2 year warranty

System

If its a manufacturers 2 yr warrenty they thats who you have to deal with , amazon like almost all retailers cover the 1st year.
Op did you register the product with the manufacturer when you bought it ?

glocal

Amazon only offers 1 year warranty and that's only for electronic goods. Everything else gets 30 days. If Amazon was based in the UK, it would be clearcut. A mattress that develops a fault after seven nights (spread over 14 months) is clearly defective, and not fit for purpose. It's not a warranty issue really. As my contract is with the retailer, I don't think the manufacturer would have to interfere. However, I am not sure how much of this applies to Luxembourg. If the retailers cannot be held responsible in the same way they would be in the UK, consumers should know. Something tells me I wouldn't have the same problems with Argos. I will have to remember not to buy from Amazon anything supplied by a manufacturer in a remote country. Or if I do, I will have to stress-test it within Amazon's 30 days return period.

Update: the manufacturer opened a complaint case with Amazon and we are expecting a response within 12 hours. We'll see.

wealdroam

glocal wrote: »

...I am not sure how much of this applies to Luxembourg. If the retailers cannot be held responsible in the same way they would be in the UK, consumers should know.

From Amazon UK's website...

8 APPLICABLE LAW
These conditions are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the application of the United Nations Convention of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. We both agree to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the District of Luxembourg City, which means that you may bring a claim to enforce your consumer protection rights in connection with these Conditions of Sale in Luxembourg or in the EU country in which you live.

(My bold in the last sentence.)

So it looks like you can sue them in the UK, and I cannot imagine a UK court being able to work under anything but UK laws.

Hintza

glocal wrote: »

A mattress that develops a fault after seven nights (spread over 14 months) is clearly defective, and not fit for purpose.

In your opinion.

The retailer or in this case the manufacturer has the right to inspect the item and either agree or disagree with your assessment, they could decide there is no fault and it is misuse etc.

shaun_from_Africa

Originally Posted by glocal
A mattress that develops a fault after seven nights (spread over 14 months) is
clearly defective, and not fit for purpose.

Unless of course it was over inflated, used whilst under inflated, stored incorrectly, damaged whilst being used etc.

Apart from a manufacturing defect, there are multiple reasons why a 14 month old inflatable mattress could develop a fault.

cardinalbiggles

wealdroam wrote: »

From Amazon UK's website...

(My bold in the last sentence.)

So it looks like you can sue them in the UK, and I cannot imagine a UK court being able to work under anything but UK laws.

Amazon clearly operate in the UK, they have huge warehouses up and down the country.

They cannot impose the laws of another country on your purchase. Same as an English company selling to a consumer in Scotland. The contract is under Scots law not English law.

Amazon are generally really good but I agree you should go to the manufacturer as they will deal with the problem.

glocal

Retailers and manufacturers can always claim a product was misused even minutes after purchase. What applies in the specific case can apply to almost any case. It is down to independent assessment, which may not be worth the cost. Not sure what it works, but I think if a retailer argues an item was fit for purpose, they should take the risk of covering the costs of arbitration. Knowing the circumstances, I don't believe a reasonable person inspecting the mattress would argue it failed because it was not used properly. Not even the manufacturer says that.

I am pursuing this with both the manufacturer and Amazon.

unholyangel

glocal wrote: »

Retailers and manufacturers can always claim a product was misused even minutes after purchase. What applies in the specific case can apply to almost any case. It is down to independent assessment, which may not be worth the cost. Not sure what it works, but I think if a retailer argues an item was fit for purpose, they should take the risk of covering the costs of arbitration. Knowing the circumstances, I don't believe a reasonable person inspecting the mattress would argue it failed because it was not used properly. Not even the manufacturer says that.

I am pursuing this with both the manufacturer and Amazon.

You are kidding right? And how are they going to recoup those costs if found in their favour?

On the flip side of your argument, consumers can always claim a product was not misused even if its blatantly obvious that it was.

glocal

Precisely, I am suggesting that retailers and consumers can claim whatever they want, however outrageous, but they should be prepared to take the risk of an independent arbitrator not agreeing with them, which would result in costs. It's not unheard of. It happens with legal costs. Otherwise, what is to stop a retailer saying a product was misused five minutes after purchase? The difference with your consumers is that whatever they claim they cannot get their money back unless the retails gives it to them. The relationship is not balanced.

shaun_from_Africa

glocal wrote: »

Retailers and manufacturers can always claim a product was misused even minutes after purchase.

They can claim whatever they like, but if it comes to legal action and the item was less than 6 months old at the time of the fault becoming apparent, then the retailer is required to prove that the product failure was down to misuse and simply believing this to be the case is not enough.