3 ms·

Seriously? You’re going to use them for a decade plus then abuse the return policy for a new pair? Not cool.

by ailun 5y ago

InvertedRhodium 5y ago
It's hardly abuse - their return policy was a "lifetime warranty", if they weren't willing to honour it after 10 years then they shouldn't have advertised it as such. Looks like GP might be outta luck though - LL Bean scrapped their lifetime warranty back in 2018 [1]. Not sure how retroactive limitations on warranty works in the US. 1: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/09/584493046/l-l-bean-scraps-legendary-lifetime-return-policy https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/09/584493046...
- ailun 5y ago
  It is abuse. The warranty wasn’t “free shoes for life.” If a pair of hiking boots lasts more than a decade (his comment seems to imply they’ve already lasted a decade) that’s a normal lifespan, not a problem. Of course, one could always they weren’t satisfied and return it. But clearly they were satisfied enough to use them for 10+ years. I think it’s justifiable to call that abuse. And clearly people like that are the reason LL Bean (and REI) had to change their policy.
  - InvertedRhodium 5y ago
    > If a pair of hiking boots lasts more than a decade (his comment seems to imply they’ve already lasted a decade) that’s a normal lifespan, not a problem. If that's the expected lifespan of the shoes, then the warranty should reflect that. > But clearly they were satisfied enough to use them for 10+ years. Satisfaction is based on expectations, and when a product has a lifetime warranty it doesn't cap the expectation at any time period. GP might have expected them to last 15 years instead, and it would be hard to argue that 66% of the expected lifetime is 'satisfaction'.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ailun 5y ago
      Do you not understand how shoes work?
  - chrisweekly 5y ago
    You're wrong. Please see my other comment upthread
  - IIsi50MHz 5y ago
    Except when it's not. If the warranty "lifetime" and reads like "free replacement if they ever break, crack, or fail", then expecting to be able to use that warranty is fine. Really, I'd expect the warranty to be more like "free replacement due to defects in material, assembly, or craftsmanship; excludes natural wear, abuse, natural disaster, fire, …". The department store, Nordstrom, has a reputation for "no questions asked; no management approval needed" policy. They're reputed to pay for professional cleaning if someone spills something on you in their café (in addition to the usual apologies and maybe free meal/dessert some eateries might do), and allow free replacement of things bought any amount of time ago (even if obviously something they never sold). They seem to account for it all in higher prices. Yes, I would regard "exchanging" an old coat from another store there as abusive, but by all accounts given to me, they see as a cost of being so accommodating that people become diehard fans.
chrisweekly 5y ago
Au contraire; no hint of "abuse" here. When I bought my first pair of LLBean boots in the mid 1990's, they were sold with an amazing, explicit (verbal and written) benefit: "never buy another pair of boots". It was a lifetime guarantee. A few years later after wearing them all over New England and much of Europe the interior GoreTex lining had started to wear thin in one heel, so I brought em back to the store. An LLBean sales associate helped me pick a slightly differently-sized new pair for a free exchange. He told me, with a smile, "bring em back for another replacement if you ever wear em out."

Seriously? You’re going to use them for a decade plus then abuse the return policy for a new pair? Not cool.

by ailun 5y ago

Seriously? You’re going to use them for a decade plus then abuse the return policy for a new pair? Not cool.

It's hardly abuse - their return policy was a "lifetime warranty", if they weren't willing to honour it after 10 years then they shouldn't have advertised it as such. Looks like GP might be outta luck though - LL Bean scrapped their lifetime warranty back in 2018 [1]. Not sure how retroactive limitations on warranty works in the US. 1: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/09/584493046/l-l-bean-scraps-legendary-lifetime-return-policy https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/09/584493046...

ailun 5y ago
It is abuse. The warranty wasn’t “free shoes for life.” If a pair of hiking boots lasts more than a decade (his comment seems to imply they’ve already lasted a decade) that’s a normal lifespan, not a problem. Of course, one could always they weren’t satisfied and return it. But clearly they were satisfied enough to use them for 10+ years. I think it’s justifiable to call that abuse. And clearly people like that are the reason LL Bean (and REI) had to change their policy.
- InvertedRhodium 5y ago
  > If a pair of hiking boots lasts more than a decade (his comment seems to imply they’ve already lasted a decade) that’s a normal lifespan, not a problem. If that's the expected lifespan of the shoes, then the warranty should reflect that. > But clearly they were satisfied enough to use them for 10+ years. Satisfaction is based on expectations, and when a product has a lifetime warranty it doesn't cap the expectation at any time period. GP might have expected them to last 15 years instead, and it would be hard to argue that 66% of the expected lifetime is 'satisfaction'.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ailun 5y ago
    Do you not understand how shoes work?
- chrisweekly 5y ago
  You're wrong. Please see my other comment upthread
- IIsi50MHz 5y ago
  Except when it's not. If the warranty "lifetime" and reads like "free replacement if they ever break, crack, or fail", then expecting to be able to use that warranty is fine. Really, I'd expect the warranty to be more like "free replacement due to defects in material, assembly, or craftsmanship; excludes natural wear, abuse, natural disaster, fire, …". The department store, Nordstrom, has a reputation for "no questions asked; no management approval needed" policy. They're reputed to pay for professional cleaning if someone spills something on you in their café (in addition to the usual apologies and maybe free meal/dessert some eateries might do), and allow free replacement of things bought any amount of time ago (even if obviously something they never sold). They seem to account for it all in higher prices. Yes, I would regard "exchanging" an old coat from another store there as abusive, but by all accounts given to me, they see as a cost of being so accommodating that people become diehard fans.

chrisweekly 5y ago

Au contraire; no hint of "abuse" here. When I bought my first pair of LLBean boots in the mid 1990's, they were sold with an amazing, explicit (verbal and written) benefit: "never buy another pair of boots". It was a lifetime guarantee. A few years later after wearing them all over New England and much of Europe the interior GoreTex lining had started to wear thin in one heel, so I brought em back to the store. An LLBean sales associate helped me pick a slightly differently-sized new pair for a free exchange. He told me, with a smile, "bring em back for another replacement if you ever wear em out."