Mag Instrument, Inc.

This letter responds to the above-referenced complaint, received here on December 28, 2017, via an email from you. Having looked into the matter, we have concluded that the warranty service in this instance was, regrettably, not up to the standard to which our company aspiresIn
particular, communications with the customer should have been clearer and timelier, and it certainly should not have been necessary for the customer to contact us, nearly months after the flashlight was sent in for repair and long after it was actually repaired, to find out the status of the warranty claim. This long delay might have been avoided if the customer had followed our instruction to send us a contact phone number along with the flashlight, as communication by phone is usually the fastest and surest way to deal with a warranty service issueBut the fact is that the customer did communicate with us by email before sending in the flashlight, and with some research effort we could have retrieved that address and used it, instead of the telephone, as a way to communicate with the customer on a more prompt and timely basisThat should have been done, and our warranty service personnel have now been instructed accordingly. By way of apology for this regrettable situation, we are waiving the return shipping fee and are today shipping the repaired flashlight, by an express carrier, to the customer’s address on file

I am rejecting this response because:In order to resolve this dispute, customer asks for both units to be returned and a fresh battery to be included. The recent purchase of a new LED Maglite was a pilot test and more guidance is required in order to understand the upgrade or trade-in options as they relate to additional stocks of C-cell and D-cell Maglite units. The conversion to LED lamps is delayed due to changing intensity specifications, mixed reliability reports about third-party components, a preference for using OE quality parts, and the failure of this brand new LED unit to function reliably out of the box. Concerning battery construction and leakage it would be helpful to know if specific brands, types or rechargeable cells are less prone to this problem. Our battery cells include several brands and sizes and advice is needed for best practices in terms of dating, testing, rotation and removal for storage. There appears to be confusion among both parties concerning the details of this warranty service issue. As of this week the customer has been without a working flashlight in this application for two months longer than originally expected. Thank you Revdex.com for helping us reach more responsive agents at Mag Instruments, Inc.

This responds to your email message sent to our company president on July24, 2017, indicating that the customer has "rejected" the response we made via my letter to you dated July 18, 2017. I have personally reviewed, and have also reviewed with our Warranty Department, the customer's stated reasons for "rejecting" our response. First, and regrettably, we must dispute the accuracy of the customer's statement as to what flashlights he actually sent us. Contrary to his assertion, he did not send us "one 2-AA Mini Maglite and one 1-AAA Solitaire model." As my July 18 letter indicated, he in fact sent us two 1-AAA Solitaire flashlights (one with an incandescent lamp, the other with an LED), and NO Mini Maglite 2-AA flashlight was included in the package. The customer's May 1 note is ambiguous as to the identities of the flashlights he sent, although his request to "exchange" the two enclosed flashlights for a single Mini Maglite 2-AA would seem to imply that the enclosed flashlights were not Mini Maglite 2-AA flashlights. Furthermore, the customer's enclosed copy of the postal wrapper, showing $2.67 of postage paid, tends to conform that he did not send us a Mini Maglite 2-AA flashlight. $2.67 is the correct postage for the weight of two 1-AAA flashlights with batteries. But a package containing a Solitaire 1-AAA flashlight with batteries plus a Mini Maglite 2-AA flashlight with batteries would have weighed more (5.3 oz. versus 2.3 oz.), and the required postage would have been more ($3.03, instead of the $2.67 that the package image shows he actually paid). Finally and most importantly, we have the two flashlights he actually sent, and by personally inspecting them I confirmed that neither of them is a Mini Maglite 2-AA; instead, they are both 1-AAA Solitaire lights, one having an incandescent lamp, the other an LED. Bottom line, we would not be in position to repair or replace a Mini Maglite 2-AA flashlight for him free of charge even if battery exhaustion were a warranty-covered problem (which clearly it is not) because he never actually sent us any such flashlight.As for the customer’s claim that there was a “lengthy delay,” we can only note that he does not dispute, nor explain, his unresponsiveness to the multiple voicemail messages our Warranty Department left for him, beginning promptly upon receipt of the flashlights. Nor does he dispute or explain his repeated failures to furnish a credit card number after repeatedly telling us he intended to do so in order to take advantage of our upgrade offer.As for the two Solitaire 1-AAA flashlights he actually did send us, my July 18 letter explains why neither of those had a warranty-covered problem, and the customer seems to concede that neither battery exhaustion nor battery-leak damage is, in fact, covered under our warranty.The customer’s response does indicate that he would like the “1-AAA model returned without repair,” and that, contrary to what he previously told us (twice), he now has “no interest in the upgrade program at this time.” For the sake of resolving this matter, Mag Instrument intends to waive any return-shipping charges and mail back to the customer both of the flashlights he sent us. The Solitaire LED flashlight has been tested and found to be in perfect working order; all it needs is a fresh battery. The Solitaire incandescent flashlight is irreparably damaged, but it still might benefit the customer to have it in hand. As we explained to him in a letter, most battery manufacturers, including Duracell, have “device damage policies,” under which they may be willing, under certain conditions, to replace a device damaged by leakage of a battery of their brand. In case the battery manufacturer insists on seeing the damaged device, the customer will now have it available to meet that requirement.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12580386, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  There should, however, be a statement on the packaging to warn international customers that not only is shipping for warranty service the responsibility of the purchaser but that the purchaser is expected to pay both a repair fee and return shipping.  This would allow international purchasers of the poor, and in some cases useless, warranty service by Mag Instruments.

I have been asked to respond, on behalf of Mag Instrument, Inc., to your July 8, 2017 email addressed to our President and Founder, Mr. [redacted]. That email forwarded the referenced complaint and some associated materials. Based on a review of (1) the complaint and the written materials...

that were sent to us with it, (2) inspection of the two flashlights involved, and (3) interviews with involved Warranty Department personnel at mag Instrument, I offer the following analysis of this dispute, followed by a (reiterated) proposal for resolving it. On or about May 10, 2017, Mag Instrument's Warranty Department received from the customer a mailed package containing two Magiitel Solitaire 1-AAA-cell flashlights, one having an incandescent lamp and the other having an LED. The package also contained a letter from the customer, dated May 1, 2017, reading in part as follows: ENCLOSED ARE TWO ... MAGLITE FLASHLIGHTS. ONE WILL NOT TURN ON EXCEPT FOR A BRIEF FLASH AND THE OTHER HAS A AAA CELL THAT CANNOT BE REMOVED..... WE WANT TO RETURN THE TWO IN EXCHANGE FOR ONE MAGLITE 2-AA LED FLASHLIGHT IN BLACK. PLEASE CALL IF NEEDED. There was no attempt by the customer, before sending the two flashlights, to troubleshoot the problem by phone or to confirm whether his letter's proposed exchange transaction was within policy or otherwise agreeable to Mag Instrument. Upon inspecting the two flashlights, our Warranty Service team found the following: As to the Solitaire® LED flashlight, there was nothing wrong with any part of the flashlight, including the switch; it was found to work perfectly once the battery was replaced with a fresh battery. The problem was simply that the battery was exhausted — something that the customer could easily have ascertained in a troubleshooting phone call with our Warranty Department. Had he seen fit to make such a call, that would have avoided the unnecessary shipment to us of a flashlight that had nothing wrong with it. (Because a flashlight's alkaline battery is a consumable item that runs down and needs to be replaced from time to time, battery exhaustion is expressly excluded from coverage under our limited lifetime warranty.) As for the Solitaire® incandescent flashlight, we found it to be irreparably damaged. The AAA alkaline battery was stuck in the flashlight's barrel, due to battery leakage and resultant swelling and corrosion. (Any alkaline battery can leak, swell and cause corrosion to metal surfaces contacted by the leaked contents; and the risk of leakage is particularly high when exhausted batteries are left inside a flashlight. That is why battery leakage, and resulting damage to the flashlight, are expressly excluded from coverage under our limited lifetime warranty.) Again, the customer could have avoided the trouble of sending us a flashlight with a non-covered problem if he had first made a troubleshooting call, or if he had simply reviewed the terms of the warranty. Perhaps more importantly, he might have avoided the leak damage itself if he had followed our published recommendation to inspect batteries regularly and to remove batteries from flashlights before long-term storage. In sum, neither of the two flashlights had a problem that was covered by warranty, and so neither was eligible for free repair or replacement under the terms of Mag Instrument's limited lifetime warranty. Nor did the terms of our warranty call for a free exchange of these two flashlights, or either of them, for a 2-AA Mini Maglite® LED flashlight, such as the customer requested in his May 1, 2017 letter. Mag Instrument warranty service personnel tried to call the customer, at the phone number his letter provided, to explain these points and to discuss the terms of an opportunity to buy a Mini Maglite® 2-AA LED flashlight at a favorable price pursuant to an upgrade program. Voicemail messages were left for the customer on May 10 and 16 and again on June 16, but none of those messages resulted in a return call. A letter was sent to the customer on June 21, confirming that one of the flashlights was found to be battery-leak-damaged and the other was found to be in good working order, with nothing wrong but a bad battery. The letter also advised the customer of his option to seek relief from the battery manufacturer (Duracell) for the leak damage. The letter also alerted the customer of his eligibility for an upgrade program by which he could purchase a Solitaire® LED or a Mini Maglite® 2AA LED flashlight at a very favorable price. One of our customer service representatives did succeed in reaching the customer by phone on June 23. The customer was told of the above findings, and he was told why his proposed free exchange was not feasible. Our representative did, however, offer the customer the free return of his undamaged Solitaire® LED flashlight and also the option to buy a replacement Solitaire® incandescent and/or to buy a Solitaire® LED and/or a Mini Maglite® 2AA LED flashlight directly from the factory by mail, at very favorable prices pursuant to trade-in and upgrade programs. The customer indicated that he was interested in taking advantage of the upgrade program but would need to call back separately with his credit card information. The customer never did provide the credit card information, but he did call back subsequently asking about the return shipment of his Solitaire® LED flashlight. He was told that Mag Instrument was still holding that flashlight, awaiting receipt of his credit card information for the "upgrade" purchase he had said he was interested in, so that the Solitaire® LED and the new flashlight could be shipped to him together, saving costs. Again the customer expressed interest in the upgrade opportunity but said he would have to call back with his credit card information. He never did so, however, and Mag Instrument heard nothing further from him until Revdex.com forwarded the subject complaint. As the customer was advised in our June 21 letter, it is Mag's policy to dispose of a battery-leak-damaged flashlight (such as this customer's Solitaire® incandescent flashlight) 90 days after receiving it, unless the customer has before then made some other arrangement (e.g., an arrangement for its paid return even though it is irreparably damaged, or authorization to discard it, as part of a replacement or upgrade transaction or otherwise). The customer is free to contact us and let us know his wishes in this regard. His deadline to do so would be the 90th day after May 10, 2017; absent contrary instructions by then, we intend to dispose of the leak-damaged flashlight according to our policy. As for the customer's Solitaire® LED flashlight, the reason we are still holding it is that we were led to expect that the customer would order an LED flashlight pursuant to the offered upgrade program, and we have been hoping we could ship that new flashlight in the same package with the returned Solitaire® LED light, saving costs. Our upgrade offer still stands, as does our offer to ship his Solitaire® LED flashlight back to him for free, with or without an upgrade-purchased flashlight in the same box. We are still awaiting the customer's decision, and his payment information if he still wants to take advantage of the offered upgrade opportunity. To conclude: There is no basis for warranty coverage as to either of the subject flashlights. Nor is there a basis for any assertion that the Solitaire® LED flashlight has a defective switch: The observed electrical instability was wholly due to an exhausted battery. Nor is there any basis to find that the battery-leak damage to the customer's Solitaire® incandescent flashlight is not within an express exclusion from our warranty. Even if warranty coverage did apply, there would be no basis, either under statutory law or under the terms of our warranty, for the customer's insistence that we provide a 2-AA LED flashlight to him free of charge. Nevertheless, our offers to sell him a Mini Maglite® 2AA LED flashlight at a special upgrade-program price, and to return his Solitaire® LED flashlight free of charge whether he chooses to take advantage of the upgrade offer or not, still stand. The customer would simply need to let us know what he wants to do, and to provide payment information if he opts for the upgrade offer. We continue to await his instructions.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/25) */
Dear Ms. [redacted]:
This letter responds to the above-referenced complaint, received here on January 19 via an email from you.
We are not in a position to comment specifically on what did or did not happen in this case, because, after...

double-checking both phone and email logs, we can find no record of a person of complainant's name contacting our Warranty Department, nor do our personnel recall interacting with a person by that name.
We can, however, say this: If a person did contact our Warranty Department reporting exactly the facts described in the complaint, that person should not have been told and we would find it hard to believe that he was in fact told, on those described facts to just "keep buying batteries until (you) find a set that works." Sometimes, flashlight behavior such as the complaint describes can be due to low voltage caused by faulty batteries, but on the facts stated in the complaint, that cause seems highly improbable.
The next likeliest cause of the described malfunction , and the next step ordinarily followed in trying to troubleshoot a problem by phone, is dirty contacts, and we would advise inspecting and cleaning them, as well as checking for correct positioning of the tailcap spring.
If that still does not correct the problem, then the next likeliest cause is a faulty switch. Our Warranty Department does offer to provide switch kits to consumers in that situation, with which they can perform a simple retrofit at home.
For a consumer who prefers not to deal with a switch [redacted], there is the option of sending the flashlight to our Warranty Department for diagnosis, repair, or replacement.
However, given the stated fact that the flashlight in question was purchased on December 28, 2015 less than a month ago from a known and identified retailer, the complainant's easiest and quickest recourse probably would be to return it to that retailer for a refund or replacement. Most retailers have a refund-or-replace policy for a product that exhibits problems within 30 (sometimes 60) days after purchase.
If the complainant wishes to pursue the return-to-retailer option, he should of course do so without further delay. If he wishes in stead to contact our Warranty Department (and, to say it again, we can find no record, and our personnel have no recollection, that he has ever done so yet) our staff is prepared to deal with the issue as outlined above.