Eyeglass Warranty Coverage -- Is This Standard?
wotan2525
I have worn glasses for almost my entire life and I have never had any
questions when a pair broke under warranty. It has always been, "If its
broken and its under warranty here is a new pair" sometimes even overnight.
Last time I bought glasses I spent considerably more on a pair of designer
frames made by a company called "LA Eyeworks." They were sold to me by a
shop that claimed the company offered superior customer service and a 1-year
warranty, and they understood that I would probably be hard on frames and
they assured me that they were some of the strongest made. I wore them with
no problems for 10 months and then took a very minor fall while snowboarding
and broke them in half. When I took them into the store they basically told
me I was SOL and they would sell me a replacement frame for full retail
($400).
To me, this seems completely unacceptable and the manufacturer has made no
response to my letters or emails. Am I out of line here? Is my expectation
of warranty coverage on glasses unreasonable? I'm not looking for
confrontation, just an opinion as to what is and what isn't covered by
eyeglasses.
Thank you,
Robert C. Bosworth
maf
manufacturing and workmanship, not accidents. If you had an accident with
your car, you need insurance, not a warranty.
"wotan2525" <r...@NOSPAMMMMMMERS.yourmom.com> wrote in message
news:druD9.109810$QZ.18045@sccrnsc02...
Scott Seidman
news:druD9.109810$QZ.18045@sccrnsc02:
I think you're out of line here. A warranty like this is usually applies
to manufacturing defects, and is not unconditional. If you were simply
wearing your glasses, and they fell apart on your face, then you might be
able to argue that there was a manufacturing defect.
My wife's optical shop sells one-year breakage and scratch insurance,
which IS unconditional, at least for the first incident.
I can't believe that these would be warranteed against breakage while
snowboarding, unless you purchased such a policy. You would be better
off purchasing a pair of athletic frames.
Now, if you think the store mislead you by inferring that your glasses
were warranteed for such use, you have a number of options.
a- vote with your feet-- don't purchase your replacement there.
b- try to work out some deal with them
c- legal options
--
Scott
Reverse first field of address to reply
Specs31
the majority of the time it will have NOTHING to do with the frame company
it is the actual optical establishment thet is resposible..when they told you
that did they show you anything or just "oh it wil be replaced etc., etc" ...if
the shop told you something and you had it in writting does not matter what the
FRAME company is telling you (or in this case not telling you) the optical
should replace it.
Being in wholesale I deal with a ton of opticals, and all of them pretty
well have their own policies their is no "standard" policy.
first thing you need to find out is the frame you bought was it a
discontinued frame... even though the optical said one thing and I know a
number of them that sell discontinued designs and do not say a word to the
purchaser so you are the one stuck in the middle.. the optical blames the frame
company and the frame companies are not usually going to respond to you, they
are only dealing in bulk to opticals not a single person..
Your OPTICAL is the one to blame here more so than the frame company. The
frame company has no control or usually any idea what all the opticals are
saying and doing..
The people you need to take to task is the optical more so than the frame
company...
Jeff
wotan2525
documentation.
Sigh.
Thanks,
rob.
"maf" <m...@switchboard.net> wrote in message
news:g8wD9.936$zt4....@news.uswest.net...
wotan2525
"Scott Seidman" <namdie...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92CE9AEFF7E0Sc...@130.133.1.4...
Ok.... this does make sense but it seems unlikely to me that eyeglasses
would ever be replaced under warranty. I'm trying to think of a situation
where glasses would get broken "Just falling apart on your face" and it
doesn't make any sense to me. It seems that eyeglasses are designed for the
purpose of being worn, and should be able to withstand at least a year of
day-to-day activities. I agree that the store was in the wrong for selling
me a pair of these glasses knowing full well that they probably would not
withstand my lifestyle. I agree with you wholeheartedly -- I'll not be
buying from them again. It is a shame though, instead of just purchasing
new frames I will have to purchase a whole new set of glasses, as the LA
Eyeworks brand is only available at a handful of retailers -- and only one
in my area.
Thank you for your help.
Robert C. Bosworth
wotan2525
"Specs31" <spe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021122152357...@mb-cf.aol.com...
I think that the majority of the time what you say is probably true, but
this was sort of a funny situation. The brand of the frames was LA Eyeworks
which is a pretty exclusive line. The frames themselves are only available
at a hand-full of retailers and only 1 in my area. In fact.... the store
here has LA Eyeworks as the ONLY line that they carry, so at first I thought
that LA Eyeworks actually owned the store. Now... looking at the eyeworks
page, I see that this probably isn't the case........ but it does lead me to
believe that the company would be more inclined to encourage their retailers
to act more as direct representatives of the company.
Thanks.
Rob.
maf
"wotan2525" <r...@NOSPAMMMMMMERS.yourmom.com> wrote in message
news:o0ND9.112734$NH2.7796@sccrnsc01...
maf
> this was sort of a funny situation. The brand of the frames was LA
Eyeworks
> which is a pretty exclusive line. The frames themselves are only
available
> at a hand-full of retailers and only 1 in my area. In fact.... the store
> here has LA Eyeworks as the ONLY line that they carry, so at first I
thought
> that LA Eyeworks actually owned the store. Now... looking at the eyeworks
> page, I see that this probably isn't the case........ but it does lead me
to
> believe that the company would be more inclined to encourage their
retailers
> to act more as direct representatives of the company.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rob.
One thing you have to realize is that modern frames with a singe bridge
piece are much weaker than the older style with a bar across the top of the
frame. The optical business probably likes the fact that these frames don't
last as long. The industry also likes AR coating for the same reason.
William Stacy
> One thing you have to realize is that modern frames with a singe bridge
> piece are much weaker than the older style with a bar across the top of the
> frame. The optical business probably likes the fact that these frames don't
> last as long. The industry also likes AR coating for the same reason.
Modern frames with single bridges are just as strong as double, maybe more so.
This is because the double bridge stiffens the front so it cannot flex very far
without breaking. The single bridge allows major flexion without breaking,
assuming decent quality of the weld points. I for one do NOT like anything that
doesn't last. WWII era frames all had single bridges and lasted forever. Maybe
the optical industry created the double bridge to fool guys like you...
w.stacy, o.d.
William Stacy
maf wrote:
> If you don't have written warranty, you don't have one.
>
Baloney. Anything sold new (at least in the U.S.) carries an implied warranty.
w.stacy, o.d.
maf
I don't wear a double bridge (I have single bridge Marchon Auto-Flex). But
your claims are ridiculous for most frames. None of the ordinary frames I
tried flexed as you claim, unless they were specifically designed that way
(such as Auto-Flex, Flexon, etc.).
Yes WWII era wire frames did flex, but that's not the way most frames are
made now days.
maf
Almost all products sold at retail do carry an implied warranty of
"merchantability" and implied warranty of "fitness for a particular
purpose". That is not the same as the kind of "full" or "limited" warranty
covering a specified timeframe that the poster was talking about.
William Stacy
OK maybe I should have said "significant flexure" instead of "major flexion",
specifically where the axes of the two lenses are rotated in opposite
direction. You just about cannot do this do a double bridge frame without
breaking one of the welds. You can do this to a significant degree with a decent
quality single bridge frame without breakage. I do it every day.
The type of flexing you can do with the memory metal frames that you have is
special. In my opinion, especially bad. Because you can't always adjust the
memory metal parts for optimum fit. I rarely fit them for that reason.
My original point remains: Double bridge frames were a bad idea.
wstacy, o.d.
William Stacy
It may not be the same, but it still exists and generally covers defects in
workmanship as well, and is commonly used in this business for the replacement
of broken parts where no abuse is evident. My office has no written warranty
policy but frequently replaces broken frames "under warranty" since the
manufacturers usually accommodate such requests.
wstacy, o.d.
maf
> > "merchantability" and implied warranty of "fitness for a particular
> > purpose". That is not the same as the kind of "full" or "limited"
warranty
> > covering a specified timeframe that the poster was talking about.
>
> It may not be the same, but it still exists and generally covers defects
in
> workmanship as well, and is commonly used in this business for the
replacement
> of broken parts where no abuse is evident. My office has no written
warranty
> policy but frequently replaces broken frames "under warranty" since the
> manufacturers usually accommodate such requests.
>
> wstacy, o.d.
>
for a particular purpose" are part of the Uniform Commercial Code which has
been adopted (with minor changes) by all states except Louisiana. There is
no time limit on these warranties.
Warranties which cover defects in workmanship, etc that cause a product,
which initially was in working order, to subsequently fail within the time
period specified by the warranty, are covered by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, which is administered by the Federal Trade Commission.
The MMW Act does not require any business to provide a written warranty. The
Act allows businesses to determine whether to warrant their products in
writing. However, once a business decides to offer a written warranty on a
consumer product, it must comply with the Act. The MMW Act does not apply to
oral warranties.
There is no way to enforce an oral warranty under the law should a dispute
arise. Obviously, if a retailer offers an oral warranty, and they honor it,
then that is fine, but the consumer is relying on the integrity of the
retailer in this case. This is really not a warranty as much as it is
"goodwill" and on the part of the retailer and the manufacturer.
But even if the retailer who offers an oral warranty is completely honest
and fair, it is a good idea to get the warranty in writing so that it will
comply with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the warranty will be clear as
to what it covers and what it does not cover (such as abuse, for example).
Of course what the original poster needed was breakage insurance and not a
warranty.
wotan2525
For what its worth they were plastic frames.
http://www.laeyeworks.com/noshock/catalog/hellohayden.html
Thanks for all of your help, this is a really informed and knowledgeable
group.
rob.