New thruster tube unwinding :-(

[grumpy_o_g]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[pvb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[awol]

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?

Thankfully, no! But then I did throw in the "badly designed" caveat.

 

[ffiill]

This method of construction has been used for decades to construct masts and booms whether glassfibre or carbon fibre.
If its done correctly no way does it unwind!

 

[pvb]

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

The Sale of Goods Act does have provision for consequential loss - this handy guide may help.

 

[ianj99]

The Sale of Goods Act does have provision for consequential loss - this handy guide may help.

The guide simply states consequential losses 'may' or 'might' be recoverable which is not the same as saying that you are entitled to them (ie without having to let a court decide on the merits of each case)

In any case, they won't apply in this case as the OP should have check the condition of the item before giving to the installer, who in turn should have raised any concerns with the OP before fitting it.

Had it failed in service then the position would be different.

 

[yachtbits]

Hello All

I thought I should just conclude my earlier post. Alas no sign of the email anywhere in our mail server. To be honest I was hoping I'd find it filled away in a spam folder or somewhere.

Anyway, change of terms is dated for the very reason stated. Orders placed prior to that are covered by earlier edition. The change is just to clarify our position for future orders. I completely agree that all terms are subject ultimately to Court interpretation, but you have to publish something indicative of where you stand. I will be honest and state, it is quite a few years since they have been reveiwed, and that is because we've never had a need to.

I'm not going to discuss the rights, wrongs or vagarities of the Sale of Goods act, as the purpose of this thread is to resolve the problem with the tube.

I have the OP's order open on my desk ready to give him a call tomorrow and if necessary will call Halyard as well once I've spoken to the OP. I will also show the photo to a laminator located close to our office tomorrow, just to see what he thinks.

Kevin

 

[William_H]

Bad fibreglass thruster tube.

To my mind the sight of fibreglass strands unravelling from a lay up can only mean the resin was starved at manufacture ie not enough resin or did not cure correctly, the glass was dirty or it was not squeezed in enough.
As for the idea that the installer caused layers to separate on cutting the hole I would also reject as unlikely in a good lay up. In any case if this were a concern the danger should have been highlighted in the instructions.
IMHO opinion the whole tube is bad. It may be repaired by further resin and glass on the inside and a lot more reinforcement on the outside but a new good tube would be far better. good luck olewill (you have had enough bad luck)

 

[Seajet]

To my mind the sight of fibreglass strands unravelling from a lay up can only mean the resin was starved at manufacture ie not enough resin or did not cure correctly, the glass was dirty or it was not squeezed in enough.
As for the idea that the installer caused layers to separate on cutting the hole I would also reject as unlikely in a good lay up. In any case if this were a concern the danger should have been highlighted in the instructions.
IMHO opinion the whole tube is bad. It may be repaired by further resin and glass on the inside and a lot more reinforcement on the outside but a new good tube would be far better. good luck olewill (you have had enough bad luck)

+1 !

 

[ianj99]

To my mind the sight of fibreglass strands unravelling from a lay up can only mean the resin was starved at manufacture ie not enough resin or did not cure correctly, the glass was dirty or it was not squeezed in enough.
As for the idea that the installer caused layers to separate on cutting the hole I would also reject as unlikely in a good lay up. In any case if this were a concern the danger should have been highlighted in the instructions.
IMHO opinion the whole tube is bad. It may be repaired by further resin and glass on the inside and a lot more reinforcement on the outside but a new good tube would be far better. good luck olewill (you have had enough bad luck)

If the whole tube is of faulty manufacture, why didn't the OP or the installer not spot this before installing it?
It should have been obvious and I am sure Yachbits and Halyard would have had no hesitation in replacing it. Indeed any manufacturer would be keen to investigate in case they have produced and unwittingly sold a faulty batch.

I've noticed a tendency on this (& other forums) for some members to adopt a hostile and in some cases aggressive posture towards suppliers, siding with the OP and passing judgement without the whole story being known. I only hope I'm never on trial for any reason and any of them are in the jury!

 

[EugeneR]

My need is to have a working thruster without ongoing concerns about the installation failing at some stage.

Moving forward, whether the tube is fixed and/or replaced, there seems to be costs and it seems reasonable that the parties who contributed to the issue must pay for remediating the issue.

I've since had a look at the thruster and here are my 1st hand observations:

- Some strands seems to have unwound on the ends of the tube when it was cut after being fitted in position.
- Where the thruster leg holes were drilled, several strands have unwound - not just the one visible on the earlier picture.
- There appears to be a hollow area of the size of a 50p coin into the side of one of the holes. It is about 2/3 down the thickness of the tube. This seems to fit the feedback of, "fibres got caught on the drill bit" and "fluffyness inside".

For completeness, the person who installed the tube is Mike Hulse who was recommended on here; he arranged for BBMS to install the thruster once the tube was in place.

At this stage, my preference is to have the tube replaced - unless that could cause, proportionally, more issues.

Focusing on what I should do to move things forward: The key question now is, how do I get the relevant parties to pay for fixing the issue?

One way is to hire an independent surveyor or GRP specialist to make some more holes and confirm whether there are issues and what % each party must contribute to the replacement cost. This implies replacing the tube, yes, but at least there's an answer at the end.

Alternatively, ask that all involved parties (inlcuding me) chip in say £200 to have it properly replaced. Nobody is conclusively blamed, no overheads of dealing with the issue, and there is good publicity for all involved.

How would you approach this?

 

[EugeneR]

I thought I should just conclude my earlier post. Alas no sign of the email anywhere in our mail server. To be honest I was hoping I'd find it filled away in a spam folder or somewhere.

Hi Kevin,

I'm not sure why my e-mails didn't go through and it seems that I have missed you a few times on the phone.

I will continue to try and hope we can speak soon.

Regards,

Eugene

 

[EugeneR]

I've just had a reply from Halycon. In essence, they suggest to:

- Remove all loose fibres which would result in that area being slightly weaker
- Seeing that the thruster will be mounted onto it, strengthened the area with either laminate or resin thickened with aerosil
- Resit wash the hole in the tube to seal it.

What I am not sure about, though, is whether their suggested fix will make it as good as it should be and/or whether they are taking the lowest-cost way out. They do seem to be helpful and professional but so is everyone else...?

I guess that is where an independent advisor / surveyor would help?