New thruster tube unwinding :-(

**grumpy_o_g** · 07-05-12, 00:31

Originally Posted by RobWales

Its a forum! we are here to help eachother? read the thread and ask yourself.......has the OP had satisfaction?
NO...........hence his post here!
Maybe you should converse with him and not on here?

I thought it a very reasoned and sensible response. He has said he will go back and check for any communications with the OP as he hasn't seen any yet - which would make it difficult for him to do anything about it really. He's also said that he'll do everything he can to resolve problems when they occur, though he's not willing to accept consequential damages (which is normal and not unreasonable).

The supplier (not the manufacturer or the installer) has picked this up and is reacting despite not having seen any communication from the purchaser (though it may be simply that he missed the mail). He's going to check for the original mail but, if he can't find it, he can't do much than post on here surely - especially as a course of action has been agreed by the OP.

**Marsupial** · 07-05-12, 08:20

Originally Posted by yachtbits

Hello Chaps

this is actually the first I've heard of this problem, I will however check our mail server tomorrow to trace the email sent on Wednesday. It should have come to my inbox, but I have no recollection of seeing it. I will advise back once I have checked this out.

Halyard, are probably the market leaders and we supply them because of this reputation. We stand by their product and would be shocked to find a quality issue with one of their tubes. It does look like a solution has already been reached, but we would have been pro-active in getting answers from Halyard had we needed to.

However, one thing that has been noticed. Very rapidly, our liability was being discussed before the cause of the problem had even been established. I do feel this was a slightly unfair reaction in the time this tread has run, especially as the installer who may well have caused this problem, had not been named. Presumably he had inspected the tube before installation?

As of today, our terms and conditions have been revised to specifically limit our liability to the value of the goods and/or services supplied by us from now on. This does not mean that we will not do everything we can to resolve problems when they occur.

Kevin Smith
Managing Director

Kevin,

A friendly word, you can of course revise your terms and conditions at any time, BUT the legality of any T&Cs is always open to legal testing in a court and if its decided a T&C is unfair you loose. In this case your customer could ask what quality control procedures your goods inwards people carried out to ensure your company received and hence sold goods of merchantable quality. He could also ask the same of the installer. If you were to claim that you are not expert in these processes and that you rely on your suppliers to carry out quality control this is not an acceptable answer.

I have no idea about the quality of the thruster tunnel in OP, just the amendment of your T&Cs which may be interpreted by some as a lame attempt at evading responsibility. Lets put it this way, IF the tunnel issue had gone unnoticed and it de laminated and the boat sunk where do you sit?

Regards

David Hatchman

**pvb** · 07-05-12, 09:59

Originally Posted by yachtbits

As of today, our terms and conditions have been revised to specifically limit our liability to the value of the goods and/or services supplied by us from now on. This does not mean that we will not do everything we can to resolve problems when they occur.

Kevin Smith
Managing Director

You can put anything you like in your terms and conditions, but a Court may well overturn them if it finds that you are liable for consequential loss. With the situation described in this thread, if the OP were to issue proceedings against you, the value of the claim would almost certainly be less than your legal costs in defending it, so it would be sensible to simply settle.

**davidej** · 07-05-12, 10:12

Surely the T & C s in force at the time the goods were purchased will apply - not the subsequently amended ones.

**pvb** · 07-05-12, 10:23

Originally Posted by davidej

Surely the T & C s in force at the time the goods were purchased will apply - not the subsequently amended ones.

T&Cs are basically irrelevant if they seek to remove purchasers' basic rights.

**ianj99** · 07-05-12, 10:36

Originally Posted by yachtbits

Halyard, are probably the market leaders and we supply them because of this reputation. We stand by their product and would be shocked to find a quality issue with one of their tubes. It does look like a solution has already been reached, but we would have been pro-active in getting answers from Halyard had we needed to.

However, one thing that has been noticed. Very rapidly, our liability was being discussed before the cause of the problem had even been established. I do feel this was a slightly unfair reaction in the time this tread has run, especially as the installer who may well have caused this problem, had not been named. Presumably he had inspected the tube before installation?

Kevin Smith
Managing Director

I agree with Kevin, in that blame has directed at the product and supplier too hastily. As someone with a mailorder business (non boating) I am well aware of the disappointing tendency of some customers to go public on a forum without even trying to contact me or await my response.

In this case why did the installer fit the tube if it appeared defective and its a wee bit suspicious to me that the faults only manifested themselves after the tube had been fitted...?

As far as consequential losses, it not reasonable to expect a court to award these in this case because its clear that the faults, had they been present and obvious, the installer should have brough them to the attention of the customers BEFORE fitting it.

Apart from which, I don't believe there is any case in law where consequential losses can be be recovered due to a warranty issue. Does a high street retailer reimburse your travelling costs when you return a faulty item?

Yachbits haven't done anything wrong and don't deserve to be pilloried.

Rather than spouting legal ways to solve the OP's problem, a pragmatic approach to rectify the defect was all that was needed.

**ianj99** · 07-05-12, 10:42

Originally Posted by pvb

T&Cs are basically irrelevant if they seek to remove purchasers' basic rights.

Yes and these rights do not include entitlement to recovery of consequential loss costs.

Anyway, in this case, it could be argued that it is the installer's workmanship that is in doubt and they should rectify the matter.

**awol** · 07-05-12, 10:46

Starting from the premiss that bow-thrusters are the work of the devil, are only needed on badly designed boats by incompetent helmsmen, and their graunching noise is a most offensive aural assault, you may gather that I may not be entirely sympathetic to the OP. That he appears to have got to the boat-owning stage of life without understanding the simple relationships involved in commercial transactions doesn't help.
The moral, for me anyway, is if you can't handle the intricacies of simple project management then just procure things from one source who is responsible for the supply and fitting of the whole caboodle - read their T&Cs and make sure there is cover for consequential losses.
As for the supplier of the bits, you have my sympathy.

**ianj99** · 07-05-12, 10:59

Originally Posted by awol

Starting from the premiss that bow-thrusters are the work of the devil, are only needed on badly designed boats by incompetent helmsmen..

You've never tried to manoeuvre a single engined power boat in a stiff cross wind in the confines of a marina, single handed then?

The rest of your post I agree with entirely.