If you bought something expensive to install.....

[Becky]

and it didn't work, would you expect the supplier or the manufacturer to pay for its removal?

What happenned to us is as follows.
We bought an electric windlass at LBS, and it was fitted by the boatyard who did a lot of work for us. But we did our own wiring, which entailed running huge electric cables from the batteries in the stern to the windlass in the bow. So we didn't finish installing the wiring until not long before we went on holiday. But of course, the windlass didn't work properly. On the down button, it wound the anchor up. On the up button, it didn't do anything. Reversing the neg and pos cables on to the two working terminals, one would expect a DC motor to run the other way (at least I would). It didn't, it still just wound up the anchor. So we employed the Malcolm Morlin miracle worker) in Haslar Marina to remove it for us. It was well stuck down, and we didn't have the necssary tools to lever it off (without damaging our gel coat).

Anyway, once it was off the boat, we checked it and it still responded in the sameway. In other words, our connections were correct.
But, should I expect the supplier to pick up the bill for removal and re-installation? It has been wrongly manufactured, so I don't think that we shouldn't have to pay yet again.

What does the Forum think?

 

[abraxus]

It would be very nice if the supplier paid for the de & re-installation but I'm not sure that you should expect it.

The supplier could quite fairly claim that the associated costs were incurred outside of his control as you could have tested the unit to ensure it worked before you fitted it.

No harm in asking though as they may be one of the few companies out there who take customer service seriously.

 

[Joe_Cole]

From what you say it sounds as if you are entitled to claim for consequential losses. Have you spoken to them yet?

 

[Joe_Cole]

[ QUOTE ]

The supplier could quite fairly claim that the associated costs were incurred outside of his control as you could have tested the unit to ensure it worked before you fitted it.



[/ QUOTE ]

To which I would respond that I shouldn't need to test the unit, I am entitled to assume that they do their Quality Control not me! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

 

[abraxus]

True Joe, but stuff gets past quality control and things can get damaged in transit or even possibly by the person doing the fitting.

The longer you leave something before testing and the more you do to it before trying it out, the harder it is to prove that you received it in a faulty state.

Personally, I would test anything prior to a fidlly or expensive inatallation as a matter of course and a sensible precaution despite having a reasonable expectation that it should arrive in working order.

I'm not saying it's ideal or even right, just realistic.

 

[Becky]

Fitting the windlass necessitated cutting a large hole in the anchor locker, and aligning everything so that the chain would run smoothly. We gave the windlass to Dell Quay boatyard to fit. We didn't test it, well I wouldn't expect a Lofrans windlass not to work, we didn't have an available battery at that time(we have now), and really, do you test equipment that has an involved installation process- running heavy cables, aligning chain and locker space etc., because it has switches and solenoids as part of its operation process.
I think we are too soft on poor quality control in this country, and if something is not up to standard, then the supplier should replace it, and meet any incurred costs, and claim them back from the manufacturer.
If I fit or prepare something that doesn't work properly, I expect to have to do it again, at my expense. So I think others should abide by the same precepts.



But I am only a Blonde, what do I know?

 

[jerryat]

I doubt very much if any company (certainly not insurers) will pick up the tab for consequential loss because they are unable to calulate the potential risk.

 

[Joe_Cole]

Yes, I would usually test something too; as often as not simply because I want to play with my new toy! But, if somebody doesn't test it, the supplier can't blame the customer for the consequences of the fault!

In this case though we are told that the thing is faulty. On that basis the supplier should cough up. With things like this I imagine most manufactureres will bend over backwards to protect their good name. If it's one of the "big names" I would expect them to sort it out.

 

[abraxus]

Joe

I agree, but Becky asked if she should expect the supplier to cough up. Whlst it would be nice, they are most likely not liable for any consequential loss, beacuse as Jerrycat pointed out, it is immeasurable. Also whilst we were told it was faulty, we were not given any indication as to whether it could have been damaged during installation, which the supplier may wish to verify before even considering a replacement let alone any other costs.

It's perfectly reasonable to ask or even expect the supplier to pick up the tab, but there's probably no legal liability and solely down to customer service and goodwill on their part. That may well be unfair but it's the reality.

Hopefully either they or the manufacturer value their customers and do the right thing.

 

[Joe_Cole]

They may not want to, but it is the Law! Most companies have product liability insurance for exactly this situation.

However, these things usually end up being negotiated and a compromise is reached.

A few years ago I had some faulty anti-fouling; the weed after just two months was incredible; it looked like a shag pile carpet! The manufacturer admitted the error and we haggled for a few minutes. He agreed to pay for a mid season haulout, scrub down and relaunch. I did the painting. A few days later I recieved a cheque for £300.

 

[Peppermint]

Re: This is a time to try it on....

it's got nothing to do with liability or law.

I've had a fair amount of success with getting compensated by following a simple format. I even got paid out from a major tour operator and had a new car exchanged so it can work out.

Firstly work out how far you are prepared to push the claim. Are you prepared to go to court, always risky in this country, and get involved in legal expense? If not you need to make a clear and concise claim in writing, laying out a timeline of the steps in the fitting and removing, detailing the costs, offering to provide receipts etc. and outlining all of the grounds for making your claim. Be sure to include all costs incured and losses suffered.

By now you'll have a clear idea of the size of the claim. It's time to decide how much of it you want to win. There might be room for a bit of horse trading.

Decide on when you need this settled by. It's usual to give a "reasonable" amount of time for them to respond. Say 14 days. I'd chivy them along a bit at say seven days. If they miss your deadline write again. Offer them a further seven days and add a phrase along the lines of "If nothing is heard by this date I reserve the right to take legal action without further recourse to you". Companies hate that.

You might get something you might not. What you do then, if you want to go further, will cost money. The benefit of all of these stages is that should you decide to go to court you can demonstrate that you've behaved reasonably and made an honest attempt to resolve the dispute. The courts like that.

Good luck.

 

[abraxus]

Re: This is a time to try it on....

Product liability insurance is for injury or damage directly attributable to the equipment regardless of whether it's faulty or not. It doesn't cover costs of installing an item that later turns out to be faulty. That is covered by the guarantee for which the usual legal requirment is only to replace as most supplier ensure their supply agreements indemnify them from consequential loss.

However I do agree with both you and Peppermint that in most cases a negotiated compromise can be reached, so I would be optimistic if it was a reputable supplier that they would see reason and do the right thing.

Good luck Becky.

 

[Col]

To be fair, a lot of the costs are going to be for wiring, switches etc: All of these could be reused with a new windlass. Only real cost is taking of windlass unit or switchgear (whichever is the faulty item) and refit the new when it arrives.

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re: Mmmm..........

.......you must have a very different policy from ours. I think I'll stick with our current insurers. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Becky]

Removal price was £30. As has been mentioned, the main installation cost was cutting the hole to get the motor through the deck and aligned with the navel pipe. I ran the cables, and Richard wired them up.

Point is, this shouldn't have happened anyway. To those who think I should have tested the thing prior to fitting, foregive me for asking, but isn't that what the manufacturer should have done before sending it out?

 

[Joe_Cole]

Becky,

You are right.

Forget the legal mumbo jumbo and the insurance red herring. Talk to the supplier, explain the problem and odds are they will do something to help. You may need to twist their arm a bit but I'll be surprised if you don't get something from them; they'll probably be embarrassed about the fault!

Good luck.

 

[fireball]

Becky - hindsight is wonderful ... so ... perhaps you could've contacted the supplier before paying for removal - they could have their own staff to do this for you - at no cost to you (and probably cheaper for them too!)
At £30 I would hope that the company does recompense you, its worth more than that in goodwill (especially if you give us the good feedback! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif) and is less than the cost of one of their board meetings ... If it was my company I would be concerned that a product had got so far before the defect was noticed.

 

[cliff]

Sale of goods act. Someone sold you apparently defective goods. If they are actually defective in themselves and not due to shoddy or incorrect installation the sullpier is legally bound to replace the item. The supplier is not liable for consequential loss. Rather than post it up here and "blacken" names, I would have gone to the supplier in the first case and if no joy then I would have gone to the manufacturer. I would certainly not have posted it here.

Hope you get your £30 from someone.
----------

“Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity”
Skype id:cliffillupo

 

[Joe_Cole]

Sorry Cliff, but you're wrong. Sale of goods Acts have been modified quite a bit over the years. You <u>can</u> now claim for CL; not in all cases and you have to have acted reasonably (whatever that may mean!).

 

[LadyInBed]

Before the winch was removed, did you speak to the manufacturer’s technical dept. as the fault might be more to do with the switch / solenoid than the winch.

If the winch is replaced with the same type, the alignment holes are all there so it is just a case of connecting wires and bolting it in with a bit of mastic. The only real cost was that of having the winch removed and shipping, if the winch is at fault you should be able to recover some costs.

Another point is that the winch was probably bought from a ‘shop’ not the manufacturer, so your claim is against the ‘shop’ that sold it. Did you pay by credit card, if so you may have a claim against them. I’m no lawyer so the credit card bit might have a load of caveats.