Baers Furniture Company, Inc. Paid Baer's $3K for Futura Leather Furniture That The Color Wears Off Of Within The First 2 Months! Boca Raton Florida

I purchased a leather sofa, loveseat and recliner from Baer’s Furniture in March 2014. Within the first two months (beginning of May 2014) the coloring of the leather started rubbing off of the headrest on the recliner.  A May 30, 2014, a technician was sent out to "repaint" the leather.  By the beginning of August 2014, the leather once again began rubbing off on the headrest and now was rubbing off of both arms and a spot on the leg rest as well.  I began calling the West Melbourne Baer’s on August 7, 2014 and sent a letter as well. 

Another technician was sent out and Baer’s subsequently delivered a new recliner on September 30, 2014.  By September 2015, substantial degradation of the coloring of the recliner leather was occurring on the headrest, both arms and the leg rest.  Color is also rubbing off of most seams on the sofa and loveseat as well as on one arm of the sofa.  The sofa and loveseat are used about 75% less than the recliner and that is why the color is rubbing off at a slower pace.   I called Baer’s Furniture again in October 2015 and a technician was again sent out to evaluate my problem. 

The technician was sent out in late November 2015.  Baer’s now wanted to replace multiple panels of the damaged leather.  This is unacceptable to me.   I paid Baer’s Furniture a total of $3000 for this leather furniture for which the color of the leather consistently wears off.  It is not acceptable to me to continue to have the furniture repaired or replaced every six months..  I have two other leather couches in my home, both for more than five years, and neither of them has similar problems or any problems at all for that matter.

Since I incurred the same problem twice with this furniture within one year of purchase and continue to have the same problems in less than two years, this furniture set falls under the federal lemon law, the Magnusom-Moss Warranty Act.   It is also covered by the Uniform Commercial Code’s  “Implied Warranty of Merchantablity”.  Accordingly, I contest that I am entitled to have my money refunded; however, I am willing to accept a store credit for the total of my Baer’s purchase towards purchase of furniture from another manufacturer.

After filing a complaint with the BBB with the information above, Baer's declined to provide a refund or store credit due to the fact that my third complaint was now outside the 1 year warranty period.  My response, which Baer's failed to address is as follows:

I am greatly disappointed by Baer’s position to deny responsibility instead of doing what’s right for the customer.  Baer’s denial of my third claim for the furniture’s “faulty dye issues” due to the fact that it was outside of its “one year warranty period” totally ignores that a claim for this latent dye defect was first made a mere three months after the original purchase of the furniture when the faulty dye repair was authorized by Baer’s for the recliner under warranty.  It further ignores that a second, more extensive dye problem, coupled by a mechanical failure of the recliner, claim was also submitted within the first year of initial purchase when Baer’s authorized total replacement of the recliner under warranty. 

The third claim was for the most prolific and extensive dye defects and did not originate outside of the warranty period as they didn’t merely appear overnight; they became more significant over the passage of time.  It was merely a “latent” defect.  It should also be emphasized that the third claim did occur within the one-year period of the delivery of the new replacement recliner further reinforcing my position that this furniture has the same continual dye defects and therefore falls under the “Lemon Law” definition. 

The defective dye issue also extends to the loveseat and couch where virtually all of the seams of the seating portions of the leather (covering about a dozen areas) is “rubbing off”.  Baer’s sent out a service technician who was authorized to repair and/or replace the damaged leather under my third claim, but then states it was “outside the warranty period” when I asked for a store credit for a different brand of furniture (for obvious defect reasons) or a full refund instead of additional repairs, which would then have to be repeated in the future as the brief history of the furniture substantiates.

This is my last submission through the BBB to obtain a “full” refund or “full” store credit for the recliner, loveseat and couch.  I do not wish to continue with multiple annual repairs.  Additionally, the furniture is covered under a 5-year extended warranty under which I am sure the insurer will take exception to the need for multiple annual repairs and/or replacement of the furniture’s due to the chronic leather dye defects.  

I believe I have sufficient proof of recurring defective furniture leather dyes as substantiated by documentation, pictures and proof of warranty repairs and replacements to pursue a lawsuit for breach of contract in small claims court under the Magnusom-Moss Warranty Act.   The act covers new furniture purchased from a manufacture or retailer valued over $15 with a warranty and its remedies include repair and replacement of a product purchased for personal use with a defect in a reasonable amount of time (the stated statute of limitations under the act is four years from the date of purchase) and if refused, then the consumer has standing to file a claim for breach of contract where he/she is permitted to seek not only replacement of the product, but compensation for expenses associated with the issue including legal fees.