District Court directs free dishwasher repair after buyer seeks refund over wet dishes

The District Court directed Harborline Appliance LLC to provide a full service and repair of Leah Mercer’s dishwasher at no charge. Mercer had sought to return the machine in exchange for the $1,249 purchase price and $180 installation charge, subject to any deduction the court considered appropriate for her use.

Presiding judge Arsal did not order a refund. The judgment instead found both parties at fault, saying neither had adequate information about the product and they had not discussed a refund when it was sold.

The judgment’s stated reasons were brief. It did not explain what information each party lacked, determine whether the dishwasher had a continuing defect or say why free service and repair was the appropriate remedy.

The evidence described by the parties presented a tension over what the service visits established. Harborline said a technician corrected a kinked drain hose and a later test showed normal heating and drainage. But it acknowledged that the later test was run empty, with no recorded test of whether a full load dried.

Mercer said a heated-cycle load remained wet the day after the hose was corrected. She identified dated photographs of wet dishes and the tub as evidence, while acknowledging that the photographs did not independently show which cycle she had used.

Mercer said Harborline’s salesperson assured her the dishwasher would dry a full load without hand-drying. She said the problem began in the first week and continued after two service visits, including when she used the recommended heated cycle.

Harborline disputed that its representative promised every item would emerge completely dry and denied that a continuing defect warranted a full refund. It said it had offered another inspection or a $300 store credit.

Mercer acknowledged that she sometimes used a short cycle and continued using the dishwasher because she had no replacement. She said she had no recording of the salesperson’s assurance.

Harborline said its available records showed two service visits and a refund request after the second, but did not show the exact installation date, service dates or date of Mercer’s first complaint. Mercer said she raised the wet-dish problem at the first visit.

Neither party could establish from the information available whether a refund policy applied. The judge also advised Mercer to discuss matters clearly when purchasing goods; the judgment did not address what would happen if the ordered service and repair failed to resolve the problem.