Scarpa North America, inc

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/06/16) */
Scarpa North America's (SNA) first correspondence began with this customer on May 17th, 2015. Through this documented communication with two separate people from our customer service and warranty departments, SNA discovered that his boots were...

at least five years old, well outside our publicly stated warranty policy time frame. In addition to the stated time frame of one year, SNA's warranty policy requires proof of purchase. Said customer could not provide any sort of proof of purchase either. SNA's publicly stated warranty period only covers manufacture and materials defects for products purchased within the one year period and with proof of purchase. SNA does not know about customer's own implied warranty of fitness. We have never published or stated any policy to that effect.
In addition, the issue with the customer's boots appears to be a classic case of dry rot due to improper storage or infrequent use. This is not considered a manufacture's or materials defect. The midsole materials used in the manufacture of this boot have never been noted as defective and have been successfully used in this boot, new and old versions, for almost a decade. The new version of this boot (Kailash GTX) uses the same materials as the older version; it is mostly a cosmetic change from previous years' designs. The Kailash GTX is easily our most popular hiking boot and SNA's warranty department has rarely seen issues with the midsole of this boot due to materials defects.

This customer also stated he feels SNA should have informed him of any defects before the purchase of his boots. First, there are no records of a direct purchase from SNA, therefore there is no documentation of conversations before purchase in which we could have spoken to the customer. Second, as state previously, there are no known defects on this boot or materials.
SNA also does not manufacture the boots here in the United States. This is a European made product and cobblers here do not and often cannot repair midsoles. There is no repair for a dry rotted midsole on boots like this. SNA only offers replacement options in valid warranty situations.
Because this customer's boots are outside of the warranty time frame of one year, there is no receipt and this is not considered a materials defect, we have denied the standard warranty claim. SNA has been known to take care of customers without a receipt when the situation is a known issue and/or we can visibly tell how old the product is through production markings. This situation does not involve a defective product.
Instead of leaving this customer without boots and in an effort toward good customer service, SNA offered a replacement product at significant discount to the customer. The discount offered in this case was not 20% off retail but significantly more. This customer has been informed of all these factors regarding his boots, including the discount, on multiple occasions but has chosen to not accept any of our offers and attempts to resolve this situation, or acknowledge the factual circumstances around his boots.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/06/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The vendor's response is fraudulent on its face, internally inconsistent, and actually supports my claim.
In response to my claim that the vendor's boots, like any product, come with an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness, the vendor states, "We have never published or stated any policy to that effect." NO KIDDING SHERLOCK! As per dictionary.com, implied means: "involved, indicated, or suggested WITHOUT BEING DIRECTLY OR EXPLICITLY STATED ..." emphasis added. As per the legal dictionary at thefreedictionary.com, an implied warranty is: "A promise, arising by operation of law, that something that is sold will be merchantable and fit for the purpose for which it is sold." No reasonable person would believe that boots that will fall apart in the closet meet this standard.
The vendor's policy requiring proof of purchase does not give them an escape. The immediately prior reference at thefreedictionary.com further states, "Implied warranties protect the buyer whether or not a written sales contract exists."
The vendor states that my problem appears to be "a CLASSIC CASE OF DRY ROT," emphasis added then goes on to say "The midsole materials used in the manufacture of this boot HAVE NEVER BEEN NOTED AS DEFECTIVE," emphasis added then later says that their warranty department "HAS RARELY SEEN ISSUES WITH THE MIDSOLE OF THIS BOOT due to materials defects" emphasis added, then, in a later paragraph, states: there are NO KNOWN DEFECTS on this boot or materials.
All of vendor's statements quoted in the above paragraph cannot be true. Their admission that they have RARELY encountered this problem, by itself, also admits that their statements that the midsoles have NEVER been noted as defective and that their are NO KNOWN DEFECTS are boldface lies. Furthermore, the vendor's statement that this is a CLASSIC CASE of dry rot is a further admission that this is an inherent design defect in the boots of which the vendor is well aware.
The vendor goes on to say that they could not have informed me of the possibility that my boots might fall apart simply by being stored in my closet because I did not purchase them directly from them. HOGWASH! Manufacturers give consumers all kinds of information about their products in various ways. A simple warning label on the boots would have communicated this.
Offering me another pair of boots which might also fall apart in my closet and having me pay 80% of list price for them will, in no way, make me whole. If the vendor had provided me with the warning label suggested above, I would not have purchased the original boots in the first place, even at a 20% discount.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2015/07/15) */
Scarpa North America (SNA) would like to respectfully inform the customer that through this process we have been more than reasonable in trying to accommodate him, even going so far as to offer a possible repair or suitable replacement for his boots that are outside our express warranty policy and outside the implied warranty of fitness.
To repeat, here is our stated warranty policy, in full and posted publically:
SCARPA(r) products are covered by a 1 year limited warranty from the original date of purchase for the original owner only. This warranty covers defects in materials and workmanship. Damage that is due to normal use, wear, abuse, impact (including cuts from ski edges or crampons), binding wear or accidents is not covered by this warranty. Products that have been resoled or otherwise modified are excluded from this warranty. Fit is not covered by this warranty.
Except as otherwise specified above, SCARPA MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE DESIGN CONDITION OR QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP TO THE PURCHASER OF THE GOODS PURCHASED HEREBY OR ANY OTHER PERSON WHATSOEVER.
SCARPA North America Inc. reserves the right to make all warranty determinations, which include but are not limited to repair, replacement or credit for the product. If it is determined that there is no warranty issue with the returned product, the product will be repaired at a reasonable cost or returned to the sender with a note of explanation (http://www.scarpa.com/warranty-repairs).
To expand on this even more, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) of the United States defines an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. This is "where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose" (UCC 2-315 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-315). The UCC defines this implied warranty as an agreement between the buyer and the seller. In this case, a dealer is actually the seller at the time of purchase, not SNA. This customer did not purchase either pairs of boots direct from SNA, as he has already stated. Under this definition, SNA would not have to honor the implied warranty of fitness and also why we always recommend first returning to the dealer where originally purchased.

The Federal Trade Commission also speaks to an implied warranty of fitness.
Implied warranties are created by state law, and all states have them. Almost every purchase you make is covered by an implied warranty.
Another type of implied warranty is the "warranty of fitness for a particular purpose." This applies when you buy a product on the seller's advice that it is suitable for a particular use. For example, a person who suggests that you buy a certain sleeping bag for zero-degree weather warrants that the sleeping bag will be suitable for zero degrees.
If your purchase does not come with a written warranty, it is still covered by implied warranties unless the product is marked "as is," or the seller otherwise indicates in writing that no warranty is given. Several states, including Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Vermont, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, do not permit "as is" sales.
If problems arise that are not covered by the written warranty, you should investigate the protection given by your implied warranty. Implied warranty coverage can last as long as four years, although the length of the coverage varies from state to state. A lawyer or a state consumer protection office can provide more information about implied warranty coverage in your state (http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0252-warranties.)

SNA would ask the customer to pay special attention the last paragraph from the FTC's definition, in which they state that implied warranties can last as long as four years. According to Colorado Revised Statute XX-XX-XXX(X)(g), the statute of limitations for all "all contract actions, including personal contracts and actions under the "Uniform Commercial Code" is three years. In Florida, it is four years as found in section 95.11. Our conversations with the customer have not indicated the age of either pairs of his boots. If we are mistaken about the age of his boots, SNA will continue to attempt a resolution with the customer as appropriate to the above laws.
Further on the topic of implied warranties, common consumer law indicates that the law does not "say that everything that can possibly go wrong with a product falls within the scope of implied warranties. For example, implied warranties don't cover problems such as those caused by abuse, misuse, ordinary wear, failure to follow directions, and improper maintenance" (http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/warranty-law/consumer-law-warranty-faq.html#8).
Research into the topic of polyurethane and deterioration would lead one to several sources generally stating the same thing. Sometimes people call this dry rot, but the more scientific explanation is called hydrolysis. Hydrolysis damage "occurs when moisture builds up in the thousands of air bubbles found in the soles of the footwear. If not worn for a considerable amount of time, or stored correctly, the moisture build-up causes the soles to break down" (http://www.blundstone.com/au-news-and-events/facts-about-hydrolysis). This is especially true in warm, coastal areas (such as Florida where this customer resides) and these conditions have been known to exacerbate the issue.

SNA has also spoken with XXXXX, the cobbler from the customer's prior response. We have even emailed the customer stating the following:
Please provide any type of proof of purchase for these boots (receipt, bank statement, written statement from the shop you purchased them from, etc) It doesn't matter how old the boots are.
We do lots of business with XXXXX. Upon receipt of the proof of purchase I will instruct XXXXX to invoice SCARPA for the repairs and shipping charges. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Yes, the customer then offered up the sworn affidavit but soon followed up with his latest Revdex.com (Revdex.com) response lambasting SNA, to which we are responding now.

If in reading this, the customer still feels SNA is being "slimy" and "avoiding the issue", we kindly request the following details:
1. Age of each pair of boot, i.e. date of purchase. This could be a year, or even better, month and year.
2. Pictures, showing great detail of both pairs of boots.
These details can be sent to [redacted]@scarpa.com, or any of the email addresses the customer has already received from SNA employees. Following that, we will attempt to proceed in a manner best befitting the situation.
SNA would also like to note that the Revdex.com recommends that "resolving a complaint usually requires both parties to move from their current position to a middle ground. In your response, please state your position and, if possible, indicate what steps can be taken by both parties to resolve this matter." Up until this point, SNA believes we have met that recommendation and given the customer much grace and leeway with regards to our policies. We have offered return shipping labels, will accept other forms of proof of purchase, will disregard the age of the boot, and even pay for repairs via the cobbler. The customer has clearly stated he is not accepting of these solutions and continues to be argumentative in response via the Revdex.com.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 24, 2015/07/27) */
You case may have closed this prematurely. It appears that the company may have moved off of their position and may now be willing to accept my affidavit of purchase and proceed with their previous offer to repair my boots via the cobbler that I found. Perhaps you can clarify from them. If so, I am more than willing to send pics. These are clearly their boots. Their name is quite prominent on them.