Cracked For Life...!!! Help

[jocoxVT]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9586209#post9586209 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dannieboiz
You obviously need to learn how to read. Another way of saying that would be "That is the problem, Manderx" :lol:

My apologies that my reading comprehension isnt up to your standards I guess I would have assumed it that was the point he was tyring to get across he would have used a comma

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9586209#post9586209 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dannieboiz
Read again from the beginning, obviously there is no sign of banging or anything hitting on the tank.

I understand what you are saying but look at it from the manufactures perspective how do they know this. If you believe everything you read you have bigger issues. Professional scepticism

 

[dannieboiz]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9586390#post9586390 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jocoxVT
My apologies that my reading comprehension isnt up to your standards I guess I would have assumed it that was the point he was tyring to get across he would have used a comma



I understand what you are saying but look at it from the manufactures perspective how do they know this. If you believe everything you read you have bigger issues. Professional scepticism

Did you missed the part when CLR stood there and look at the tank and scratched their heads trying to figure out why (after looking at the tank up close and did not find any sign of impact)

 

[jocoxVT]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9586505#post9586505 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dannieboiz
Did you missed the part when CLR stood there and look at the tank and scratched their heads trying to figure out why (after looking at the tank up close and did not find any sign of impact)

Great grammar for someone who like to make fun of my reading comprehension

Fine there may not be impact but that doesnt rule out foul play does it? Look I am not going to sit here and chose side (eventhough it obviously looks like I am taking the side of the manufacturer) but I feel that you can't just sit and put all of the blame on the manufacturer when they specifically said they would test it. Yes we all sympahtize with this persons situation but I also see where the manufacturer is coming from.

 

[manderx]

Did you missed the part when CLR stood there and look at the tank and scratched their heads trying to figure out why (after looking at the tank up close and did not find any sign of impact)

i saw the poster say that, but i did not see CFL say that. this is what i saw them say.

In over 20 years, and thousands of aquariums manufactured, we have seen these ‘star fractures’ dozens of times. Not once have we ever seen them cause by anything other than an impact.

just because it's not chipped doesn't mean it wasn't impact. i could very easily have happened when and if they wrapped it with a blanket and transported it. impacts through padding would not leave a mark but could still crack it. i see this as *by far* the most likely scenario, and is why i specifically asked the OP questions pertaining this, but never heard anything back.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I agree with Manderx here in that the Zippo scenario is a poor comparison And I would say that your logical reasoning may be somewhat suspect.

It was not to be a direct comparison, rather it was just an example of another way of doing business. Honestly... this entire conversation is pointless. You guys are digging into this way to deep when all you need to know is right on the surface.

Also please READ what I posted and you will notice that I mentioned Oceans Motions as another example if a company that fully stands behind their product. There are many companies that sell products under the same pretext as CFL, but stand behind the product instead of the fine print. THAT WAS THE POINT. NOT THE COST OF A ZIPPO.

 

[BeanAnimal]

What is the end of this suppose to mean (THAT MANDERX IS THE PROBLEM). I would say that your reading comprehension may be suspect. Yes, I left out a comma, but when the sentace is viewed in context the meaning is rather clear and the missing comma is obvious.

At this point it is obvious that your intentions are only to troll, not further the content of the thread. Go figure?

 

[Pyrrhus]

I think everyone can agree that the tank in question is beyond repair and not going to be put back into service in its current condition. Why not allow a sample of material to be taken? Nothing would be lost, you still have a tank that you cannot fill or use.

If the manufacturer wants to take a sample of the material and have it tested for chemicals prior to honoring their warranty that is certainly their prerogative, and quite responsible if they even remotely think that chemical exposure is the cause.

If the manufacturer cannot determine what caused this issue how will they prevent it in the future? What damage would be done by taking a sample of the material? The tank cannot be used in its current condition. If the acrylic tests positive for chemical exposure then the entire debate/conversation we have had here is moot, as it is not a warranty issue under any circumstances. If it tests negative for chemical exposure and no source of impact is apparent then the OP would get his new tank.

I do not believe that CFL at any point said they would not honor the warranty. What they have said is they want to test the material of the failing tank for chemical exposure. If the owner of the aquarium refused to allow the builder to do this it is certainly the builders right to refuse the warranty.

 

[jocoxVT]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9586652#post9586652 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
I agree with Manderx here in that the Zippo scenario is a poor comparison And I would say that your logical reasoning may be somewhat suspect.

It was not to be a direct comparison, rather it was just an example of another way of doing business. Honestly... this entire conversation is pointless. You guys are digging into this way to deep when all you need to know is right on the surface.

Then I will stand by my suspect logical reasoning that it is much easier to honor a warranty on something like a lighter which cost pennies to an aquarium.

My apologies for digging into this to deep, my profession requires me to look at thing for more then what is "right on the surface". Alot of times whats "right on the surface" isnt what truly happened.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Then how can you even have an opinion on this topic? You are going only be hear say? Yes we all want to sympathize with the customer but at the same time you cannot discredit some of Manderx comments then. He simply stated that this could be a result of misuse by the customer (hence the chainsaw scenario - yes a severe scenario but a scenario none the less - even if it was that the customer left it out and rocks got kicked up in it by his car pulling in and out of the garage that in my mind owuld be dishonest tactics on the customers part to be now trying to get a new tank under warranty).

No I am convinced that you have no idea what you are reading and instead are just trolling. The comments you responded were my general feelings about dishonest people, not the OP or CFL.

You may want to try to keep your comments in context next time you try to attack (or defend) somebody. As it stands you very obviously have not read or followed this thread and instead have jumped in blindfolded with both feet.

Once again, who cares if it was misuse or not... the point is that that the warranty was denied for many OTHER reasons (fine print). I do not know how much clearer this can be illustrated.

 

[douglaslindsey]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9584824#post9584824 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
That is absolutely beside the point. That is the problem here, a lot of you are missing the big picture and instead are getting caught up in all kinds of tangent details.

Those details should come LATER. The problem is that the manufacturer started disclaiming and pointing fingers from the moment the claim was made.

We only had the OPs side of the story to start with, but when the manufacturer posted here, they discredited themselves with almost everything they said.

To answer your first question:
Of course a company should not have to cover USER INFLICTED damage that is outside of the scope of reasonable use. Again I suggest you do some warranty law research. To even suggest that I think or advocate anything else is nonsense.

No I did not miss it. It was frankly stupid and a tangent to the point here. You still do not see that do you? Instead of talking about the company, the process, the sales pitch, and the actions of the company when confronted, you are confusing the issue with things that have no bearing on where the problem is at. Why muddy the waters with stuff like that?

If it is USER ABUSE, then the manufacturer will need to show that. Again I suggest you read up on warranty law. Again, you miss the big picture. I do not need to see the tank. I saw the type of cracks. I saw the response from the vendor. They do not match PERIOD. You telling me I posted something unrelated? That is kind of funny! It was simply an example of a company that wrote a "Lifetime Warranty" and has never breached it. If you do not see how it is related... then I understand why you are not able to see the big picture here. Your to busy fussing about chainsaws and thiefs. Step back and look at the big picture.... It has nothing to do with materials cost and everything to do with customer service and attitude.

I am done with this portion of the conversation. I have stated my case clearly several times. The manufacturer is clearly NOT standing behind their sales pitch, that is where my problem lies. The manufacturer is clearly hiding behind fine print and an attempt to discredit the client with very poor arguements. Did the OP attack the company.... sure he did. That does not mean that the company should attack back THAT MANDERX IS THE PROBLEM.

I suggest you read their response a few more times and put it in perspective.

So we are 100% clear. I detest people that game the system and use warranty law or dishonest tacticts to fleece honest companies. I detest frivolous claims and litigation and the mush minded people who participate in the act of promoting them. I also detest companies who do not stand behind their products and instead stand behind fine print and legal council. The world is full of people and companies like that and it makes me sick. I do honest business and stand behind my work. I end up on the short end of the stick because of CLIENTS and VENDORS who act like that.

I fully agree with Beans outlook. People need to see the "Big Picture". CFL should stand behind their warrantees. If not then that would be false advertising”. Unfortunately in today’s business world many companies do not stand behind their words. IMO If his tank doesn’t look like he dragged it down the road with a truck, or took a sledge hammer to it; they should replace it with out question. I mean what is he suppose to do? Wait until it brakes open in his house, wasting away all of his live stock and damaging other equipment little alone his house itself? Because CFL has posted their remarks here â€"œ to the public - their reactions on this matter, we all know the truth on ALL of their products now. They don’t back them up… That is the bottom line... And yes we all have a right to state our own opinions no matter if it is right, wrong, true or false. This is a free country still I thought. :bum:

 

[Pyrrhus]

I also would be interested in knowing how the top of the aquarium was modified. If it was a simple rough cut hole for a bulkhead etc. no biggie. However, if the perimeter/centerbraces were cut into, this could certainly change the way stress is loaded onto the acrylic panels possibly causing the damage.

 

[jocoxVT]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9586670#post9586670 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
What is the end of this suppose to mean (THAT MANDERX IS THE PROBLEM). I would say that your reading comprehension may be suspect. Yes, I left out a comma but that when the sentace in viewed in context the meaning is rather clear and the missing comma is obvious.

At this point it is obvious that your intentions are only to troll, not further the content of the thread. Go figure?

Sorry I misread your post, what do you want me to say? I will admit my mistake and now when reading it, it does make sense. But to say I only came on here to troll is pretty disrespectful, how am I trolling? Just b/c someone doesnt agree with your opinion doesnt mean that they are a troll. Grow up this isnt the first time nor will it be the last that someone misinterprets something that was written on a internet message board!

 

[BeanAnimal]

My apologies that my reading comprehension isnt up to your standards I guess I would have assumed it that was the point he was tyring to get across he would have used a comma Honestly, if you do not read in context, how can you comment?

I understand what you are saying but look at it from the manufactures perspective how do they know this. If you believe everything you read you have bigger issues. Professional scepticism
It does not matter. The "deal went south" before this was an issue. Please read the manufacturers post again. It is VERY obvious that they have no intention of backing this up, no matter what the problem is, short of a failed seam. Even then, I would be willing to bet they would try to blame it on customer misuse and say "our workmanship does not appear to be the problem, all of the other seams are intact and we have never had a seam fail before". Why do I say this? Read their post a few more times and compare it to the sales pitch. They outright attacked a customer in a public forum and used straw arguements to try to discredit the customer. What else do you need?

The customer may be an outright lier and trying to get a free tank from a junker he picked up at the pawn shop. That is not what the manufacturer is saying... read their post again and then read their website sales pitch and warranty. THEY DO NOT MATCH! PERIOD!

 

[jocoxVT]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9586740#post9586740 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
My apologies that my reading comprehension isnt up to your standards I guess I would have assumed it that was the point he was tyring to get across he would have used a comma Honestly, if you do not read in context, how can you comment?

Why are you still bringing this up? I apologized for my mistake and admitted that what else do you want me to say?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9586740#post9586740 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Then how can you even have an opinion on this topic? You are going only be hear say? Yes we all want to sympathize with the customer but at the same time you cannot discredit some of Manderx comments then. He simply stated that this could be a result of misuse by the customer (hence the chainsaw scenario - yes a severe scenario but a scenario none the less - even if it was that the customer left it out and rocks got kicked up in it by his car pulling in and out of the garage that in my mind owuld be dishonest tactics on the customers part to be now trying to get a new tank under warranty).

No I am convinced that you have no idea what you are reading and instead are just trolling. The comments you responded were my general feelings about dishonest people, not the OP or CFL.

You may want to try to keep your comments in context next time you try to attack (or defend) somebody. As it stands you very obviously have not read or followed this thread and instead have jumped in blindfolded with both feet.

Once again, who cares if it was misuse or not... the point is that that the warranty was denied for many OTHER reasons (fine print). I do not know how much clearer this can be illustrated.

I am done with this thread. Obviously my opinion holds no value to the all-mighty Bean Animal and therefore since I disagree I am just a troll. Open your eyes Bean there are other opinions out there, just b/c you dont agree with them doesnt mean they cant be held.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9586778#post9586778 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jocoxVT
Sorry I misread your post, what do you want me to say? I will admit my mistake and now when reading it, it does make sense. But to say I only came on here to troll is pretty disrespectful, how am I trolling? Just b/c someone doesnt agree with your opinion doesnt mean that they are a troll. Grow up this isnt the first time nor will it be the last that someone misinterprets something that was written on a internet message board!

Whatever... you posted 3 comments in one thread and all 3 were out of context and in a negative tone towards me. I simply pointed that out and have asked you to please at least keep your arguments in context, especially if they are directed towards me. Of course people have the right to disagree with an opinion, mine included.

 

[BeanAnimal]

but I feel that you can't just sit and put all of the blame on the manufacturer when they specifically said they would test it. Think about it... what if they do test it and the material is bad? They already made it VERY CLEAR that they will not cover bad material, only workmanship and ONLY If the tank is leaking AND ONLY if the OP sent in a warranty card (not required BY LAW) AND only with an original sales receipt is produced AND only if the client can prove he did not abuse the tank, and only if...

You guys are arguing about who or what did the damage, when at this point it does not matter.

This whole thing is absurd.

 

[BeanAnimal]

If it tests negative for chemical exposure and no source of impact is apparent then the OP would get his new tank. You really think so? Read the manufacturers post again

Let me put this another way. I have NEVER seen or heard of a company backtracking after first denying a warranty claim in the manner that CFL has. If they were serious about finding the real truth and helping the customer of it WAS a valid claim, they would have approached the entire problem in a differnt manner.

They have taken the obvious route of denial from every perspective possible to ensure that they do not have to replace the tank. Very similar to how your vendor refused to play ball when YOU and the CUSTOMER both knew that the brace damage was the manufacturers fault, not that of a MH.

A Local reefer had the same problem with a brand new tank (I will find out the name of the company if I can). The manufacturer refused to even entertain the notion that they made a mistake. The only way they would even consider talking about the problem was if the tank was drained and shipped back at the buyers cost (both ways).

Bean

 

[douglaslindsey]

DON'T TELL ME THAT "LEE MAR" isn't backing up their tanks also! I was thinking of buying their 72x30x24 240g tank soon.

 

[Pyrrhus]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9538132#post9538132 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AdvanceAquaTank
We have offered to remove a small section of the top and have it analyzed, at our expense to determine the exact nature of the failure. This would not affect the structural integrity of the aquarium. The customer has refused to allow us to do this.

We have offered to replace the end panel, and provide the customer with a separate sample of the defect to have it analyzed independently. Also, at our cost. This has been refused as well.

This customer has stated that he wants a new aquarium, and that is all. Judging by the current condition of the aquarium in question, we cannot do this without further investigation. Again, we have not been allowed this opportunity.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9538132#post9538132 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AdvanceAquaTank
Honestly, we want to find the true cause of the problem this customer is experiencing. We are aquarium people, and this is our business. But we feel we are being cast in a negative light, merely because we are following normal procedures to find the true cause of the problem.

We hope everyone reading this can approach this situation fairly, and we hope our customers will let us come to a conclusion that is fair to both parties involved.

Thank you for your time.

Best Regards,
Advance Aqua Tanks

Certainly sounds like that.

 

[douglaslindsey]

So who makes a good Glass tank now days and backs them up “TRUTHFULYLY” with their warranties and not a lot of BS?