a question about a Limited Warranty; and whether or not my expectations of service fall within or outside of said Warranty

Most modern consumer product warranties are chock-full of disclaimers and exclusions. For example, virtually all of them try to disclaim (prevent the creation of) so-called "implied in law" warranties, like the implied warranty of merchantability that would otherwise have been created by section 2.314 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code (Texas UCC), linked below. To be "merchantable" under that section, a product must be, among other things, "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." That's a pretty indefinite, broad -- and therefore pro-consumer -- standard. It would permit you to make the common-sense argument that "Hey, a product like this ought not crack in two weeks of normal use."

Texas law will enforce disclaimers of such implied warranties under section 2.316, linked below, provided that the disclaimer is written and "conspicuous." Paragraphs 4-8 of the TomTom warranty that you linked contains an attempted disclaimer of this and all other implied warranties. Arguably, however, since it's not in bold-face print, underscored, or in a larger type-face than the rest of the document, the disclaimer is not adequately conspicuous, and the implied warranty of merchantability created by section 2.314 hasn't been effectively disclaimed.

If implied warranties have indeed been effectively disclaimed, however, then your remedies are limited to the specific promises ("express warranties") the manufacturer and/or seller made about either (a) the quality of the product or (b) what they would do to make repairs or adjustments. As is typical of written consumer warranties, TomTom's limited express warranty specifically promises (expressly warrants) that your product will be "free from defects in workmanship and materials under normal use ('Defects') for a period of one (1) year from the date that the Hardware was first purchased by you ('Warranty Period')." As is also typical, however, that promise comes with a bunch of hedging language which lets them off the hook if the problem arose from "normal wear and tear," or if the problem was caused because "the Hardware [has been] opened or repaired by someone not authorized by TomTom," or if the problem is the result of "misuse, moisture, liquids, proximity or exposure to heat and accident, abuse, noncompliance with the instructions supplied with the Hardware, neglect or misapplication." And with respect to your cracked screen in particular, TomTom may rely on the disclaimer which says that its limited express warranty "does not cover physical damage to the surface of the Hardware," if they argue that the screen is part of the "surface."

Their disclaimers notwithstanding, I think you have a reasonable, common-sense argument that the screen breaking so soon -- with no abuse, no misuse, no unauthorized opening, no exposure to heat or liquids, etc." -- means that there must have been a defect in either the materials or the workmanship (including the original unit design).

You have a strong argument that whether the touchscreen is included within the meaning of "surface" is unclear, and that such an ambiguity should be construed against TomTom (if they wanted to exclude "cracked screens" from the limited warranty, in other words, they should have said so using precisely those words).

In particular, if the crack in the screen impairs the normal functioning of the unit -- such that it's not just a cosmetic problem, but one that destroys the utility of the unit for its intended purpose by either preventing you from using the touch-screen to enter instructions or from viewing the directions -- then the defect clearly isn't limited to the "surface," but extends to the inner functioning as well.

Make sure you've tried to comply with all of the instructions they give for making a warranty claim. Get it from them in writing that they're refusing to provide you with any warranty repairs or replacement of the unit.

Then (see part 2 of my answer, below):

Send TomTom a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested. Include a copy of your purchase documentation and the prior correspondence or emails you've exchanged, and describe the origin of the problem and your unsatisfactory attempts to get relief so far. State that you believe TomTom's attempted disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability is ineffective under Texas law since it's not conspicuous, and that you believe this defect constitutes a breach of that implied warranty because the unit is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. Also state that in any event, TomTom has breached its limited express warranty because this is a defect in workmanship and/or materials which arose during normal use within the first year, without abuse. Tell them that these breaches of express and implied warranties are also violations of section 17.50(a)(2) of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (linked below), and that the representations TomTom made about the characteristics, uses, and benefits of the product (i.e., that it would work) were false, misleading, and deceptive in violation of section 17.46(b)(5) of that same Act. Tell them you're going to sue them in small claims court if they haven't cured these violations by refunding your entire purchase price plus tax, plus any out of pocket expenses you've incurred, within 60 days (upon which you'll surrender the product). Offer to make the product available during that time for their inspection.

You could indeed file this as a lawsuit in small claims court before one of the Harris County Justices of the Peace, who have jurisdiction up to $10,000. But I suspect the CM/RRR letter -- and especially the references to the Texas DTPA, which permits extra damages plus attorneys fees in some circumstances -- will get their attention and they'll at least offer to replace your product.

If they do fight you in court, the dispute would probably come down to whether the JP believes you when you say you didn't abuse the unit and the crack appeared in normal use. I personally don't find that hard to believe, but you can be sure TomTom will claim that it's very familiar with this sort of problem and they inevitably are the result of consumer abuse/misuse.

But unlike you, TomTom HAS to hire a lawyer to defend it, even in small claims court. Even a win will cost it thousands of dollars, and it has no upside. From a pure economics standpoint, they'd be foolish not to try to make you satisfied if you're sufficiently serious to sue. But they may be willing to spend that much to "stand on principle." (I doubt it.)

Note: I'm assuming Texas law applies since you're a Texas resident, and I don't know whether New Mexico law is more favorable. Some states have greater restrictions, or even outright prohibitions, on manufacturers' ability to disclaim implied warranties, and I simply don't know whether New Mexico does or not. If New Mexico does not permit such disclaimers, you may want to argue that New Mexico law applies because that's where the unit was purchased.

Last observation: If you get to the point of writing the CM/RRR letter but you're not comfortable doing that on your own, or you're not comfortable with the prospect of facing TomTom's lawyer even before a pretty relaxed and common-sensical Justice of the Peace, you might consider hiring a lawyer.

The DTPA permits an aggrieved consumer to demand not only relief for the breaches of warranty or misrepresentations connected with the sale (which would be your purchase price, tax, and out of pocket expenses), but also reasonable attorney's fees incurred in making the claim (i.e., drafting and send the letter). If the defendant doesn't settle before suit and the consumer wins at trial, the court can also award attorneys' fees. You may well find a lawyer who would be willing to represent you either partly or entirely on the basis that he'd be paid by whatever can be collected as attorneys' fees from TomTom. Preparing and sending the initial letter would probably take no more than an hour or two of attorney-time.

If you are represented by counsel, though, he'll probably want to skip JP court and sue directly in Harris County Civil Court-at-Law, because whichever side loses in JP court can appeal to County Civil Court-at-Law for a "trial de novo," meaning everyone starts over. When you already have an attorney, it's simpler and cheaper to just start there in the first place. But JPs are generally more informal and, especially, more forgiving about matters of procedure and evidence, so they're more comfortable places for consumers to represent themselves.