schlobodan
Warwick Streamer Specialist
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,750
- Reaction score
- 651
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 5
Am I the only one who knows that transferable warranties are extremely rare, at least with instruments? Mesa is ZOMG special for having a transferable warranty, and that warranty must be signed over.
Also, pretty much all instrument warranties protect against manufacturer defects. If you bought it new and one of the frets is 1mm too high and to the left, or if one of the body wings falls off, or the neck has three bolts, Warwick will take care of it within two years. Unless the bass was made in Dec 2012, you're SOL anyway, and that's assuming the issue you're having is a factory defect.
Warwicks sell used for a less than half of what they sell for new... people actually expect a warranty to come long with that? This is bog-standard for the vast majority of instrument companies. Heck, factory seconds don't have warranties.
Also, pretty much all instrument warranties protect against manufacturer defects. If you bought it new and one of the frets is 1mm too high and to the left, or if one of the body wings falls off, or the neck has three bolts, Warwick will take care of it within two years. Unless the bass was made in Dec 2012, you're SOL anyway, and that's assuming the issue you're having is a factory defect.
Warwicks sell used for a less than half of what they sell for new... people actually expect a warranty to come long with that? This is bog-standard for the vast majority of instrument companies. Heck, factory seconds don't have warranties.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2014
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 3
yea, understood,
i just want to rant about the imho cheat that the very common "non transferable" warranty feels like to me.
it's just that the manufacturer has lost no money or been adversely affected at all by the purchaser giving or selling the product to someone else. either way, the money for that individual product was paid to the company, and the warranty is for issues with the product itself during the warranty period.
the warranty is not on the owner's ability to operate the device or play the bass, and if that player purchased the instrument with the warranty then the warranty is on the instrument against defects. a supposed non transferable warranty is not ever being transferred to some other product. ... it remains on the product.... which literally could be interpreted as a used purchase would still have coverage. I know this isn't true. ... but logically it flows and I'm looking for loopholes here out of spite.
so again. ... the concept of a warranty being only honored if a specific person is the one who is holding the bass and makes the warranty claim is really quite bizarre and hard to justify, let alone prove.
I guess I just don't see this as being either legal, logical, or the correct use of the term warranty. guarantee maybe. ... but not warranty.
i just want to rant about the imho cheat that the very common "non transferable" warranty feels like to me.
it's just that the manufacturer has lost no money or been adversely affected at all by the purchaser giving or selling the product to someone else. either way, the money for that individual product was paid to the company, and the warranty is for issues with the product itself during the warranty period.
the warranty is not on the owner's ability to operate the device or play the bass, and if that player purchased the instrument with the warranty then the warranty is on the instrument against defects. a supposed non transferable warranty is not ever being transferred to some other product. ... it remains on the product.... which literally could be interpreted as a used purchase would still have coverage. I know this isn't true. ... but logically it flows and I'm looking for loopholes here out of spite.
so again. ... the concept of a warranty being only honored if a specific person is the one who is holding the bass and makes the warranty claim is really quite bizarre and hard to justify, let alone prove.
I guess I just don't see this as being either legal, logical, or the correct use of the term warranty. guarantee maybe. ... but not warranty.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,728
- Reaction score
- 176
I've only had experience with warranties being transferrable on cars/other motor vehicles.
The warranty thing, especially when going international, is very arbitrary. I agree that for the consumer's sake, it would be very nice to have a warranty attached to the item, and not to the original buyer. Companies generally don't do that, though, because it gives them a way to save money by denying warranty claims. It's not right or wrong, but it is their choice and reflects on their ethics the way they like to do business. It's a way of forcing a person to buy brand new if they want a warranty. Until laws are in place forcing the manufacturer to make warranties transferable, the consumer will always be at the mercy of the business if buying secondhand. Auto warranties were not transferable until laws were passed making them so (in the United States, anyway) - because of the immense cost to the consumer when buying the used vehicle. There are government agencies set up for consumer protection in some countries. These are the bodies that have to do with warranty laws and regulations.
Now, if Japan had laws where items under warranty sold in that country were required to be transferable, Warwick would be forced to make an exception to its policy in order to do business in Japan. That is not, the case, however.
TM379, unless he can get Warwick to make a special exception for him (some companies do), will have to pay for any repairs out of pocket. Which, as I said, is probably better off as the shipping cost from Japan to Germany is going to be well over $150 USD, and he will be without the bass for at LEAST a week, and possibly more. If you are working with the instrument, and making money with it, you'd have no choice but to use another instrument, whether your own (if you have one), borrowed, or rented.
Anyway,
Good one
The warranty thing, especially when going international, is very arbitrary. I agree that for the consumer's sake, it would be very nice to have a warranty attached to the item, and not to the original buyer. Companies generally don't do that, though, because it gives them a way to save money by denying warranty claims. It's not right or wrong, but it is their choice and reflects on their ethics the way they like to do business. It's a way of forcing a person to buy brand new if they want a warranty. Until laws are in place forcing the manufacturer to make warranties transferable, the consumer will always be at the mercy of the business if buying secondhand. Auto warranties were not transferable until laws were passed making them so (in the United States, anyway) - because of the immense cost to the consumer when buying the used vehicle. There are government agencies set up for consumer protection in some countries. These are the bodies that have to do with warranty laws and regulations.
Now, if Japan had laws where items under warranty sold in that country were required to be transferable, Warwick would be forced to make an exception to its policy in order to do business in Japan. That is not, the case, however.
TM379, unless he can get Warwick to make a special exception for him (some companies do), will have to pay for any repairs out of pocket. Which, as I said, is probably better off as the shipping cost from Japan to Germany is going to be well over $150 USD, and he will be without the bass for at LEAST a week, and possibly more. If you are working with the instrument, and making money with it, you'd have no choice but to use another instrument, whether your own (if you have one), borrowed, or rented.
Anyway,
Good one
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 5
But looking at the term "warranty" makes it a semantic argument - the sheet says if the bass was purchased through a Warwick dealer (who should have caught any manufacturer defects), Warwick warrants the instrument against defects in craftsmanship and materials for two years.
If you've purchased a B-stock instrument that shouldn't have passed QC, you have two years to bring it back to the dealer. How can you determine whether or not a craftsmanship or materials defect was the result of the factory if someone else owned the instrument before you did?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2014
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 3
interesting point. but how can Warwick (as our example company here but applies to all similar companies) make the assumption that the problem is any less likely to be caused by the single original owner than when owned sequentially by more than one person?
If i buy a new bass and immediately take it on tour in a crazy thrash band and the neck splits without apparent outside cause, is that ok (according to most warranties, yes)? bit if I baby it and sell it to some one who babies it and then the neck splits, is that ok? (nope, according to warranty ...yet issue is the same problem and damage was much less likely to occur).
just playing devil's advocate here. ... not saying warwick is doing anything unusual in the industry.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 5
You're assuming that you're guaranteed to make a successful warranty claim after going on that thrash tour.
I get devil's advocating too but IMO when people start to structure their devil's advocacy by using extreme cases, they're admitting they get the original point and just think it's dumb.
If you buy the bass from a previous owner and not a dealer, how can you prove your warranty claim is due to Warwick and not the previous owner? And frankly, how would you know? i.e. imagine a gloss finish bubbling. As the original owner, you make the claim, and Warwick would likely inspect the instrument to see if it's water damage and not their fault. If you bought it off someone, they could automatically claim it was the other owner's fault, and there's no proving otherwise.
I think warranties like this for things that aren't machinery are mostly optical - IMO the chances of you having a factory defect in a Warwick within the first two years of owning it are quite low. Especially two basses having the exact same factory fault, one having gone on a thrash tour with the original owner, and the other being babied but sold within two years....
I get devil's advocating too but IMO when people start to structure their devil's advocacy by using extreme cases, they're admitting they get the original point and just think it's dumb.
If you buy the bass from a previous owner and not a dealer, how can you prove your warranty claim is due to Warwick and not the previous owner? And frankly, how would you know? i.e. imagine a gloss finish bubbling. As the original owner, you make the claim, and Warwick would likely inspect the instrument to see if it's water damage and not their fault. If you bought it off someone, they could automatically claim it was the other owner's fault, and there's no proving otherwise.
I think warranties like this for things that aren't machinery are mostly optical - IMO the chances of you having a factory defect in a Warwick within the first two years of owning it are quite low. Especially two basses having the exact same factory fault, one having gone on a thrash tour with the original owner, and the other being babied but sold within two years....
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2014
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 3
oh I totally get it but think it's dumb. .. pretty sure I acknowledged that in an earlier post here 
I do think the power given to companies (by law or by precedent or by whatever powers that be) to restrict warranty follow through is too lenient about these things. ... hence my posts.
Cheers
I do think the power given to companies (by law or by precedent or by whatever powers that be) to restrict warranty follow through is too lenient about these things. ... hence my posts.
Cheers
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2014
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 3
I tend to be someone who laughs at how society builds over time and gains traction and acceptance as a ruling body, whether officially or unofficially, specially so when the founders and original decision makers of the generally accepted rules of society are long dead. so in this case I feel it's illogical and bizarre. but then I have my moments of stupidity. ...
hmmm. what was the topic again? noisy preamp. hmmmm..... sorry for side track!
hmmm. what was the topic again? noisy preamp. hmmmm..... sorry for side track!
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 2
soryy, but i cant understand this company philosophy...
its an german comapany with extraordinary handcrafted instruments...
dont understand, how smallviewed is their warranty/garantee behaviour.
even a cheapo Harley Benton from Thomann, has better warranties as a warwick..can't believe it...
if at an Harley Benton any Pot, Tuner, Neck, Bridge, Electronic, even screws etc. fails during 3 (THREE) Years, they will repair it...
and these instruments costs even not a 10th from an original Warwick...
its an german comapany with extraordinary handcrafted instruments...
dont understand, how smallviewed is their warranty/garantee behaviour.
even a cheapo Harley Benton from Thomann, has better warranties as a warwick..can't believe it...
if at an Harley Benton any Pot, Tuner, Neck, Bridge, Electronic, even screws etc. fails during 3 (THREE) Years, they will repair it...
and these instruments costs even not a 10th from an original Warwick...
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,728
- Reaction score
- 176
I think most people here agree with you. Getting a company or law to change, though, that is a difficult road.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 2
to put it right.. this was not to bashing or sometihing like that against Warwick.. i love it.. but it resembles me strange such a behaviour...
i think i can't never own a real german warwick new..., so for me its not the important thing with the warranty.. but i mi mind, even, BECAUSE Warwick is such an High ENd Bass manufacturer, with not bargain stock prizes, so they had have better warranties as cheapo china instruments..
at the other side.. i don't think, that any of my cheapo basses can resist and even play good after 10-15-20-25-30 Years as an real Warwick do !!!!
i think i can't never own a real german warwick new..., so for me its not the important thing with the warranty.. but i mi mind, even, BECAUSE Warwick is such an High ENd Bass manufacturer, with not bargain stock prizes, so they had have better warranties as cheapo china instruments..
at the other side.. i don't think, that any of my cheapo basses can resist and even play good after 10-15-20-25-30 Years as an real Warwick do !!!!
Nachobassman
Bass, Tapas, and Rn´R!
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2007
- Messages
- 8,268
- Reaction score
- 5,521
TBH I don´t plan to buy a NEW Warwick, there is no reason to spend such kind of money when you cang get an used one.
Florin
OG
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 17,904
- Reaction score
- 2,153
To me it makes perfectly sense that you follow the money. The seller is responsible for the person that paid. If I buy a sh bass form Sascha, (just saying ) he is responsible for what he sold to me, his dealer is responsible for what he sold to him, etc. We at the factory cannot deal with the whole world, that's why we have dealers/distributors.
) he is responsible for what he sold to me, his dealer is responsible for what he sold to him, etc. We at the factory cannot deal with the whole world, that's why we have dealers/distributors.
