- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28,914
The box I have says CLEARLY on the back FAIR HONEST AND PROPER WARRANTY unofficial warranty changes that could cause a customer to unknowingly void there warranty is not FAIR HONEST OR PROPER period.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
spyderco warranty clarification
- Thread starter shinyedges
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2010
- Messages
- 13,423
Exactly what about the warranty doesn't make sense ? They have factory trained people that do the build but why should they possibly be expected to assume responsibility after the knife has been disassembled by another party?
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28,914
I've been crystal clear in all my previous posts if you don't understand still I won't reapeat myself lol keep on reading
Agreed 100%. With the current wording, it's not clear weather "damage due to" applies to all the actions outlined in the sentence or only "abuse."
Legally, the fact that various actions are listed and only separated by a coma after "damage caused by" implies that the wording applies to all actions.
If you are not a lawyer and are only stating your "opinion" on the matter then that's all it is. Your opinion. Your opinion has no significance in the court of law.
I had an identical case at work where a series if actions, separated by a coma, were listed after a statement. I had two lawyers look at it and they were both adamant at that he fact that each action could apply to the statement as they were all listed and separated by a coma within the same sentence,
Ask any lawyer, if brought to court, such ambiguity will most likely result in interpretation of the clause to be in favour of the party that did not write the clause, i.e. us, the customer.
As such, if damage is not due to disassembly/reassembly, I strongly believe that the law would be on the customers side. But who's gonna go to court over a $100 knife?
What usarmy and I are saying is indeed valid. Don't take or word for it. Ask a lawyer.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2005
- Messages
- 7,425
Since you're so clear on how this all works, you should consider locking the thread, unless the goal is further argument.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28,914
I agree, what I don't like is the UNOFFICIAL nature of the changes to the warranty VIA a FORUM that not every customer will even know about... if your going to put in words on your package FAIR HONEST AND PROPER WARRANTY and then create a clause in a thread HOW IS THAT FAIR HONEST OR PROPER? If Sal is creating another reason the warranty is voided then OFFICIALLY CHANGE SPYDERCOS WEBSITE AND PACKAGING SO AS NOT TO DECIEVE THE CUSTOMER. I am only one customer but I was misled by the warranty my knife came with and tried to get clarification and was told not to worry or I am deluded lol are you kidding? Even one customer should be important.
This is really more a question of grammar. If they would have used a colon after "damage caused by" then they would be listing the things that would void the warranty due to damage. Since they used a coma, the things listed are separate and all void the warranty. The warranty could be more clearly worded to be easier to understand, but as it stands it does make sense.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28,914
Locking the thread? Without resolution apparently then written warranty and the conflicting unofficial amendments isn't important to you but other customers appreciate honesty thanks
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Messages
- 66
I guess they want to avoid warranty claims from numptys who have a go and make a mess of things rather than returning the item for proper attention. A little ambiguity like this probably helps.
You don't hear of many warranty related complaints so I would imagine it works!
You don't hear of many warranty related complaints so I would imagine it works!
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28,914
As another member noted it is so vague its a matter of opinion not grammer, while your INTERPRETATION is different from mine it is still an interpretation. Why has no one addressed how a detailed cleaning should be done if only spyderco is to take the knife apart... Does the knife come with free maintenance for life? Is it not neglect to allow corrosion and foreign materiel to remain permanently under the scales?
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28,914
Pleas read entire thread and the spyderco warranty.. as it is written it ALREADY EXCLUDES WARRANTY WORK FOR DAMAGE DUE TO IMPROPER DISASSEMBLY/ ASSEMBLY THE UNOFFICIAL changes to the warranty void the warranty in if one puts the knife together as it was.
As I said, the problem is that it is your interpretation of the clause. It's just as valid as usarmy and mine, and if it were to go to court the judge would have to side with the party who did not write the ambiguous clause. That's how common law works. A warranty clause should definitely be very clear and unambiguous.
What usarmy and I are saying is simple. Spyderco should reword their warranty clauses and explicitly state that disassembly voids the warranty if such is the case.
Another way to put this simply. Delete the words "damage caused by" from the clause and read it again. Does any of it make sense grammatically?
Does "Spydercos warranty does not cover improper handling, loss, alterations, accidents, neglect (etc)" make sense?
It doesn't because in broader terms, a warranty cannot cover accidents. A warranty cannot cover improper handling. A warranty cannot cover neglect. These are not warrantable items. These are events or actions.
Take insurance for example. The insurance does not cover an accident. It does not cover an action. It covers the result of an action. Bodily harm and material damage are results of the an accident - an action or event.
Since a warranty does not cover actions or events, but what results of an action or event, the wording "damage caused by" thus has to apply to all the actions listed thereafter.
Likewise the warranty does not cover the action of a machine improperly machining a part. It covers the replacement of that part. It covers the replacement of a defective part that was the result of an event - the improper machining of the part.
What is currently implied in the warranty is not that spyderco does not cover abuse. That would make no sense. The warranty does not cover "damage caused by abuse".
Just like it's not implied that spyderco doesn't cover an accident. Again it makes no sense that they would cover an event. The warranty does not cover damage caused by an accident. So on and so forth.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,945
Usarmy, I understand your point, and I agree that maybe the warranty should be officially updated.
I think you're making a big deal out of nothing though. This is not a sleazy business looking to weasel out of taking care of their customers via warranty loopholes. Spyderco is a solid company run by good people. What Kristi said is that the warranty is technically voided by disassembly, but each knife is taken on a case by case basis. I believe that they do handle repairs in a fair manner, and if a knife should reasonably be expected to be taken care of by the warranty then they'll see that it is.
If there was a situation in which a faulty knife was refused warranty repair only because of careful and proper user disassembly, I bet the knife owner would have made a stink about it. I don't recall that happening. Can you find any examples?
I think you're making a big deal out of nothing though. This is not a sleazy business looking to weasel out of taking care of their customers via warranty loopholes. Spyderco is a solid company run by good people. What Kristi said is that the warranty is technically voided by disassembly, but each knife is taken on a case by case basis. I believe that they do handle repairs in a fair manner, and if a knife should reasonably be expected to be taken care of by the warranty then they'll see that it is.
If there was a situation in which a faulty knife was refused warranty repair only because of careful and proper user disassembly, I bet the knife owner would have made a stink about it. I don't recall that happening. Can you find any examples?
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28,914
Why does it have to come to a customer being refused warranty for proper assembly/disassembly the point of this is post is preventative so customers are informed BEFORE a warranty problem arises. These knives are meant to be carried and used how each knife owner does that depends on there daily task my tasks require maintenance to prevent rust and foreign material from building up in places on the knife only THOROUGHLY cleaning will take care of so this "miscommunication" directly applies to me therefore I'm not blowing this out of proportion I simply want straight forward warranty so I can make an informed decision BEFORE I PURCHASE THE KNIFE. Hope that makes sense
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,818
I can only speak for myself, I take apart my knives with no fear of the warranty clause. I have sent in two knives, both have been taken apart completely a number of times and both times they took care of it. There really are guys out there who break their knives when trying to put it back together and I think that's really what they are concerned about. Maybe they should update the warranty wording for clarity though.
Add. I also asked for a pivot screw for my Techno that was getting threaded from taking it apart and adjusting so much. They sent me a screw no problems and no warnings that I shouldn't open it.
Add. I also asked for a pivot screw for my Techno that was getting threaded from taking it apart and adjusting so much. They sent me a screw no problems and no warnings that I shouldn't open it.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Messages
- 28,914
Dude the warranty on there website already frees spyderco of the obligation to repair a knife DAMAGED due to disassembly, Sal alters the warranty via a thread stating taking the knife apart voids the warranty whether done properly or not..
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,818
I think it was Kristi, not Sal who made that statement In a thread she started BTW. I know about "opening it voids the warranty clause". Like I said though, just sharing my experience, I sent in two knives that I made them aware I opened many times and I even said I tried fixing myself and they took care of them. The issues were not caused by me opening them though. I do think that they should lighten up on the voiding the warranty part by just opening it...and make it so that it is only voided if you break it BY opening it. Now, someone else here may say there are reasons why they keep it that way but I think this has been a source of contention from customers long enough and readily use this as a comparison against other brands' warranties.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,945
Spyderco is not going to unfairly screw you over because of some fine print. Neither are any of the other big knife companies here. They got to the top in part due to superb customer service.
Just do your thing and enjoy your knives. The odds of you ever even needing the warranty are extremely slim.
Just do your thing and enjoy your knives. The odds of you ever even needing the warranty are extremely slim.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,818
But...but... No! It's not right! I want to argue
Like I said, for arguments sake, they should consider rewording it or easing up on the clause to end this matter once and for all (maybe)... Otherwise there's always gonna be the spirited guy with a bone to pick. And we all know, criticism is shouted louder than the rest. A dead horse beat to death for sure.