In reply to Paul Atkinson:
> I would expect to be able to stick the spike of a T rated tool in a crack and haul/stand close in on the shaft without deforming the spike
FWIW, the UIAA standard tests the strength of the shaft, not the spike - see the diagrams of the testing method here:
http://www.theuiaa.org/upload_area/Safety/Standards/Safety-Standards-Pictor...
> and this to me would be one of the criteria that distinguished a technical tool from a walking axe.
My 60cm, straight-shafted walking axe has a T-rated shaft but that doesn't make it a technical axe.
In reply to TRip:
> an import safety component of my axe malfunctioned the second time I used it.
I think this statement is stretching your argument somewhat. To call the spike "an important safety component" is over-egging it rather IMO. By that logic, the Petzl Nomic is inherently unsafe, since it doesn't have a spike at all. The spike isn't used in arrest. I'd say that it's a functional rather than a safety component. And to say it "malfunctioned" also strikes me as being rather wide of the mark. A five degree bend doesn't sound like it would make any significant difference to the functionality of the spike, and you say yourself that you didn't even notice the bend while you were using the axe.
> If the spike at the bottom of the axe bends easily, who is to say that the pick, shaft, or headset isn't going to be defective as well.
Now that is a valid point - much more so than the previous points in your argument. Your confidence in the overall capability of the axe has been undermined by it sustaining an unexpected degree of damage from what you consider to have been moderate use.
However, the distributor has examined the axe and told you that the damage is not the result of a manufacturing or design fault. So your choices now seem to be:
a) As you proposed, have the axe examined by an independent body ie challenge the technical accuracy of the distributor's assessment, or
b) Ignore the technical accuracy issue and appeal to the distributor or the retailer on the basis of your loss of confidence in the axe, that manufacturer's products as a whole etc etc.
It's also important to bear in mind that, assuming that you bought the axe in the UK, the Sale of Goods Act means that your contract is with the retailer, not the distributor. The distributor's involvement is solely to help the retailer to determine whether the product was fit for purpose when sold, and so far they have said that it was. Of course, if the distributor agreed that the product was faulty then the retailer would expect the distributor to reimburse them for replacing your axe, but that doesn't alter the relationships between the various parties in law. Yes, some distributors will intervene to resolve the issue directly with the customer, in order to protect their image and that of their brand, but they are not legally obliged to do so.
Ultimately it's up to the retailer to make a call on whether they refuse to replace the axe and risk losing your custom in future, or take the hit on replacing the axe without any reimbursement from the distributor. (I suppose they could always sell it on eBay as "used with minor damage"!)
If you still want to pursue the issue to the bitter end then raising an action through the Small Claims Court process is probably your easiest route in law. If the retailer decided to argue the case, rather than just settling, then you'd probably need to put forward some evidence from a qualified, independent body to counter the distributor's assessment that the retailer would put forward to support their case.