Shiny, pilled and shrunken cushion covers invoiced as 100% cotton
Three weeks after delivery, 40 of 300 cushion covers come back from a hotel buyer. The invoice describes them as '100% cotton, 40s x 40s, 120 gsm'. The returns show four things: the covers have shrunk about 6 cm across a 45 cm width; the areas that were pressed have gone stiff and shiny; the surface has hard, tight pills; and the colour looks duller than the retained sample. The hotel laundry says it washed at 60 C and pressed with a steam iron set to 'cotton', about 200 C. A burn test on a yarn pulled from a returned cover melts, forms a hard black bead, gives a faint sweet chemical smell and leaves no soft grey ash; a control cotton yarn burns with a yellow flame, smells of burning paper and leaves grey ash. The unit paid Rs 95 per cover, while a genuine 120 gsm cotton cover of the same size costs about Rs 120.
1. Interpret the burn test together with the four symptoms, state the most likely composition, and say what further testing you would obtain before writing to the supplier.
Read the worked answer
Burn test: a fibre that melts, draws away from the flame, forms a hard black bead and smells sweet/chemical is a thermoplastic - polyester. Cotton does not melt; it burns like paper, smells of burning paper and leaves soft grey ash, exactly as the control did. On its own a burn test only tells you the dominant fibre, so it has to be read with the symptoms.
Symptoms, read together:
- Shine and stiffness after pressing: polyester softens and glazes well below a cotton iron setting, so pressing at about 200 C produces permanent shine. Cotton scorches and browns, it does not glaze.
- Hard, tight pills: strong, smooth synthetic fibres migrate to the surface and the pills are anchored firmly instead of breaking off, which is typical of polyester-rich blends.
- Shrinkage of 6 cm in 45 cm, about 13%: far beyond what a sanforized cotton shows, and consistent with heat shrinkage of a synthetic in a 60 C wash and a hot iron.
- Duller colour: heat-glazed, glazed surfaces scatter light differently.
Most likely composition: a polyester-rich blend or 100% polyester, mislabelled as cotton - the 25% price gap against genuine cotton supports this.
Further testing before any letter is sent: qualitative and quantitative fibre analysis at an NABL-accredited laboratory - microscopic examination (polyester is a smooth rod with no convolution), solubility (cotton dissolves in 70% sulphuric acid, polyester resists it; polyester dissolves in hot meta-cresol), and FTIR if the blend ratio is disputed. Also ask for dimensional change after washing to the relevant ISO 6330 procedure, plus colourfastness to washing and rubbing.
2. How would you handle the claim commercially, given the price that was paid?
Read the worked answer
Build the evidence pack first. Sealed returned samples, a sealed retained reference sample from the same lot, the invoice and purchase order, photographs of the shine and pills, the laundry's wash and iron record, and the accredited laboratory report. Do not accuse the supplier on the strength of a burn test alone.
Check what was actually contracted. If the purchase order specified 100% cotton at 120 gsm with a test report, the supplier is in breach and the remedy is clear. If the order only said 'cotton-feel covers', the unit's own specification was weak and the claim is much harder - that lesson goes into the next order.
Quantify, do not just complain. Forty covers have come back, but all 300 are from the same lot and the same fault will appear in the other 260 under the same washing, so the exposure is the whole lot, not 40 pieces.
Reasonable remedy: replacement with genuine cotton covers at the supplier's cost, or a credit. The Rs 25 per piece price gap (Rs 95 paid against Rs 120 for true cotton) is a fair measure of the material saving the supplier made, so at minimum claim that differential plus freight on the returns; for the full lot, ask for replacement or full credit. Note that the hotel washed and pressed as a cotton cover should be treated, so liability does not sit with the buyer. Put the claim in writing within the agreed claim window and keep the rejected stock quarantined until it is settled.
3. Write the purchase specification clauses you would add so that this cannot recur.
Read the worked answer
- Fibre composition: '100% cotton, to be verified by quantitative analysis; no tolerance on the declared composition; test method and laboratory to be stated on the report.'
- Fabric particulars: 40s x 40s, 120 gsm with a tolerance of plus or minus 5%, minimum width, and the shade to be matched to the approved sample under a specified light source.
- Dimensional stability: shrinkage not more than 3% in warp and weft after three washes at 40 C by the stated ISO procedure; the report must come from the production lot, not a development sample.
- Pilling: minimum grade 4 on the agreed scale after the standard test.
- Colourfastness: to washing and to rubbing at least 4-5, to light at least 5.
- Sampling and testing: a pre-shipment test report from an NABL-accredited laboratory, at the supplier's cost, for every lot; the buyer may draw random samples and test independently.
- Care label: wording and fibre content to be approved in writing, with correct symbols.
- Remedy clause: non-conforming composition or shrinkage entitles the buyer to reject the lot, claim replacement or full credit, and recover testing and freight costs. A specification without a test method, a tolerance and a remedy clause is only a description, not a contract term.