I purchased a piece of luggage from XXXX and the XXXX use of the new luggage resulted in the luggage being damaged. It was a large hard-sided shell and the shell was cracked beyond repair along with XXXX of the wheels being pushed up into the luggage to where it was unstable. I took the luggage to a XXXX authorized repair facility and they stated that it was damaged beyond repair and that it would not be covered by the XXXX warranty. The XXXX Warranty only covers manufacturing defects or damage and states it does not cover airline mishandling. I called XXXX to resolve the issue because this was the first use of their product and I believe they have a manufacturing defect in that they have not designed the luggage to withstand well know rough handling within the industry for which their product is designed to be used. This to me is an implied use warranty. XXXX refuses to credit my card, although they have sent an email indicating that if I want to send the damaged luggage back to them that they will re-evaluate my claim, but the luggage must be sent at my expense and for which I will NOT be reimbursed, even if they ultimately agree that the damage should be covered. I have gone to XXXX and USPS for shipping estimates and due to the large size of the luggage, it will cost me a minimum of {$60.00} to ship it to them for their evaluation. I then contacted my bank to open a dispute to have the amount credited back to my debit account, and the bank BMO Harris, has refused to do anything. Their position is that because the issue is not involving fraud, that I had no dispute that they could assist me in curing. I do not understand this policy as there is no other recourse for me to attempt to recoup my money without having to prove the airlines mis-handled the luggage, which THEY will require me to prove. This is extremely frustrating, and I would like to complain about the refusal of the bank to attempt to resolve this dispute for which their access device was used, as well as I 'd like to complain that XXXX can not simply disregard the fact that their product is not manufactured to withstand known aggressive handling within the industry for which their product is primarily intended to be used. 
