Craftsman Tools Lifetime Guarantee

[Rich Stern]

Chops, the relevant text from Sear's site is:

If any Craftsman guaranteed forever hand tool fails to provide complete satisfaction, return it for free repair or replacement. Period.

Sears is saying, for this particular class of product we sell, the warranty includes this benefit to the customer. That's known as an express warranty.



Look here for the contract consequences of communicating such a policy to the customer:

 

[Doug Watts]

Ed,



Living here in FL I've had the same problem that you're having with the tools rusting. Every Sears I've gone into has replaced them without question. I'll be doing it again in the near future with a couple sets of pliers. I clean my tools after I use them and if they've gotten wet I spray WD-40 on them and they've still rusted. I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[Bill V]

Rich--you're absolutely right, with one note: The warranty (and everyone, that IS the correct spelling--there's no 'e' in the word) does allow for the store to replace OR REPAIR. So if the store wanted to quickly buff off the rust, apply a cheap coat of paint, and return it to Ed, it seems that they would have the right to do that, as many times as they desired.



However, per the wording of their warranty, refusing to do anything is not an option.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich Stern said:

The policy clearly refers to his satisfaction (not Sears interpretation of his satisfaction).

Yup, that's why I asked Spaceman the "what would you in this scenario" question regarding a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. The problem with giving such a guarantee is that the customer can always come back and say: "Nope, sorry, not satisfied!" And as you say, Rich, the retailer can't say otherwise (or so you seem to be saying).



Rich, do YOU give a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee, and has anyone ever placed "unreasonable" (in your opinion) claims against it? If so, please explain.



Also folks, consider this...It seems that Sears eagerness to replace tools in a "no questions asked" manner has been reduced as of late. Why do you all think that is? Could it be that people were taking advantage of that goodwill?



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Scott,

Tom... how many of your tools are rusty?

None. Maybe it is because I take care of them...OR the plating that is on them is better.



How does one prove as you said.

Simple... it would take a highly qualified individual to determine the load incurred that broke the tool. But the tool is broken so the benefit of the doubt goes to the customer. That is the way it should be.

Would it also take a highly qualified individual to decide if the plating is at acceptable specifications? Who decides that?



BillV, actually, Sears cound not throw a coat of paint on the tool and give it back. The tool did not originally come painted. You can not return it in a different condition then what you purchased.



You would not accept having a red Trac, taking it in for warranty work and the dealer paints it pink...would you?





Tom

 

[Bill V]

Scott, I definitely understand what you're saying, but in Ed's defense--How many of us have had, for example, a vehicle (ST or otherwise) repair made under warranty, that, if the vehicle hadn't still been under warranty, we wouldn't have bothered performing? Regardless of whether the cause of the issue was a defective part or misuse? An example--many owners of older STs, the ones that have the silver painted interior handles--scratched up the paint on those handles with their wedding rings. Now, it can definitely be argued by us that it was a defective part--the paint shouldn't have come off--and they can definitely argue that it was misuse--what would one expect from scraping a metal object against such a part, and it doesn't cause the part to be unusable in any way. Either way, it was under warranty, and people had them fixed at no charge. But after the warranty expires, many of those same people won't have it done if it costs more than five bucks to do. These people took advantage of the warranty, and rightly so, because it was a feature that the seller (Ford) offered as an incentive to purchase the vehicle. Sure, it costs Ford money to replace/fix those handles, but if Ford doesn't like that, they needed to take that into consideration before offering the warranty. Same goes here--it's not a question of whether Ed is being too picky about the condition/performance of his tools, or whether they continue to be functional with the rust. It's a question of whether Sears advertised a "complete satisfaction" warranty. They did. Now they need to back that up. Sears does not have the option of amending that warranty on previously-sold items--just like Ford does not have the option of changing warranties on Sport Tracs to only be good for 20,000 miles on vehicles they previously sold. On new product that they sell in the future, they're free to do as they please. But on the stuff sold prior to those possible changes, they entered into a contract at the time of sale, and do not have the option of backing out of it at this time.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V said:

Sears does not have the option of amending that warranty on previously-sold items--just like Ford does not have the option of changing warranties on Sport Tracs to only be good for 20,000 miles on vehicles they previously sold.

Sure they can. Sears and Ford can do whatever they want. And we as consumers can either choose to shop elsewhere or enter into a class-action lawsuit if we feel so inclined. I suspect that when Sears "changed its policy" it did so with a bunch of bean counters performing risk analysis of sales loss and class action lawsuits.



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

Rich, do YOU give a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee, and has anyone ever placed "unreasonable" (in your opinion) claims against it? If so, please explain.

TJR, no, I don't. I can't stand behind such a policy under every imaginable circumstance, so I can't make that offer. However, whenever possible, I do behave that way. I tell my customers I'll work hard to meet their needs. And I do.



I have been in situations where a customer was being unreasonable. For example, a software malfunction being blamed on code I wrote, but it wasn't failing due to my code. I spent considerable time and money proving that the problem was an overheating/defective CPU and that no change in my code could prevent the malfunction. The customer was embarrassed when the proof was evident; never got an "I'm sorry for treating you like dirt" or "thanks for going the extra mile for us." Oh, well.



Scott, Ed is entitled to what he negotiates. The irresponsible behavior is by Sears, for marketing a product with a policy that is unsustainable. Sears knows they can't afford that policy in the current climate, yet they aren't willing to forego the marketing value of the claim. So, they are doing the backdoor thing...starting to deny benefits to customers that they bound themselves to deliver.

 

[Rich Stern]

Rich, with all do respect to your legal expertise in warranty law, even the word "satisfaction" is going to be interpreted by what is reasonable when it gets to the courts.

Scott, I agree. And I think any reasonable legal mind would read Sears marketing materials, specifically the gaurantee language, and conclude that Sears, for specific marketing benefit, is making a huge commitment to each customer with the term "...ever fails to proide complete satisfaction," in order to create a bargain with the customer. Sears marketing materials don't state what your returned email from a Sears rep does.



In court, words mean things. And the quote I offered you, even in the most conservative interpretation, clearly places satisfaction at the discretion of the customer, with no modifiers as to what might constitute satisfaction.

I doubt this scenario would be considered in breach of warranty.

Implied warranty? No. Express warranty? Yes.

And I don't necessarily believe one is entitled to what they can negotiate. Many times negotiation is simply settlement due to the exorbitant time and costs of standing up for your rights, and certainly not entitlement.

You criticized Ed in context of behaving as someone entitled to something he didn't deserve. My point is that he has a contract with Sears that expressly says he is entitled to exactly what you claim he's not entitled to.



Can't be much clearer than that.

 

[Ben Poche]

what do you expect from a company owned by K mart

 

[Fudged Undies]

Well, as a final note on this, I have no intentions of suing sears over this, never did, and never thought it would be a big deal, just wanted some feedback. Some of the feedback seemed a bit personal but so be it. Funny, at least to me, how my scenario is SO different than the scenario RichL posted above where either case can be viewed as misuse/neglect or whatever term would fit here. And many of us with broken tools would probably fall into the same category of "misuse." Mine weren't broken and I never claimed I couldn't use them due to their appearance, just thought it would be nice to have some clean ones. Never thought I would be such a burden to sears for wanting such a thing. People always see what they want to so long as it benefits them (and yes, this can also apply to me since I didn't get my way, however I'm not banning sears because of it), and "do as I say not as I do" comes to mind.

 

[Michael Cacioppo]

Spaceman, go to a different Sears and trade them in for new ones.

 

[Rich Stern]

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

And that's ok.

I don't believe a court would allow the words "I am not satisfied" from a customer to be the basis of any kind of judgement regardless of what the marketing content might be. Until someone tries to take this issue to actual court, I guess we'll never know... but my attorney (just got of the phone with) says those words are ambiguous themselves and have no real meaning (it is all about the tool being currently fit for the purpose for which it was sold).

Ambiguous in what way? A buyer can express satisfaction with a simple yes or no. It is a state of mind, presentable and unambigous.



Q. "Are you satisfied with this product?"



A. "No."



Where is the ambiguity?



Sears makes a very specific statement of performance relative to the merchandise, the importance of the state of mind of the customer, and what the remedy will be. Basic contract stuff. They use the word "Period" to emphasize their commitment.



The question of the tool being fit for a particular purpose is part of consumer warranty law. That aspect of law doesn't allow the seller to void other, expressed warranties in a contract.

 

[Chuck Lake]

I'm sorry but I have to side with the majority here. My eyesight has gotten worse over the years and I am no longer satisfied with my craftsman sockets because the print is too small. According to the very broad definition of "satisfied" you are using, I should be able to take them back to Sears and get them all replaced with the large print versions. The reasonable man principle would look at the intent of the guarantee and not just the words. You may want new shiny tools and who wouldn't… but just because you've found vague wording in the guarantee doesn't make it the right thing to do.



Let’s say you rent your Sport Trac out to a neighbor. The two of you sign a written agreement and part of the stipulation is that they will repair the vehicle if they are in an accident and will return the vehicle with a full tank of fuel and the oil changed. Your neighbor decides to fill the tank with home heating oil and use that to change the oil as well. You would have no reason to expect your neighbor to repair your Trac because they followed the contract to the letter.

 

[Rich Stern]

Gentlemen, you are confused by an important distinction. Interpretation of "reasonableness" is useful in unspecified parts of a contract. In explicitly worded parts of a contract, there is no need for interpretation. What the contract says, goes.



Let me give you an analogy: I go to work for a company. On the first day of my employment, they have me sign a contract, assigning all ideas and inventions I come up with to the company. They pay me $1 in consideration for my part of the contract.



I invent something that generates $1 billion in profit for the company. The company pays me my salary and nothing more.



I then sue the company, claiming that the arrangment is "unreasonable." I loose, because the contract is explicit. I gave up certain things for the promise of employment and the $1 payment.



Does that seem reasonable? Doesn't matter. What the contract says matters. It doesn't matter how lopsided it became. I agreed and took compensation as part of the agreement.



And, translating that to Sears and the UCC (unwritten purchase/sale contract), when Sears makes the "guaranteed forever" representation, and uses language that clearly gives me domain over determination of satisfaction, that's a clear contract obligation on their part. I did my part: I bought the tool based on the bargain offered. Henceforth, Sears must do it's part.

 

[tony brizag]

I worked for Sears Parts and Repair Services for 5 years and the deal is COSMETIC damage. The tools were cosmetically bad. They still functioned, i would not have exchanged them either. But now i break stuff and go get it swapped all the time.

 

[Bill V]

Well



put



Rich.



(separate



paragraphs



for



Scott's



sake.)

 

[Michael Cacioppo]

From Sears' own website :

Hand tools so tough, they're guaranteed forever.*

Did you know that the first Craftsman hand tool we sold back in 1927 is still under warranty today? So are all the hand tools we've sold since. That's what is known as having confidence in our quality. As the Craftsman Unlimited Hand Tool Warranty clearly states... If any Craftsman guaranteed forever hand tool fails to provide complete satisfaction, return it for free repair or replacement. Period.

That should be clear enough for everyone.

 

[Bill V]

Scott--



If you're truly wanting this analogy to be apples-to-apples to the Sears situation, then let's make some corrections to it, so it becomes more similar.



To be truly comparable, this contract with the employer would need to say that "if the employer is not completely satisfied, for any reason, as defined by the employer, they have the option to not pay that quarter's salary".



And if that were the case, then yes--those are the terms you agreed to when you signed the contract, so you are not entitled to that pay. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place. And that is the reason that most people don't enter into that type of employment contract, unless there is some ulterior (sp?) reason to do so.



But in the Sears case, that is exactly the type of contract that they entered into, for just such an ulterior motive--increased sales via this marketing gambit.



Should they have entered into such an unrealistic contract? No, probably not. It grants too much of the determination of "satisfied" to the customer. But that's not the question at hand. The question is, did they do it? And the answer is unequivocally 'yes'. They made this bed, not Ed--they now need to sleep in it.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Question to Spaceman...since the warranty says "repair or replacement", would you have been happy if the Sears sales clerk offered you a free can of "rust remover" so you could repair the tools? Or if he rubbed some rust remover on them, then checked that they worked, then handed them back to you?



TJR