I am not qualified to give legal advice nor should this be regarded as legal advice. As far as I understand the position........

Disclaimers such as the one quoted in previous post are a problem and any that purport to disclaim legal responsibility for ......whatever......might be treated with disdain by a court. (As an aside disclaimers which deny management responsiblity for injury or death as I saw at one folk festival, are in themselves illegal).

The Sale of Goods and Services Act applies to a contract between the seller (now out of business in this case) and the purchaser. It does not AFAIK apply to the manufacturer unless you bought directly from them and they were in effect the seller.

It is often an excuse given by shops that they will send it back to the manufacturer. That is their problem - your contract is with the shop and it is to the shop that you should seek remedies. A shop which no longer exists of course in this case.

Having said that I am not surprised at Martin's attitude. If the guitar was not stored properly at some time in its life after it left them in perfect condition why should they be liable? Hard to prove it either way I would have thought. If the person who sold it has gone out of business it is hardly surprising if that is the way they treated Martin guitars.

In UK law the manufacturer would be liable under the civil action of tort - if the guitar had (for example) spontaneously exploded and caused damage to someone. The famous case of Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 - the snail in the ginger beer bottle - would apply IFit was a GB manufacturer.

Sorry this is not of much encouragement.

Best regards

Dave Eyre