# 100% Satisfaction Guarantees: Use vs Abuse



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

I've seen it mentioned often on this forum, how much many members appreciate the guarantees that many trad clothiers offer with their items. Especially items that are for outdoor or hard use, like Orvis, Filson and the most famed of all the 100% guarantees, the one offered by LL Bean. A company that stands behind it's product is usually a sign of a quality item and a company committed to its customers. But, is the 100% satisfaction more of a symbol of a company's commitment to quality, or is it something that should actually be used?

In a thread I posted some time ago, I mentioned that I was unhappy with a pair of LLB bluchers because, among other things, the saddle stitching on the toe had opened up after a year of regular wear and crud would get in my shoe when I walked. I mentioned in passing that I was thinking about returning them to LLB and exchanging them for something else. No sooner had I pressed "submit," I received a barrage of posts questioning my ethics, pointing out my bad form and even calling me immoral for wanting to take advantage of Bean's guarantee. I thought about it good and hard and decided that I was not 100% satisfied with the product and I honestly felt that it was defective. So I went to LLB with the year-old shoes in tow (in their original box, but sans receipt) and resigned myself to accept whatever resolution (or lackthereof) Bean would propose. When I got to the service desk, I explained to the nice young lady that I had purchased the shoes last September from the website, worn them regularly, and they had developed a hole, which I showed her. I then asked "Is there anything that can be done about it?" I didn't say I wanted my money back, or that I wanted to exchange them. Without batting an eye, she scanned the box, whipped out a gift card and loaded it with the $69 I had paid for them. She could have offered to send them back to Bean for repairs. Or to pay to have them repaired locally. I took this to mean that I was not wrong in wanting Bean to stand behind their product and all was well in the universe. When I mentioned it to my wife (who had been sitting in an Adirondack chair being very pregnant) she asked "What kind of Hula Bula (her term for questionable business practice) did you pull to get that?" and it made me question myself again.

Anywho, after that we went to Orivs and I picked up a pair of Rhinohide pants that had been mismarked and got them for $39 instead of $79 so now I don't know where I stand in the kharmic continuum.

Where do you draw the line between use and abuse of 100% guarantees? Is there a line? Is there some form of trad unspoken agreement with clothiers to let them slide?


----------



## ArtVandalay (Apr 29, 2010)

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with returning the shoes in the linked thread for another pair of the same shoes if indeed they were defective. Exchanging them for a completely different item, though, I don't think is right.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I'm not convinced that you were trying to get one over on L.L.Bean, but I think that the immediate reaction was due to the sheer number of scumbags that have paraded their troubles on the forums looking for sympathy. I admit that I almost always assume that the customer is at fault and have to be convinced otherwise when I see something posted on an internet forum.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

You thought about the ethical considerations before returning them. Sartre would call you a man of "good will. There was something wrong with the shoes, you didn't trash them. IMO it was fine to return them. LL Bean is not naive and they set the policy. GM, Chrysler, Circuit City and Borders went broke. LL Bean is still here. Their policy must work or they would have changed it. .


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Side note: your particular case might have been appropriate. Hard to say without seeing the actual shoes and knowing how they were worn.

Main point: The mere fact the retailer _will_ take something back doesn't make it okay to abuse the privilege. The companies that offer 100% return policies are basically akin to business that from time to time have a "pay what you can" event, or otherwise rely on some variation of the honor system. They accept the downside that comes when some people abuse the privilege because abuse is relatively rare, and it's balanced out by the customer goodwill that's created.

Nordstrom is another company that's especially liberal with returns (though even they don't guarantee they'll accept any return). It's definitely abused from time to time. Among other things, there are instances in which some women use it as a free rental service for clothes to wear to an event; or people who've bought things elsewhere return them to Nordstrom (they apparently took back a return of snow tires once, at least according to John Nordstrom).


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

I have a couple of personal instances I'd like to mention. Almost 20 years ago I bought a Goretex parka from Eddie Bauer, their motto was something like Guaranteed Period and it was even on the labels. 4 or 5 years in the membrane started pulling away and the parka had bubbles all over so I called their customer service and was told their guarantee was really only for about 3 years so I stopped buying from them.

5 years ago I got a rain jacket from North Face and after 2 year the waterproof lining started to crack and peel away from the inside. I called & was told to send the jacket in for examination and they sent me a new one no questions asked. So if I had to choose between Eddie Bauer and North Face, which do you think I'm going to buy? As mentioned, the guarantees work otherwise companies wouldn't have them.

Brian


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

Have you ever seen the movie "Casino" when De Niro's character gave the Japanese businessmen all that he can so they would stay? I think companies who give 100% guarantees are something of that sort. In the end, everyone is a sucker.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

vwguy said:


> Almost 20 years ago I bought a Goretex parka from Eddie Bauer....


Perhaps irrelevant, but the company you dealt with c. 15 years ago has about nothing to do with current Eddie Bauer, other than the same name.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> You thought about the ethical considerations before returning them. Sartre would call you a man of "good will. There was something wrong with the shoes, you didn't trash them. IMO it was fine to return them. LL Bean is not naive and they set the policy. GM, Chrysler, Circuit City and Borders went broke. LL Bean is still here. Their policy must work or they would have changed it. .


I like the reference to Sartre. :icon_study:


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Starch said:


> Perhaps irrelevant, but the company you dealt with c. 15 years ago has about nothing to do with current Eddie Bauer, other than the same name.


So true. Theirs is a sad tale.

I may not have been a brand _loyalist_, but I had many great EB buying experiences at my local store in the 80' and 90's. So many, that I sought them out further and further away when they began to close stores. EB customer service was once excellent (Up there with LLB and LE), and on the rare occasion I needed to make a return (gift in wrong size etc), it was swift and painless. By some miracle, they have retained one local retail front that existed before the company was auctioned, but the quality of the merchandise has dropped enough that I can't find a reason to make the trip anymore. Shame.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Companies like LL Bean build the cost of the guarantee into their margins. It's like insurance underwriting. They know exactly how many people will bring items back and how much it costs them. And believe me it does cost them a pretty penny to unconditionally guarantee items forever. But the honor system does work to some degree. I have used the guarantee when I felt it was warranted and refrained from using it when I felt like I had simply worn the item out from regular use. BUT, the fact that the guarantee exists, that they stand behind all of their items, goes a really long way. It makes you more likely to buy things from them...and that is worth a lot to a company. So in a way, it evens out. The shoe story posted by the OP seems like a legitimate use of the guarantee. If they say the item is guaranteed to satisfy the customer, then if the shoe breaks down prematurely, you'd be absolutely right to take them back, even after using them.

As far as it being ok to exchange items for a replacement but not ok to get a refund...a company like LL Bean often only runs items for a few months, so you'd often not be able to get the same item as a replacement.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Regardless of the vendor(s) involved or the specific wording of their guarantees, I doubt that anyone who has invested the energy, time, and thoughtfulness in a return, that hardline_42 has obviously put into the return of those Bean Mocs, can be considered an abuser of said company's good intent! LOL. Hardline: Offer a contribution to the local Goodwill store, give us five 'Hail Andy's' and consider yourself absolved of any guilt in this matter!  :biggrin:


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Starch said:


> Side note: your particular case might have been appropriate. Hard to say without seeing the actual shoes and knowing how they were worn.


I posted a pic on the second page of the other thread.

To everyone else, thanks for the comments so far. It seems like everyone agrees that there are instances when it's OK to return worn items if they haven't performed as expected. But, I wonder: Does this influence the way you use/treat items from those companies? Would you "baby" a pair of shoes that don't have a rock-solid satisfaction guarantee but be less careful with those that do?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> Would you "baby" a pair of shoes that don't have a rock-solid satisfaction guarantee but be less careful with those that do?


We call that a "morale risk" as opposed to a "moral risk."


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

I would probably not return the shoes as you did, just out of a combination of my own laziness and a general avoidance of annoying situations. Instead, I would probably just think LLBean stinks and go on my way. I am certain that LL Bean would vastly prefer that customers have your positive attitude over my passive aggressive attitude. In general, what you did was completely proper. If it wasn't possible that defects in the merchandise might become apparent only after a year, what possible reason would there be to have a lifetime guarantee rather than a one year guarantee. 

Of course, you shouldn't return stuff on the basis of normal wear and tear and if people make a habit of returning merchandise that they've worn for a year, then almost definitionally they are returning stuff on the basis of normal wear. If you normally are unhappy with how your stuff wears, then you should switch suppliers. But if its the exception rather than the rule, then definitely act.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I see nothing wrong with returning those shoes to Bean's. I presume that the number of returns is a way they track quality and customer satisfaction, so you are arguably doing them a favor. I think the quality of their shoes _has _declined: they have done a good job holding the line on prices, but at the expense of quality, and they need to know that some customers find that the wrong choice.

The existence of a guarantee does not affect the way I treat things, though it does affect where I shop.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I bought a new pair of fishing waders from Cabelas recently. They are guaranteed, but only to a point.

I can't quote the brochure exactly but the gist was "If these waders are faulty we'll replace them, but don't wallow around in a briar patch after scaling a barbed wire fence and complain about holes."

I am rough on waders, so I buy them cheap on the assumption I will only get a couple of years out of them.

As for the OPs shoes, I am ambivalent. Is it ordinary wear and tear? Were they defective? Beats me.

I returned a pair of chinos to LLB once, because they sent the wrong size. I called them and they sent the replacement right away. I hadn't even found a box to put the first pair in.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Patrick06790 said:


> I bought a new pair of fishing waders from Cabelas recently. They are guaranteed, but only to a point.
> 
> I can't quote the brochure exactly but the gist was "If these waders are faulty we'll replace them, but don't wallow around in a briar patch after scaling a barbed wire fence and complain about holes."
> 
> ...


Patrick, it's funny you mention waders, because I have a similar mindset when it comes to buying them. I get all of my hunting and fishing waders from the clearance section at Hodgman and have never paid more than $50 for a pair. When they leak, I repair them myself, if possible, and buy new ones if I can't. But waders are a high wear-and-tear item. Jumping in and out of a boat, wading in murky water with who-knows-what sticking up out of the bottom and trudging through brush is serious use. Just plain old walking in a pair of casual shoes for a year seems like well within the range of what can be expected from a $70 pair of leather casual shoes. But then again, that's my opinion. It's possible that my expectations might not be reasonable to someone else.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

How can I say this clearly? Let me try this: I think you chiseled LL Bean.

In your original post, you clearly stated "I bought this shoe over a year ago and wore it pretty hard since then." 

I do not know of any reasonable person who would return an item after a year of hard use. The fact that LL Bean graciously accepted your return speaks volumes of their character. The fact that you felt it OK to return the shoes speaks volumes of yours. 

Mr. Rancourt, if you're reading this, I would expect an email in a year's time (or however long it takes) about the "defective" custom bluchers that you sold to the OP.

Sorry to be so blunt, but the OP asked for it.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Snow, I've got thick enough skin at this point so no need to candy coat it. Just to be clear, I expanded in my first thread on what I meant by "wore them hard." I didn't misuse them or abuse them. I simply wore them often, because I liked them. 

I understand that what is "reasonable" to one person might not be to another. For example, I've got no less than 9 pairs of handsewn moccasin shoes. Most of them I've owned for much longer than the Bean bluchers. Many of them I use in much more rigorous fashion. My cheapie Timberland boat shoes, of which I own 4 pairs, are routinely dunked in salt water, river beds and muddy pond bottoms, constantly filled with sand and debris and used for mowing the lawn and yardwork. They certainly bear the scars of such wear (I can provide pictures if you like) but not a single stitch has ever come loose on those shoes. Certainly not on any of the other mocs I own, which I subject to much less punishment. So, in my experience, it is "reasonable" to expect a handsewn moccasin shoe to last more than one year of normal wear before developing issues that directly compromise it's function.

So, am I wrong to expect that much out of a shoe? Am I just lucky that every other pair of handsewn moccasins I own hasn't exploded at the stroke of midnight on their respective one-year anniversaries?


----------



## Larsd4 (Oct 14, 2005)

Fifteen years ago I returned a BB OCBD who's shoulder stitching to the back had unraveled, leaving a hole. Although I had worn the shirt maybe fifty times, the shirt had plenty of life and I was hoping for maybe a 20% discount on a new one. The CS agent looked at it, went into the storeroom and returned with a new one, stating, "This is not up to our standards." I offered to pay something for the new shirt, but he insisted I take the full exchange.

I was ready for a fight, but ended up hooked on BB's customer service and OCBD's. I'll bet I've spent three month's pay in that store since. Hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## DFPyne (Mar 2, 2010)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> How can I say this clearly? Let me try this: I think you chiseled LL Bean.
> 
> In your original post, you clearly stated "I bought this shoe over a year ago and wore it pretty hard since then."
> 
> I do not know of any reasonable person who would return an item after a year of hard use. The fact that LL Bean graciously accepted your return speaks volumes of their character. The fact that you felt it OK to return the shoes speaks volumes of yours.


I just don't agree. L.L. Bean prides themselves on their Lifetime Guarantee and go out of their way to encourage shoppers to take advantage of it. Often you will see reviews on LLBean.com about people who had Bean backpacks, for example, and after 20+ years of use they started falling apart minimally. Then you see responses from L.L. Bean Customer Service recommending that if they send the bag back they can pick out a new one. They then make these reviews featured so everybody can see them and so more customers take advantage of it.

I love this fact about L.L. Bean and that's why they are one of my favorite retailers.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Trip English said:


> I'm not convinced that you were trying to get one over on L.L.Bean, but I think that the immediate reaction was due to the sheer number of scumbags that have paraded their troubles on the forums looking for sympathy. I admit that I almost always assume that the customer is at fault and have to be convinced otherwise when I see something posted on an internet forum.


So are these the rules?

1. If you're a "scumbag" who buys a perfectly good sweater on sale, you're questioned beyond reason and made to feel small when you attempt to return the unworn item. 
2. If you're an AATF member in good standing who has shown the willingness to buy things at full price, you're allowed to return a grimy pair of shoes to LL Bean after a year's worth of hard wear with no questions asked.

Just wanted to make sure I knew what the rules were.


----------



## brozek (Sep 24, 2006)

There's a line from LL Bean himself in the company history his grandson wrote - paraphrased, it's something like, "We want you to be proud every time you use our products. If you're not, we'll take them back".


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

It's one thing to return an item, and quite another to defame the vendor on an internet forum so that anyone googling it in the future will see a headline like "Horrible Qualty and Service at LL Bean" at first glance, and be put off. I think that's the kind of "scumbag" behavior Trip is referring to. Hardline did no such thing.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Quality clothes items typically have a 'normal' wear after a certain period of time. If an item like a ll bean shoe is coming apart in only a year, after normal to hard wear, I would also return it. Its supposed to be built like a tank. Its not free either. I would do the same if, say, a Barbour jacket failed. 

If it was a leaf thin Italian fashion loafer, maybe not. But they rarely have those kind of guarantees do they?

I would defer the decision on whether to accept a return to the company. Most often, they would have the option to refuse if they felt the customer was abusing the guarantee. 

A little conscience and morals go a long way, but I don't see the abuse here.


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

It depends on what we mean by "100% satisfaction guaranteed." For instance, Sears has a long-standing and well-known policy about tools: if a Craftsman hand tool breaks or becomes unusable, ever, for any reason, bring it back and they will replace it, no questions asked. I would have zero, absolutely none, problem invoking that policy and have done so in the past.

Likewise, I've seen makers of outdoor wear advertise lifetime guaranties. Again, if that's the case, take it back any time for any (reasonable) reason.

I tend to think the average "100% satisfaction" guarantee means "returns accepted for any reason pursuant to the usual terms and conditions." But that's just because I see it at a lot of places where I wouldn't expect anything different. If LL Bean indicates that its products are meant to withstand certain use, and offers a 100% satisfaction guarantee, then the reasonable inference is that they're guarantying that the product will withstand that use to your satisfaction. They're guarantying that backpacks will carry books without ripping, that hiking boots won't wear out on trails, etc., at least prior to such time as common experience indicates they ought to fail. 

If that's the sort of impression created by LL Bean's advertisements and literature on the subject, I don't see any problem with taking a pair of shoes back after a year. Certainly a pair of shoes should not wear out from a single year of ordinary use. If you had walked across the continent in them, or tried to take them back after five years, that would be different. It would also be different if the advertisements and literature made clear that ordinary conditions applied. But barring that, this wasn't abusive.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I had a similar experience with a BB OCBD, although I had worn mine roughly a dozen times. Full cash refund, and they paid the shipping charge (it was a mail transaction). You pay BB prices, you expect and deserve BB quality. If you buy stuff at Wal-Mart, that's another thing entirely.

The OP's experience is exactly how stores should operate but usually do not. Shoes should not develop holes after a year, period, even with regular wear. If they do, the merchant should take them back, and the customer shouldn't feel any guilt whatsoever.

Many years ago, I bought a Thermarest sleeping pad from REI that came with a lifetime guarantee. Well, it developed a hole after a few years. I took it back. The clerk tried telling me that it could be patched. I refused and insisted on the store living up to the purchase terms, and I didn't feel a bit guilty about it. I had paid a good amount of money for the pad, it had not been used a lot (maybe a couple dozen times) and it wasn't very old. They ultimately agreed and provided a replacement. Not sure whether Thermarest comes with a lifetime guarantee anymore, but the one I purchased did.

Finally, before anyone feels guilty, consider the mark-up on clothing. It is astronomical. Stores can easily stand behind their goods and still earn decent profits.



Larsd4 said:


> Fifteen years ago I returned a BB OCBD who's shoulder stitching to the back had unraveled, leaving a hole. Although I had worn the shirt maybe fifty times, the shirt had plenty of life and I was hoping for maybe a 20% discount on a new one. The CS agent looked at it, went into the storeroom and returned with a new one, stating, "This is not up to our standards." I offered to pay something for the new shirt, but he insisted I take the full exchange.
> 
> I was ready for a fight, but ended up hooked on BB's customer service and OCBD's. I'll bet I've spent three month's pay in that store since. Hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Yes there is quite a margin on clothing. LL Bean shoes are mostly made in China and I imagine their cost to Bean is quite low. Bean barely makes any of the stuff they sell. They expect a certain amount of their goods to be returned under the guarantee. Even 50 years ago it was like this. If you read "In Search of LL Bean" this is discussed a bit.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> How can I say this clearly? Let me try this: I think you chiseled LL Bean.
> 
> In your original post, you clearly stated "I bought this shoe over a year ago and wore it pretty hard since then."
> 
> ...


Sir, with your attitude, I truly hope you never own a business. If you already do...good luck. Companies who stand behind their products in this manner may get taken advantage of on occasion. However, they more than make their money back many times over by grateful customers who have the attitude of the OP or the poster who went on to spend more than 3 months pay at Brooks Bros. because they replaced an ocbd that didn't hold up as it should have. Businesses who do battle with their customers over reasonable problems make enemies who tell everyone who asks about what a lousy store they are. The opposite is also true. The OP did nothing wrong. LLB had a chance to make a customer even more loyal and who will probably shop with them many times in the future over other stores. They both won.


----------



## brussell (Jun 15, 2005)

Not to hi-jack but here is one I have been wrestling with:

Bought a white LE HP about a year ago and have worn it about a dozen times and looks as good as new. One day I took it out of the wash and the collar has turned cream. Just the collar, not the band but the whole piece of fabric, not a spot. It is as if a different color and was mis-sewn on the wrong shirt. Nothing was spilled on it and while subsequent attempts at bleaching have made the rest of the shirt quite white, the collar remains cream. Should I take it back and ask to exchange for a new one? And has anyone ever had a similar experience?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Starch said:


> Perhaps irrelevant, but the company you dealt with c. 15 years ago has about nothing to do with current Eddie Bauer, other than the same name.


I can back this up. I went to the one in Albuquerque on my vacation. Sub-LE quality yet twice as expensive at full price. My girlfriend bought a few things on sale there. I decided it was wise not to say anything. :icon_smile_wink:



The Rambler said:


> It's one thing to return an item, and quite another to defame the vendor on an internet forum so that anyone googling it in the future will see a headline like "Horrible Qualty and Service at LL Bean" at first glance, and be put off. I think that's the kind of "scumbag" behavior Trip is referring to. Hardline did no such thing.


Completely agreed. I don't think he was unreasonable considering my Sperry Top-Siders have been worn way too much for over two years without that problem.



brussell said:


> Not to hi-jack but here is one I have been wrestling with:
> 
> Bought a white LE HP about a year ago and have worn it about a dozen times and looks as good as new. One day I took it out of the wash and the collar has turned cream. Just the collar, not the band but the whole piece of fabric, not a spot. It is as if a different color and was mis-sewn on the wrong shirt. Nothing was spilled on it and while subsequent attempts at bleaching have made the rest of the shirt quite white, the collar remains cream. Should I take it back and ask to exchange for a new one? And has anyone ever had a similar experience?


Really weird. Maybe something due to the dye lots being off? I'd exchange it -- none of the shirts I've owned, no matter the price point, have done something like that after a year.

DEEP BREATH...

Chlorine bleach should be avoided if possible. If you must, use non-chlorine bleach. Not only is it easier on the fabric and colour of your clothes, it's easier on the environment. Oxi-Clean is another good alternative.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

I think Jovan is right about the dye lots. Actually processed cotton is dyed white. As the shirt collar was nodoubt cut from a different dye lot than the shirt and then sewn on it seems that the white dye in the fabric of the collar washed out whereas the dye in the shirt body did not.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> You thought about the ethical considerations before returning them. Sartre would call you a man of "good will. There was something wrong with the shoes, you didn't trash them. IMO it was fine to return them. LL Bean is not naive and they set the policy. GM, Chrysler, Circuit City and Borders went broke. LL Bean is still here. Their policy must work or they would have changed it. .


For the record, Circuit City and Borders are no longer viable, operating businesses, and if you had a warranty/satisfaction claim to undertake with them, you have ZERO recourse. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, are still viable, operating businesses, and your Saturn warranty is still valid at any GM dealer. GM/Chrysler are not in the same boat as CC or Borders, nor would a comparison to LLB be in order.



Starch said:


> Nordstrom is another company that's especially liberal with returns (though even they don't guarantee they'll accept any return). It's definitely abused from time to time. Among other things, there are instances in which some women use it as a free rental service for clothes to wear to an event; or people who've bought things elsewhere return them to Nordstrom (they apparently took back a return of snow tires once, at least according to John Nordstrom).


As a regular Nordstrom shopper, I have YET to return a single, used item of the dozens I've purchased there. However, I've actually been ENCOURAGED by SAs to take advantage of it, especially when it comes to items that I'm on the fence about. For instance, they had a great sale on Tumi luggage back in the spring. I was on the fence about something for an upcoming business trip, and was advised 'hey, buy it, use it for your trip, and if you're not absolutely in love with it, just bring it back, no trouble.' I, for one, would never do such a thing, but Nordstrom has that ability built into their margins.

To hardline: you were 100% within moral bounds to take advantage of LLB's policy. When it comes to outfitters like LLB, who are in the outdoors/hard-wearing items business, they EXPECT you to use that guarantee, and keep robust margins by the majority of folks who feel like they'd be taking advantage. I would liken LLB's guarantee to that of Craftsman (who I've seen REJECT returns under their 'lifetime guarantee') or, more accurately, Snap-on. You pay a premium for a product that comes with a lifetime guarantee. If you use/wear it out, you get it replaced, that's why you paid double/triple/whatever for that particular item. In your case, not only are you right for returning the item after a year, but if it were 3-5 years, so be it. That's what you paid for.

How about that!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> Snow, I've got thick enough skin at this point so no need to candy coat it. Just to be clear, I expanded in my first thread on what I meant by "wore them hard." I didn't misuse them or abuse them. I simply wore them often, because I liked them.
> 
> I understand that what is "reasonable" to one person might not be to another. For example, I've got no less than 9 pairs of handsewn moccasin shoes. Most of them I've owned for much longer than the Bean bluchers. Many of them I use in much more rigorous fashion. My cheapie Timberland boat shoes, of which I own 4 pairs, are routinely dunked in salt water, river beds and muddy pond bottoms, constantly filled with sand and debris and used for mowing the lawn and yardwork. They certainly bear the scars of such wear (I can provide pictures if you like) but not a single stitch has ever come loose on those shoes. Certainly not on any of the other mocs I own, which I subject to much less punishment. So, in my experience, it is "reasonable" to expect a handsewn moccasin shoe to last more than one year of normal wear before developing issues that directly compromise it's function.
> 
> So, am I wrong to expect that much out of a shoe? Am I just lucky that every other pair of handsewn moccasins I own hasn't exploded at the stroke of midnight on their respective one-year anniversaries?


Thanks for your gracious reply. I agree that we disagree.

For the rest of you who say that the 100% guarantee is OK to be used after one year, I ask what about 10 years? What about if I use the the shoes to stomp out campfires everyday for 20 years and then return them? The point I'm trying to make is that there is a responsibility on the part of the customer to reasonably take advantage of the generous return policy implemented by Bean. It is not a one-way street. Whether the internal ethicist in each of us says that 30 days or 1 year or 10 years is a reasonable expiration date for taking advantage of the guarantee, the customer should not be allowed to abdicate that responsibility. I am thankful that retailers like Bean have a generous return policy, and I honor that policy by not taking advantage of it beyond reason.

We can disagree on what is reasonable, and we do. That is that.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Saltydog said:


> Sir, with your attitude, I truly hope you never own a business. If you already do...good luck. Companies who stand behind their products in this manner may get taken advantage of on occasion. However, they more than make their money back many times over by grateful customers who have the attitude of the OP or the poster who went on to spend more than 3 months pay at Brooks Bros. because they replaced an ocbd that didn't hold up as it should have. Businesses who do battle with their customers over reasonable problems make enemies who tell everyone who asks about what a lousy store they are. The opposite is also true. The OP did nothing wrong. LLB had a chance to make a customer even more loyal and who will probably shop with them many times in the future over other stores. They both won.


Regardless of my business ownership status, I agree with what you say, but you're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not talking about winning or losing. I'm talking about right and wrong. You can win and still be wrong. You can lose and still be right.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> For the rest of you who say that the 100% guarantee is OK ....


Well, I (anyway) agree pretty nearly exactly with your main point.

I'm more inclined to think that - in this case - the return could be reasonable, though I don't think one can say that with certainty without knowing the facts "in the first person."


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

The Rambler said:


> It's one thing to return an item, and quite another to defame the vendor on an internet forum so that anyone googling it in the future will see a headline like "Horrible Qualty and Service at LL Bean" at first glance, and be put off. I think that's the kind of "scumbag" behavior Trip is referring to. Hardline did no such thing.


Kinda like blue-collar crime versus white-collar crime, isn't it? One doesn't seem as bad as the other.

I think we just disagree on this issue. It's America...I think we're still allowed to do that. No worries...


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

I'm playing with the idea of seeing how Nordstrom would react if I were to return a blazer I have that doesn't fit any more ... it has a Nordstrom label, approximately: it's actually "Nordstrom Best."


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Starch said:


> I'm playing with the idea of seeing how Nordstrom would react if I were to return a blazer I have that doesn't fit any more ... it has a Nordstrom label, approximately: it's actually "Nordstrom Best."


Has it been a year...

Really everyone, no worries...we're cool.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

-----


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> For the record, Circuit City and Borders are no longer viable, operating businesses, and if you had a warranty/satisfaction claim to undertake with them, you have ZERO recourse. GM and Chrysler, on the other hand, are still viable, operating businesses, and your Saturn warranty is still valid at any GM dealer. GM/Chrysler are not in the same boat as CC or Borders, nor would a comparison to LLB be in order.


Actually GM seems to be in exactly the same boat. GM is claiming the "old" company is not the same as the "new" company.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/08/gm-voids-pre-bankruptcy-warranties.html

Re: the original poster: I saw your photo, I would have returned them too, and I would have expected similar treatment to what you got.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Thanks for your gracious reply. I agree that we disagree.
> 
> For the rest of you who say that the 100% guarantee is OK to be used after one year, I ask what about 10 years? What about if I use the the shoes to stomp out campfires everyday for 20 years and then return them? The point I'm trying to make is that there is a responsibility on the part of the customer to reasonably take advantage of the generous return policy implemented by Bean. It is not a one-way street. Whether the internal ethicist in each of us says that 30 days or 1 year or 10 years is a reasonable expiration date for taking advantage of the guarantee, the customer should not be allowed to abdicate that responsibility. I am thankful that retailers like Bean have a generous return policy, and I honor that policy by not taking advantage of it beyond reason.
> 
> We can disagree on what is reasonable, and we do. That is that.


Snow, I understand what you mean, I really do. And I agree that what is "reasonable" is different from one person to the next. But can't we at least agree that one year of NORMAL wear (I didn't stamp out a single camp fire) without this happening is a reasonable expectation?


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Regardless of my business ownership status, I agree with what you say, but you're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not talking about winning or losing. I'm talking about right and wrong. You can win and still be wrong. You can lose and still be right.


I totally agree with your last statement. I just don't think the OP did anything wrong. He wrestled with the issue and felt he qualified under the terms of the guaranty. I'm just saying he shouldn't feel that anyone suffered harm in the transaction. If he had set out to truly do something he felt was unfair...that's a different story. I just think he showed reasonable cause and concern (more than many) and shouldn't beat himself up over it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Snow Hill,

OP did exactly the right thing. Due respect, you're wrong. It really is that simple.



Saltydog said:


> I totally agree with your last statement. I just don't think the OP did anything wrong. He wrestled with the issue and felt he qualified under the terms of the guaranty. I'm just saying he shouldn't feel that anyone suffered harm in the transaction. If he had set out to truly do something he felt was unfair...that's a different story. I just think he showed reasonable cause and concern (more than many) and shouldn't beat himself up over it.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Starch said:


> I'm playing with the idea of seeing how Nordstrom would react if I were to return a blazer I have that doesn't fit any more ... it has a Nordstrom label, approximately: it's actually "Nordstrom Best."


Depends how long; if they still stock something similar, give it a go.



frosejr said:


> Actually GM seems to be in exactly the same boat. GM is claiming the "old" company is not the same as the "new" company.
> https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/08/gm-voids-pre-bankruptcy-warranties.html


While the face value seems to be 'not honoring warranties', this is obviously an issue that should have been subject to recall, and they're using the argument to get out of a 400k member class action lawsuit. There is no new vehicle warranty that was rendered invalid by either GM's bankruptcy or Chrysler's restructuring.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Just to shed a little more light on whether or not the damage to the LLB shoes was "normal," Kyle Rancourt made a post on the other thread explaining why it could have occurred (hint: it has to do with the construction method, not the use), and why he would replace them if it ever happened to any of the shoes Rancourt makes.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

32rollandrock said:


> Snow Hill,
> 
> OP did exactly the right thing. Due respect, you're wrong. It really is that simple.


Thanks for chiming in. Would you like to explain your position, or should I just take your pronouncement as God's lips to my ears?

In my posts, I've tried (unsuccessfully) to explain my position using the OP's own words as evidence and have compromised a bit by allowing that "reasonable" is a subjective word. I think we've come to an understanding that we disagree, and I'm comfortable leaving it at that.

One thing the OP should note is that he overwhelmingly has the majority of the posters agreeing with him. Even I can see that.


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

frosejr said:


> Actually GM seems to be in exactly the same boat. GM is claiming the "old" company is not the same as the "new" company.
> https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/08/gm-voids-pre-bankruptcy-warranties.htmll


Without reading the court filings it's hard to tell, but I think GM's argument is rather poorly recounted in the article. GM is probably not saying that it's not the same company (the way that whoever bought up Circuit City's assets is not Circuit City): that's an absurdly false argument. GM is almost certainly arguing that its warranty obligations are liabilities that were discharged by the bankruptcy adjudication. That argument has some facial plausibility, sadly, but probably won't work.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

My position is this: The OP did exactly the right thing, and any criticism of what he did is misplaced. Read through all the posts in this thread and you'll see why this is the case--no sense repeating what's already been said multiple times.



Snow Hill Pond said:


> Thanks for chiming in. Would you like to explain your position, or should I just take your pronouncement as God's lips to my ears?
> 
> In my posts, I've tried (unsuccessfully) to explain my position using the OP's own words as evidence and have compromised a bit by allowing that "reasonable" is a subjective word. I think we've come to an understanding that we disagree, and I'm comfortable leaving it at that.
> 
> One thing the OP should note is that he overwhelmingly has the majority of the posters agreeing with him. Even I can see that.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Titus_A said:


> Without reading the court filings it's hard to tell, but I think GM's argument is rather poorly recounted in the article. GM is probably not saying that it's not the same company (the way that whoever bought up Circuit City's assets is not Circuit City): that's an absurdly false argument. GM is almost certainly arguing that its warranty obligations are liabilities that were discharged by the bankruptcy adjudication. That argument has some facial plausibility, sadly, but probably won't work.


My guess is that they are alternative arguments, if the first is rejected then the second might fly. I bet one of them works.


----------



## brussell (Jun 15, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Really weird. Maybe something due to the dye lots being off? I'd exchange it -- none of the shirts I've owned, no matter the price point, have done something like that after a year.
> 
> DEEP BREATH...
> 
> Chlorine bleach should be avoided if possible. If you must, use non-chlorine bleach. Not only is it easier on the fabric and colour of your clothes, it's easier on the environment. Oxi-Clean is another good alternative.


Thanks!


----------



## brussell (Jun 15, 2005)

arkirshner said:


> I think Jovan is right about the dye lots. Actually processed cotton is dyed white. As the shirt collar was nodoubt cut from a different dye lot than the shirt and then sewn on it seems that the white dye in the fabric of the collar washed out whereas the dye in the shirt body did not.


Thanks!


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Titus_A said:


> Without reading the court filings it's hard to tell, but I think GM's argument is rather poorly recounted in the article. GM is probably not saying that it's not the same company (the way that whoever bought up Circuit City's assets is not Circuit City): that's an absurdly false argument.


Actually, I _think_ that's true. GM's assets (some of them, anyway) were bought by a newly formed corporation in a 363 sale.


----------

