First of all I want to thank Mr. Garrett Scotti for his reply, it's always usefull to have a real "debate" and to have the point of view of as many parts as possible.
Nevertheless i wish to point your attention to some sentences taken from the first post and from the NP internet page:
With 18 hours of use on the water, the mast was clearly delivered to the customer in the correct structural condition.
If a mast breaks subsequent to this, it is likely that the failure has been caused by misadventure or mishandling and not from there being a problem with the mast construction. This is the basis on which we judge X9 mast failures and is similar to that used in other industry's that sell carbon / glass structures.
Ok that's the first part, here goes the second one:
NeilPryde warrants that this product, when it is purchased from an authorized NeilPryde dealer by a retail customer, will be free from defects in materials and workmanship for a period of six (6) months from the date of purchase by the original retail customer. This warranty is solely for the benefit of the original retail purchaser and may not be assigned.
Well, now do you really think there're no "black points" in this two statements, all clear no problems?
So you're telling your customer who has spent a consistent amount of $€ to purchase what is advertised to be the best mast of the brand that not only he have to accept the six month warranty (when for instance ALL PRODUCTS sold in European Union MUST have two YEARS warranty) but that warranty is practically reduced to a range of 18 hours of use?!?
Isn't that a little bit contra legem, against law and reliance of the customer himself?
I've no doubt you work with the best purposes, passion, professionality etc but for these reasons I'm still surprised that (now and tomorrow, not yesterday) the things stay like that..