Morality of limiting warranty to original buyer.

[Gordon Currie]

You should ask a guitar manufacturer/luthier. Otherwise all you may get is end-user opinions.

I see an implicit assumption that this is a moral question. Not sure I agree. Having a lot of experience in warranting and supporting products, I know that setting this kind of policy is often more a function of 'how many people will bend the rules or outright defraud' than of trying to deprive anyone of their 'rights'. I used to think warranties should be straightforward and infinitely transferable until I experienced a non-trivial amount of people who appear to delight in gaming the system.

[Imbler]

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

It means that if the product is in your hand, it is covered by warranty. Period.

Check out this warranty (and they stand by this 100%, by the way)

Wow, pretty simple then. I didn't know -anyone- offered that kind of warranty,
Mike

[Kerbie]

Let's try to keep this nice, guys.

[fazool]

It is simply a tactic to compete with the used market(s), especially against their own products.

The idea is not that they take a warranty away from someone buying used, but that they add a bonus of a warranty to someone who buys new - as an added value to the new-buyer.

Otherwise they can't compete with their own used products.

Chevrolet's biggest competitor are used Chevrolets, because Chevrolet drivers prefer Chevrolets over other brands. See?

So, by adding warranty protection for the new buyers it adds more "value" to entice buyers to get a new car, not a used car.


I don't agree with it but that's the real reason, in my opinion.

[L20A]

With a warranty only staying with the original owner, many warranties are never used. The owner sells the guitar and the warranty is gone.
The guitar makers bank on this.

There are also different warranties out there.
How many companies besides Martin offer a warranted neck re-set to the original owner?

In my case, my 1981 Martin D-35 came with a one year limited warranty.
Some time after that I got a postcard from Martin telling me that they had adjusted the one year warranty to a full lifetime warranty at no extra charge to me.

Who else does that?

[Tico]

Originally Posted by L20A

...How many companies besides Martin offer a warranted neck re-set to the original owner? ...

I thought Martin's warranty recently stopped covering neck resets.

[Truckjohn]

They don't do it because they don't.... And since nobody else does it - there's no gigantic marketing disincentive to the companies who don't offer a huge warranty..

You could just as easily ask:
Why do people put so much stock in a warranty when they likely will not be able to receive any benefit out of it? A luthier dies/retires/quits the trade - poof... Company changes ownership.. A store chain closes.. Poof. Miscellaneous holding company disappears... Company doesn't have any service organization in your country... Poof. Warranty gone...

[ohYew812]

Originally Posted by HHP

The warranty was part of the total sales package you got as a new car buyer. If you sell it within the warranty period, the buyer of the used car doesn't get that benefit. Manufacturers are not in the habit of warranting used cars they didn't sell. If they did, they would incent people to pass on buying a new car.

This is not a correct statement. I just bought a 2014 Cadillac CTS4 a week ago, and the 4 year, 50k mile bumper to bumper transfers anywhere the car goes. They even pay for all required maintenance during that period to include oil changes, oil, cabin, and air filters, etc.
In fact, I've already taken it in to a dealer and had it serviced, and they also replaced the $1700 center stack (CUE system)... at a cost of exactly $0.

Wooden guitars are a different beast obviously, and they would then have a forever can of worms.
However, if the warranty was for a specific period of time... say 5 years, then I would agree.

[Purfle Haze]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

I have never quite understood the logic of non-transferable warranties.

If a manufacturer makes a product, it passes quality control, and gets shipped out to a retailer, why should it matter whether ownership has been transferred ?

The manufacturer doesn't even sell it to the consumer. The retailer sells it. The warranty is an included attraction, like an included case. Would it be immoral not to include a case?

If the warranty has an expiry date, and the item gets sold to a second owner within that period, I fail to see any reason why the warranty should not transfer .

Within what period? A "lifetime," like Martin's warranty? Whose lifetime? The original owner's maybe.

Just FTR, I am well aware that the warranty does NOT in fact transfer ...OK ? My question is ...WHY ?

A warranty is part of the cost of an instrument. How much more would you be willing to pay for a transferable warranty? Such a thing would certainly increase the cost of a new instrument by a lot, but it wouldn't benefit the original buyer who'd pay for it, only subsequent buyers. Why would the original owner want to pay extra for a warranty for the next owner?

There are many moral issues in the world, but this is not one of them.

[DavidE]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

I have never quite understood the logic of non-transferable warranties.

If a manufacturer makes a product, it passes quality control, and gets shipped out to a retailer, why should it matter whether ownership has been transferred ?

If the warranty has an expiry date, and the item gets sold to a second owner within that period, I fail to see any reason why the warranty should not transfer .

Just FTR, I am well aware that the warranty does NOT in fact transfer ...OK ? My question is ...WHY ?

It adds value to only a new guitar bought from an authorized dealer. It encourages consumers to buy new over used.

[DoryDavis]

A note about extended warranties, (and this is not about guitars). I worked at a stereo chain during college, years (and years) back. I was actually in car stereo. You'd get a 90 day warranty and we'd try to sell a one year warranty.
I came to find out the stuff we sold was already covered by a one year warranty through the manufacturer. Pure profit.
I got minimum wage plus about 3% of the gear I sold. i'd get 33% of the extended warranty charge. That is how much the owner wanted to sell extended warranties.
Every once in a while a customer would ask "if this is such a good stereo, why would I need an extended warranty?" Which is a great question.

[Scholar]

Originally Posted by rmyAddison

I will repeat others, the cost of the warranty is part of the sales price, only the original owner has paid that, it's that simple.

There is absolutely nothing even close to "morality" in this equation.......

I'm inclined to agree with Rich and others on this. Only the original purchaser pays for the warranty as part of the price. Only the original purchaser is party to the contract of purchase and sale containing the warranty, unless the warranty is expressly extended to subsequent owners. The manufacturer or builder is not, as I see it, under any moral obligation to extend the warranty to subsequent owners, though it's admirable when one (such as Bryston with its audio gear) chooses to do so.

[AndrewG]

I don't know about other US manufacturers, but in the UK Martin's 'lifetime' warranty extends only to one year. In that regard it's ultimately pointless as we are covered by the Sale of Goods Act anyway, which states that an item sold must be of 'merchantable quality', and 'fit for the purpose for which it was designed'.

[Truckjohn]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

in the UK Martin's 'lifetime' warranty extends only to one year. In that regard it's ultimately pointless......

That was kinda my point above. A warranty is worth less than the paper it is printed on unless you have the ability to collect on it... Sure - there may in fact be a reality based reason but the net effect is the same... In this case the 3rd party distributor who has the UK Martin business will not honor Martin's warranty.... And so it goes.

The other side of this coin is.. "Super duper forever warranties" that are backed up by excellent service in real life can have a very interesting effect on used prices..... The rifle scope that "ExtremeHodgeon" mentions has an extrordinarily high resale value. Its not uncommon to see used prices HIGHER than discount internet New sale prices - which are already higher than everybody else's.. As you might expect - it drives a LOT of traffic back to their new sales..... As why in the world would I pay New or more than New to get a used model with some scratches on it? And yet - people do pay more than new because they know that if there is a problem - they can send it right back.... Granted this is a metal and glass product - not wood.... As you wouod expect - this warranty is a plastered all over every piece of company marketing.......

[troystory92]

I think that's their prerogative.

It's a sweetener for buying new items