Thanks for this excellent link. As you say, very informative and pertinent to my query, especially regarding the crucial difference between brands as to thickness of the enamel layer. The same website re Chasseur cookware says “Careful production techniques assure the perfect gauge on every piece, and enamel is applied by hand for every pan.”
Ah. So, humans being what they are, regardless of quality control it is at least possible that errors may sometimes occur.
I would forgive them the use of “French Oven”. Wikipedia tells us that a Dutch oven (ie. like a camp oven) is seasoned cast iron. A French oven is similar, but enamelled. Casserole is, after all, a French term.
Would anyone like to respond to my earlier global query: how is a consumer supposed to be able to respond to a manufacturer’s assertion of misuse, as a grounds for nullifying a complaint? What is the value of a warranty (of Xx years, or Lifetime) when there is a get-out clause about misuse that is determined by the manufacturer? Should consumers be alerted to this?
It seems to me, whether applicable to cookware or other goods, that consumers are in a no-win position, even if blameless, because the failure of the product is deemed by the manufacturer to demonstrate the misuse that voids their responsibility. I reiterate my question: has anyone ever successfully faulty cookware, and been recompensed?
There are the possible steps of getting some legal advice about what steps are possible, another often combined with seeking legal advice is taking action in the Civil and Administrative Tribunals in States and Territories or their Magistrate Courts of some States. There is a cost of taking further action and this may be included in the costs being sought in the legal action undertaken by the Consumer. Just like any legal action there is a risk of losing, so careful preparation and research is of paramount importance.
It is challenging and made almost impossible if the condition of a product indicates that there is a possibility of misuse. This creates doubt to how the product may have been used. Where there is doubt, this reduces likelihood of success, even if one believes a product hasn’t been misused.
The condition of a product at point of failure is all anyone assessing whether misuse has potentially occurred can use.
The only way to respond is to have a product in a condition where it doesn’t look like misuse occurred and to do research to demonstrate that the fault is common as appears to be a problem with the batch of product made. In the case of your dutch oven, if there were large number of reports of similar failure of the enamel from others who believe that the product, bought around the same time as yours, was only used in accordance with the manufacturers guide, then this can support any warranty claim.
The reason misuse conditions are there is to protect the manufacturer from warranty claims which aren’t the fault of the product, but caused by the user. The Australian Consumer Law also recognises misuse as an exception to the Australian consumer guarantee. Such conditions are lawful.
Other conditions which can be exemptions include ‘not for commercial use’, 'specific servicing requirements (such as cars) or specific operating conditions.
It isn’t only the manufacturer which can determine if misuse or failure occurred with fair use, such as outlined by @grahroll. Experts in relevant fields can also provide their expert opinion on the cause of a fault. Condition of a product at failure will be a significant determining factor in their opinion/advice. This is particularly the case for a product like a dutch oven as there isn’t a replaceable component which led to the failure (such as a water pump in a washing machine).
For less expensive products, the cost if obtaining information or advice can be more than the replacement cost if the product…and may produce the desired outcome… opinion that the product is faulty.
Another point to make is one should make a warranty claim as soon as a fault is identifed…and to not to continue to use the product. Continuing to use a faulty product may result in further avoidable damage and make it harder to succeed in a warranty claim. The additional damage could be seen as misuse as a reasonable person would have expected more damage could have occurred from ongoing use. This is particularly the case for repairable faults, the fault is easily noticeable and the product continues to work with the fault.
I have both enamel and non enamel plus a quality stainless steel larger fry pan. I am of the insistence i prefer the coating ot stainless steel but like the idea of my lodge non coated pot. I can’t say my chassur hasxany major issues except heat marks which seem to be hard to not retain because of the heat. I remember dropping another one which cracked due to careless nature. Non enamel basins cqn be better once you have season as it has a excellent coating.
