disassembly or modification of any
product by any person other than Benchmade’s Warranty department.
(snip)
Any of these acts will void your Warranty.
Click to expand...

MIKE969 said:
Well if you go to he spyderco sub forum you'll find a 20 something page thread where spyderco fanboys with reading comprehension issues will argue otherwise.

You are correct in your understanding of the warranty as it's written. Legally, it's unclear whether "damage" applies only to "abuse" or each subsequently enumerated action. Sal says it's ambiguous on purpose so that spyderco gets the final say on whether or not a knife is repaired.

While I love spyderco knives and never had issues with their customer service, what transpired from this thread kinda left a sour taste in my mouth.

If spyderco wants to void the warranty of a knife that has been disassembled by the owner they should be clear about it and do like benchmade does:

"...Do not disassemble your knife...any of these acts will void your warranty."

That's clear.

Spyderco's warranty clause, on the other hand, is clear as mud and that's a bad business practice. Period.
Click to expand...

MIKE969 said:
On your first point, benchmade does not have the same language. My post above quoted their website directly...there is nothing ambiguous about that.

Spydercos warranty clause on the other hand is ambiguous as it's unclear whether "damage" only applies to "abuse" or to all subsequently enumerated actions.
Click to expand...
 
MIKE969 said:
On your first point, benchmade does not have the same language. My post above quoted their website directly...there is nothing ambiguous about that.

Spydercos warranty clause on the other hand is ambiguous as it's unclear whether "damage" only applies to "abuse" or to all subsequently enumerated actions.
Click to expand...

I have made that very point in the Benchmade forum but they clearly will fix knives that have been taken apart, so while the language isn't ambiguous, the actions are. Which is worse? That's rhetorical, no need for a response as it is clearly out of the realm of this thread.

What all good companies want to avoid are either idiots taking their knives apart and breaking them or dishonest people taking advantage of a good company and their warranty.

What we know is that the OP is on his third PM2, has been told several times to send it in, and instead took it apart to fix/mod it. If I was Spyderco I wouldn't be too happy about repairing that under warranty.

The OP needs to either find someone who can tell him how to fix it (we are all saying send it in), send it in and putting it in spyderco's hands, or live with/sell it, of course divulging to the buyer that it has unacceptable blade play. If it were me I would send it in, putting myself at Spyderco's mercy, and chalk this up to a learning experience.
 
Last edited:
JNewell said:
You appear to have a significant problem reading plain language. From the Benchmade website:
Click to expand...

You appear to have a significant problem reading posts on a forum. I stated that benchmade's warranty is cristal clear...they state on their website that disassembling your knife voids the warranty in a clear, unambiguous manner. The warranty clause cannot be interpreted any other way. Disassemble your benchmade knife, your warranty is voided. I'm not arguing that the policy is unfair. They are clear about the fact that disassembling your knife in any way technically voids your warranty.

Spyderco's is not as clear. The warranty clause can be interpreted that only damage caused by disassembly will void your warranty. You can disassemble a knife without damaging it. Going explicitly by spyderco's warranty clause, it could be interpreted that disassembling a knife without damaging it in any way would not void the warranty. And that would be a legitimate interpretation because the clause is ambiguous.

However Sal has stated that as soon as a knife is disassembled the warranty is voided, regardless of whether or not the knife is damaged in the process.

Anyways I don't want to re-open that can of worms but I don't agree with Sal's arbitrary interpretation of his own warranty clause which could technically see a customer's warranty claim denied despite not having damaged the knife.

Is that clear enough for you?
 
craytab said:
I have made that very point in the Benchmade forum but they clearly will fix knives that have been taken apart, so while the language isn't ambiguous, the actions are. Which is worse? That's rhetorical, no need for a response as it is clearly out of the realm of this thread.

What all good companies want to avoid are either idiots taking their knives apart and breaking them or dishonest people taking advantage of a good company and their warranty.

What we know is that the OP is on his third PM2, has been told several times to send it in, and instead took it apart to fix/mod it. If I was Spyderco I wouldn't be too happy about repairing that under warranty.

The OP needs to either find someone who can tell him how to fix it (we are all saying send it in), send it in and putting it in spyderco's hands, or live with/sell it, of course divulging to the buyer that it has unacceptable blade play. If it were me I would send it in, putting myself at Spyderco's mercy, and chalk this up to a learning experience.
Click to expand...

Well you see there is a big difference between what spyderco and benchmade are doing here.

Benchmade are straightforward about the fact that disassembling your knife voids the warranty. There is no other way to interpret their warranty clause. If they choose to perform warranty work on a knife at no charge even if it's been disassembled that's going the extra mile for the customer. That's working in favor of the customer. That's good business practice because of course I understand the need to protect yourself from idiots playing with things too complex for their own good. If Benchmade chooses to go against it's own warranty clause to provide good customer service and fix the knife (act in the customer's favour) I'm all for it.

But nobody will be surprised if they disassemble their benchmade knife, send it in for warranty and have to pay a the repair as benchmade ascertained that the knife was disassemble. That's just benchmade doing exactly what they said they were going to do if you disassembled the knife.

The problem with spyderco's warranty clause on the other hand is that the clause can be interpreted in the company's favor. A customer reading the clause can assume (legitimately so) that they can disassemble the knife, clean it and put it back together without voiding the warranty as long as they do no DAMAGE to the knife. If a component fails for reasons unrelated to the assembly/disassembly they can again assume that spyderco will honor their waranty.

Say that very customer sends a knife in to repair a component that has failed for reasons unrelated to the disassembly/assembly of his knife. Sal can then turn around, interpret the clause to his advantage and charge for the repair. Thus, the manufacturer is interpreting an ambiguous clause to its advantage and the customer's detriment by not honoring the warranty.

I would again like to point out that I have never had any issues with spyderco's warranty or their customer service. I've had one interaction with them and they were extremely helpful. I also realize that at worse they charge something like $20 for labor plus parts which is nothing really. It's more of a matter of principle for me. I hate ambiguity, especially when a company can use it to its advantage and to the customer's detriment. When you do what I do, you learn pretty quickly that ambiguity in a legal clause is to be avoided at all cost.

My $.02

Edit:

OP just send the knife in. Spyderco might charge for the repair but chances are they won't.
 
Last edited:
But guess what - I have disassembled Benchmade knives, and returned them for warranty service, and you know what happened?










They fixed the knives (plural, has happened twice) with no charge, no questions asked, no problems.

Why do people need to make what is simple, hard? Maybe they just want to pick fights rather than get on with a normal life.

MIKE969 said:
You appear to have a significant problem reading posts on a forum. I stated that benchmade's warranty is cristal clear...they state on their website that disassembling your knife voids the warranty in a clear, unambiguous manner. The warranty clause cannot be interpreted any other way. Disassemble your benchmade knife, your warranty is voided. I'm not arguing that the policy is unfair. They are clear about the fact that disassembling your knife in any way technically voids your warranty.

Spyderco's is not as clear. The warranty clause can be interpreted that only damage caused by disassembly will void your warranty. You can disassemble a knife without damaging it. Going explicitly by spyderco's warranty clause, it could be interpreted that disassembling a knife without damaging it in any way would not void the warranty. And that would be a legitimate interpretation because the clause is ambiguous.

However Sal has stated that as soon as a knife is disassembled the warranty is voided, regardless of whether or not the knife is damaged in the process.

Anyways I don't want to re-open that can of worms but I don't agree with Sal's arbitrary interpretation of his own warranty clause which could technically see a customer's warranty claim denied despite not having damaged the knife.

Is that clear enough for you?
Click to expand...
 
MIKE969 said:
But nobody will be surprised if they disassemble their benchmade knife, send it in for warranty and have to pay a the repair as benchmade ascertained that the knife was disassemble.
Click to expand...

Good luck arguing that point in the Benchmade forum.

Both warranties do the same thing. One up front like Spyderco being ambiguous, and one on the back end like Benchmade consistently not enforcing it's own warranty. I don't have a problem with either.

MIKE969 said:
When you do what I do, you learn pretty quickly that ambiguity in a legal clause is to be avoided at all cost.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't do what you do. So I will enjoy my spyderco's worry free.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top