Unfit for purpose reject versus Warranty

Dimey

Are my rights better served by rejecting an item as unfit for purpose or claiming under warranty?

I bought a pool motor from the UK distributor (based in Scotland) of an American swimming pool manufacturer. I'm in England.

I fitted and immediately found the motor to be faulty - loud and vibrating. The distributor sent an independent expert to inspect the installation. The expert agreed the motor was faulty and needed replacing. There was nothing wrong with my installation.

The distributor has agreed to order a new motor from America for me to replace free of charge. Fine

I asked for my out of pocket expenses that were directly attributable to having to replace the motor due to it not being fit for purpose. (Pump hire, water disposal and some labour from a friend who can lift heavy equipment that I cant)

The American manufacturer has declined the out of pocket expenses as their motor warranty does not cover knock on costs or labour. (I've not been given a copy of the warranty)

Is the warranty relevant given that the motor has not actually been used? Should I be focussing on the motor not being fit for purpose?

Do I stand any chance of reimbursement for out of pocket expenses either way?

Thanks

Fosterdog

It's the distributor you need to claim any out of pocket expenses from, you have no contract at all with the manufacturer so they don't have to offer you anything

Dimey

Ah ok Thanks.