You're right Al, it was "materials and manufacturing defects."
Just realized that it might well have been different at that time so was more curious than anything else.
Only asked because after 10+ years of observation it's been sinking in that there's
very few things that
didn't change with Guild over the curse, er,
course, of time.
So, yeah, I'd have a hard time claiming warranty on my old D-25M after 43 years...LOL
"In my humble opinion" the only reason it's no longer valid is because Guild's had so many changes of ownership over those 43 years.
If it was mine and Avnet (or whoever it was in '76) still owned 'em, I'd fully expect something like a loose brace or the fretboard separating from the neck to be fully covered.
I'd fully expect my F65ce's bridge lift to be covered if Fender still owned 'em, the authorized repair center had already confirmed it was definitely eligible for warranty repair after inspecting for signs of owner neglect or abuse.
The complication was in the possible need for finish touch-up subsequent to the repair, they couldn't do that in CA at the time, would have had to send it somewhere else and there was no factory repair available at that time (early New Hartford era) so suggested simply monitoring the lift.
Maybe they mean "our warranty is limited to a lifetime of one year."
Yeah, exactly what I was getting at, although Frono thinks a good lawyer could rip that up, citing a sizable body of case law where that exact issue has been contested.
It also occurred to me that another reason for using the term "limited" was in cases where the maker explicitly rules out liability for
consequential damages resulting from use of their product.
Something like: "If the oven breaks while cooking and your roast is ruined, we're not liable for the cost of the roast."
Even though that's not the case here.
I agree with you, seems like 2 years is an unreasonably short lifetime for what I assume is equivalent to the paint job on the case.
I wonder, if you pushed on it, if Fishman would work with you simply for the sake of good customer relations?
I've done it with my customers, in terms of replacing paper that I believed wasn't "misused" by a customer or for which I believed the manufacturer had truly misrepresented the capabilities, even if unintentionally.
The fact that a new Guild chose to honor some warranty claims says good things about the new Guild but we must remember that they chose to honor the warranty but nothing in the public record concerning corporate sale or reorganization says they were required to honor the warranty.
A fine point regarding the sale to Cordoba specifically:
I absolutely recall at least one statement here that Cordoba would honor the warranty on New Hartford-built instruments, to the original owner who purchased it from an authorized dealer.
At the very least it answered the question of warranty on sales of existing dealer inventory of New Hartford product while the sale was in "escrow", so to speak..
Seem to recall it was a formal statement from them quoted by a highly credible source, or else "hearsay" from same, but the point is that in this case the specific issue of how much warranty liability Cordoba was assuming
was addressed.
And I believe that was a reasonable enough undertaking on their part, to limit it to New Hartford production.
I'm guessing that was a condition that was part of the formal terms of sale since it also would clearly spell out that Fender no longer had any warranty liability for
anything built under their ownership, and that Cordoba
was in fact assuming a
specific part of Fender's as part of the sale.
Whether it's something readily visible in the public record, I couldn't say.
Either way it leaves guys like me out in the lurch, at the mercy of Cordoba's good will (or lack thereof).