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.
Results 21 to 30 of 41
Thread: New thruster tube unwinding :-(
07-05-12, 01:31 #21
07-05-12, 09:20 #22Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
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?
07-05-12, 10:59 #23
07-05-12, 11:12 #24Registered User
Location : West Mersea. north Essex
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Surely the T & C s in force at the time the goods were purchased will apply - not the subsequently amended ones.davidej
07-05-12, 11:23 #25
07-05-12, 11:36 #26
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.
07-05-12, 11:42 #27
07-05-12, 11:46 #28
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.
07-05-12, 11:59 #29
07-05-12, 12:05 #30