PDA

View Full Version : Anomalous Warranty Parts - Who covers the added labour?







DTLarca
10-01-2011, 06:45 PM
Can it be assumed to be always the case that if a part is replaced within the parts warranty period but outside of the labour warranty period and the new part is anomalous - say the new compressor is high amping - then the service company providing the priced labour just has to make the second change-out at it's own cost.

Or, provided the part is a genuine manufacturers part right for the job, could the service company say "Oops, new part is also faulty - will have to quote to replace this one too now in addition to the labour already provided".

Maybe the compressor fell over in the delivery van and now has a compression chamber flooded with oil. That does not matter - it is a matter different from the question.

What happens if 10 parts in a row are each time anomalous and the service company has quoted for just a day but now 10 days are required - 1 for each anomalous part. I can't imagine this actually happening but hypothetically what might be the case if it did.

Sure, if you tell the customer that there is something fishy with the system and further investigation should take place before the part is changed and they say "No, we have no time, it must run now - please just throw the new part in" then you must insist that they pay for the second and third change-out ed infinitum.

chilliwilly
10-01-2011, 07:45 PM
Usually if its a new system under warranty, the manufacturer makes good the repair. In the case of a repair on a out of warranty system the manufacturer just makes good the material cost.

Back in my electrician days, there was only Edmundsons wholesalers that would make good the cost of replacing faulty parts. In the case of a relamp in a warehouse on say high or low bay fittings. The over net cost of relamping say 10 fittings may be in the region of 900.00 including any access equipment. They will honour the guarantee of 7000 hours of failure free lighting. That was on British discharge lamps. That may no longer be the case with the poor quality imports found today.

The law is unclear on whether or not manufacturers guarantees should include labour and equipment. I don't think its ever been challenged or even been investigated. it would be interesting to see if the manufacturer should have a legal obligation to make good the cost of labour and equipment costs. The so called quality assurance shemes that the manufacturers are forced to join these days, don't even guarantee that their products are even to a high quality standard. They just prove that theirs a paper chase from raw material, to the final invoice.

Under the laws of trading standards regarding retail outlets, the supplier must give satisfaction in the form of repair, exchange, or a refund, at the consumers dicression.

FaultCode
10-01-2011, 07:57 PM
Is that the correct use of anomalous ?

def:
adjective. deviating from the regular arrangement, general rule, or usual method

Surely a warranty replacement would be the correct part?

monkey spanners
10-01-2011, 08:25 PM
DT, are you able to re write your question in a simpler form? And if so could you please do it?

Ta, Jon :)

mad fridgie
10-01-2011, 11:25 PM
Can it be assumed to be always the case that if a part is replaced within the parts warranty period but outside of the labour warranty period and the new part is anomalous - say the new compressor is high amping - then the service company providing the priced labour just has to make the second change-out at it's own cost.

Or, provided the part is a genuine manufacturers part right for the job, could the service company say "Oops, new part is also faulty - will have to quote to replace this one too now in addition to the labour already provided".

Maybe the compressor fell over in the delivery van and now has a compression chamber flooded with oil. That does not matter - it is a matter different from the question.

What happens if 10 parts in a row are each time anomalous and the service company has quoted for just a day but now 10 days are required - 1 for each anomalous part. I can't imagine this actually happening but hypothetically what might be the case if it did.

Sure, if you tell the customer that there is something fishy with the system and further investigation should take place before the part is changed and they say "No, we have no time, it must run now - please just throw the new part in" then you must insist that they pay for the second and third change-out ed infinitum.
Here in NZ most suppliers provide there own warranty (no support or little support from the manufactures) this normally means a reduction in price from the manufactures. (The nature, size and location of our market)
In many cases, but not all (refrigeration equipment) you can opt to purchase warranty insurance, which does give a slightly better cover than just "warranty", how ever if regular failures occur, further investigation is undertaken by the supplier (at which point any costs if found not be a supplier fault, are passed back to the contractor)
If the equipment is being used by the client, incorrectly (this can mean many things) then the client becomes responsible and any warranties become nun and void. Then is becomes a paperwork chain, Did you inform the client of incorrect use, yes you are covered, no then it is the contractors responsibility, did the supplier inform the the contractor, and so on.

Abe
11-01-2011, 07:50 AM
I would be happy to provide a "legal opinion" if the issue can be presented in a less "anamolous" manner!

NoNickName
11-01-2011, 11:19 AM
European Directive on Warranties states that the buyer has the right of replacement or repair (whichever is cheaper) free of any charge (parts and labour) for 24 months only if the buyer is a natural person (individual).
If the buyer is a legal person (and bought the goods with a VAT number), then the arrangements stand on private contract or sales conditions between the seller and the buyer, unless the Civil Codes or Codes of Conducts of the Country where the handover takes place state otherwise (e.g. in Italy is 12 months on parts for legal persons).

In any case, the replaced parts are guaranteed similarly, but the expiration date is not renewed, i.e. the part is replaced one day before the 24 months expiration date, then the replaced part is covered by warranty of one day.

Abe
11-01-2011, 10:46 PM
I am not going to dwell on who carries the "labour burden" when equipment is found to be faulty. I am going to discuss if you the engineer are within your legal rights to reject that part altogether and claim a refund.

As a start lets begin looking at the pertinent legislation.

Section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as inserted by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 provides: (6) 'The buyer is not by virtue of this section deemed to have accepted the goods merely because-(a) he asks for, or agrees to, their repair by or under an arrangement with the seller'.



Assume you purchase a compressor and you fit it. The compressor fails within a short space of time. You return the compressor to the manufacturer. The manufacturer repairs the compressor and returns it to you.

At this point , you can ask the manufacturer what was wrong with the compressor and what was fixed/ rectified or what parts were changed.

There is an implied condition of the contract that they must provide this information in order to give you the customer the opportunity to make an "informed decision" whether to accept the good or reject it.

If the manufacturer fails to provide you with this information they you have the automatic right to reject the item, because you are therefore, "unable to make an imformed decision"

So lets look at the position again, say you purchase ten compressors and the first couple develop faults, you will ask, what will happen to the remainder, will they develop similar faults?

Again, you are entiltled to question the manufacture to a high degree of technical reporting to state EXACTLY what happened to the first two compressors that failed.

Once you have this information you can decide whether to accept the repaired compressors or reject them all.

As I am running out of space I will discuss the labour aspect next in a seperate post

Abe
11-01-2011, 10:58 PM
Ok, here goes.

Now what happens to the labour that you have expended on the job, who pays/compensates you for that.

Assuming that you find that the compressor failed, because there was a defect in the product, which the manufacturer then rectifies, then in my opinion you as an innocent party have suffered a loss through no fault of your own.

You could claim the loss via a civil claim for damages. Armed with the technical report provided to you by the manufacturer you can evidence to the court the finding.

If the manufacturer refuses to provide you with a detailed technical report, then you can then reject the goods and make a claim for the losses incurred.

This application of the law will work for high value goods, we are not talking about small compressors or equipment, although the principles would be the same irrespective of size. The costs of litigation will preclude anyone making a claim for low value items in any event.

There is case law regarding this scenario , a 2007 case which dealt with expensive agricultural equipment. In that case the seller failed to disclose the fault and the buyer was entitled to reject the goods.

DTLarca
12-01-2011, 07:03 AM
I haven't forgotten this thread - I'm just suddenly busy.

Am in the middle of doing some late or overdue Altherma commissioning while about to crane off a couple of old chillers and a couple new ones back on another site with a tight schedule when suddenly we have factory leak spring on a brand new PURY P800 just recently commissioned and not even handed over yet.

The PURY P800 customers says "Hmmm, can we reject that one and have a new one brought onto site in its place?" We said "we would prefer to fix it really".

The pictures attached show the units, the compressor and then the location of the leak - poor factory weld at the bottom of the oil separator.

Anyway - I will come back to the thread.

NoNickName
12-01-2011, 07:29 AM
Unfortunately, the new EU directive on warranties does not give the consumer the right to reject the goods if the seller decides to repair it, because it would be unfairly expensive for the seller to be forced to one way or the other.
Also, nowhere in the EU directive the right to be informed is sanctioned.
So these information on sales of goods only apply to UK sellers and buyers.

Abe
12-01-2011, 04:50 PM
At Law school we are taught fundamentally about European Law and how it impacts our very own legislation. in practice however, although its applicability can be very real indeed, I have hardly come across a case or scenario where European law has been cited as an authority.

We must appreciate the vastness and diversity of Europe, and the ever more members who have joined in the recent past.

Trying to keep abreast of developments and the only portel making decisions based in Brussels where the Court is based and where the court takes years to make decision is sufficient to drive any one mad, nuts and I cannot see our own Judges keeping pace with what goes on.

In practice we supposed to take in EC law, quickly modify our own legislation to fit in with EC Directives and Regulations, which lead to some sort of unified approach.

I am sure it works in a lot of cases, whether the issues pertaining to sales of goods have been incorporated, I dont know, and to date our Sales of Goods Act seems to be the prescribed legislation.

NoNickName
12-01-2011, 05:03 PM
It is, because your legislation is stricter than EU legislation. As in other fields of interests, national regulations which already cover any subject in the direction of a more stringent protection, has priority over EU legislation.
For example, in Italy the food production is covered by a legislation which is more stringent than EU one.
The result is that in Italy we can buy cheese produced in Germany under a regulation that would not allow production in Italy.

nevgee
12-01-2011, 06:15 PM
What then is the situation where say a compressor has failed, for what ever reason, and a new one is fitted. All of the necessary precautions are taken to ensure a clean install and preventative measures put in place to protect the new compressor from premature failure. But then what happens? The new compressor fails for no apparent reason but then you find the failure may have been the result of some other faulted system component previously unknown to your self and not identified as a possible problem during the refit.

The customer is a private person, a Consumer, not a business.
You explain to him the failure was outwith of your control, caused by a faulted component in the system. He listens but doesn't want to hear, he knows he might be looking at a second large bill to replace the new compressor and some other work to boot.
"But the compressor is under warranty, isn't it?" he states. "So therefore, I don't have to worry about further costs only some further delay before the unit is fixed?"

How would you respond and what is the legal stance under the sale of goods act?

Abe
12-01-2011, 06:54 PM
What then is the situation where say a compressor has failed, for what ever reason, and a new one is fitted. All of the necessary precautions are taken to ensure a clean install and preventative measures put in place to protect the new compressor from premature failure. But then what happens? The new compressor fails for no apparent reason but then you find the failure may have been the result of some other faulted system component previously unknown to your self and not identified as a possible problem during the refit.

The customer is a private person, a Consumer, not a business.
You explain to him the failure was outwith of your control, caused by a faulted component in the system. He listens but doesn't want to hear, he knows he might be looking at a second large bill to replace the new compressor and some other work to boot.
"But the compressor is under warranty, isn't it?" he states. "So therefore, I don't have to worry about further costs only some further delay before the unit is fixed?"

How would you respond and what is the legal stance under the sale of goods act?


Nevgee

We now in an area where there is "vicarious liability" where the impact of other components can lead to the demise of a newly installed part.

It is for this reason the compressor manufacturer will rightly conducts a test into their product by stripping it down and looking for the tell tale signs why the compressor broke down.

Could be that the system was not flushed out properly, or had some sort of ingress, or was not installed or commissioned correctly, probably the operational characteristics fell outside of its envelope or scope, who knows.

Its very easy to blame it all upon the compressor, largely because it is the most expensive part in the system. How about you blame a "drier" for a change or something else!

It is for you the engineer to check and determine that the compressor you fit will not be compromised in some way by something within the system that will lead to its failure.

The consumer is protected on the basis that the part was of satisfactory quality and was fit for purpose. You are held in negligence in that you have failed to identify the root cause. The consumer is not an expert, you are. You ought to have known better than to fit something to a system on the basis that all will be well.

You could of course at the onset agree to a disclaimer with the customer that given all the facts, you will not hold yourself responsible for a failure of the compressor if it fails on account of the failure of some other component impacting the operational capability of the system. Get him to sign this and state clearly that the customer agrees to opt of the protection of the SGA and will not seek redress in case of breach.

As a consumer, (non business) the customer will enjoy enhanced protection and the courts will tend to favour his position. I can understand your dilemma as well. What I would do is in such a scenario obtain insurance cover in case the compressor fails.

chilliwilly
12-01-2011, 09:24 PM
It is, because your legislation is stricter than EU legislation. As in other fields of interests, national regulations which already cover any subject in the direction of a more stringent protection, has priority over EU legislation.
For example, in Italy the food production is covered by a legislation which is more stringent than EU one.
The result is that in Italy we can buy cheese produced in Germany under a regulation that would not allow production in Italy.

:off topic:

Its the same in the UK regarding many things. One being how beer is brewed, the EU tried to stop live yeast being used in a process that makes bitter and mild beer. That's been used for nearly two hundred years, they also tried to stop green top farm bottled tuberculin tested unpasturised milk.

It would be interesting to know what would happen if the UK totally ignored the ever worsening Eurocrats. I wonder if they'd give the police, Euro FBI warrants, for arresting someone who lives their life like they have done all their life. Then one day they get arrested for whistling their National Anthem or Rule Brittania whilst sporting a flag of one of the four British Provinces, or Ireland. Whilst on their way to the pub to watch footie and order a pint of ale or Guinness.

nevgee
12-01-2011, 09:31 PM
thanks for that .... It endorsed my understanding that it was of course reliant on the installer / contractor to ensure the system was "fit" to accept a new component without there being risk of further problems and if so then the liability was on the installer.

As for insurance, I haven't had the need for such cover over the years but wonder that like car insurance premiums, they're most likely to increase at a rapid rate once claims start to be made.

DTLarca
12-01-2011, 10:46 PM
You could of course at the onset agree to a disclaimer with the customer that given all the facts, you will not hold yourself responsible for a failure of the compressor if it fails on account of the failure of some other component impacting the operational capability of the system. Get him to sign this and state clearly that the customer agrees to opt of the protection of the SGA and will not seek redress in case of breach.

I'm thinking that whenever a quote goes out to change a compressor there should also be a quote to cut open Hermetics, or tear-down Semi's, in order to determine the likely cause of failure and therefore the likely area in the system where one should look for anomalies that probably caused the failure. If this inspection price is not accepted then there will be no warranty. But how to include this term also during the first year's parts and labour warranty period? Probably not possible.

Then the terms should cover the possibility that after the compressor is up and running further system anomalies requiring further works are also likely to only then come to light. But this is covered in our terms already - perhaps, though, they should just be more explicit.

Abe
13-01-2011, 07:38 AM
This is an area which is largely "untested" unless I can find some authority in case law to see how the courts have made a determination.

A very recent event was when a Quantas A380 suffered a failure on one of its engines with potential disastrous consequences. Rolls Royce very quickly "having found the problem" and accepted liability very quickly exchanged every engine, on every aircraft, not only Quantas but all other airlines operating the type.

Now in the RR engine case it was not an "external" part that caused the failure of the engine, it was the engine itself.

What I am going to do is prepare a brief and seek an opinion from counsel who specialises in this area of law. I think it remains in the interest of all our members to obtain some guidance on liability as engineers are replacing compressors on a regular basis, without the surety of knowing if some other culprit lurks in the system, and how to deal with a situation if a compressor goes down within the first 12 months.

In law 12 months is the minimum guarantee period, (The EU is planning to change it to 24 months) The issues are of course:

The manufacturers guarantee
What about the labour content
The impact of anamolies affecting a system
The installing engineers position regarding liability

and other

How to protect the engineers position
and other........

We can continue to develop this thread and I will draft my brief taking into account the views placed here.

nevgee
13-01-2011, 07:18 PM
I'm thinking that whenever a quote goes out to change a compressor there should also be a quote to cut open Hermetics, or tear-down Semi's, in order to determine the likely cause of failure and therefore the likely area in the system where one should look for anomalies that probably caused the failure. If this inspection price is not accepted then there will be no warranty. But how to include this term also during the first year's parts and labour warranty period? Probably not possible.

Then the terms should cover the possibility that after the compressor is up and running further system anomalies requiring further works are also likely to only then come to light. But this is covered in our terms already - perhaps, though, they should just be more explicit.


I think that's quite a valid comment.
We have a form of disclaimer where we indicate that a return visit / service is required within 3 months of the compressor change to examine the system and do an acid test etc. Without which we may not be able to honour a 12 months warranty, though not excluding the manufacturers warranty, which of course would be subject to them testing the compressor. Not that I have ever heard of them actually doing so. I was once informed by a manager of a national wholesaler that returned warranty compressors were never examined.

I'm sure Abe's further views and input on this issue would certainly be welcomed by many.

nevgee
08-02-2011, 10:11 PM
did this dry up?

mikeref
10-02-2011, 11:22 PM
did this dry up?
On the back of my delivery dockets, there is a full page of legal talk. Covers the proceedure of warranty claim and suppliers obligations etc: Makes it clear to me that warranty will cover parts only, if found to be the fault of the part, and not from mis-use or other external factors. (and on it goes). Lost alot of time and money over the years from parts failure within its warranty period. So much faith put into the purchase of equipment... Mike.:(:(

Abe
12-02-2011, 07:59 AM
did this dry up?

nevgee

No its not dried out, I did promise I would provide some guidance. I have been very busy this last month and will be for a while yet, however I will deal with this. Kindly bear with me.

Regards
Abe

nevgee
12-02-2011, 11:10 AM
nevgee

No its not dried out, I did promise I would provide some guidance. I have been very busy this last month and will be for a while yet, however I will deal with this. Kindly bear with me.

Regards
Abe

Abe,

No worries. I have been over busy as well and lost track of time.

DTLarca
12-02-2011, 01:33 PM
I haven't forgotten this thread - I'm just suddenly busy.

Am in the middle of doing some late or overdue Altherma commissioning while about to crane off a couple of old chillers and a couple new ones back on another site with a tight schedule when suddenly we have factory leak spring on a brand new PURY P800 just recently commissioned and not even handed over yet.

The PURY P800 customers says "Hmmm, can we reject that one and have a new one brought onto site in its place?" We said "we would prefer to fix it really".

The pictures attached show the units, the compressor and then the location of the leak - poor factory weld at the bottom of the oil separator.

Anyway - I will come back to the thread.

Further to this other issue I quote above Mitsubishi Electric were in the end very helpful and helpful very quickly. They sent their own engineer out to site for us who replaced the leaking oil separator and then they supplied the full system charge we had lost and they charged the full system charge for us.

The only thing that concerned me is that they told our customer to turn it on as soon as they wish it to be used. The next day the customer turned on the isolators outdoors and started the underfloor heating modules. I would have preferred it if Mitsi had turned it all on immediately after charging or that they left it on after charging - whichever. I just prefer it that the crankcase heaters do their thing.

But still, Mitsi came out and replaced the part for us - while we got on with finishing projects on other sites.

DTLarca
16-04-2011, 05:23 PM
It turns out Mitsubishi did not send out their own engineers to remedy the matter of their poor factory quality control. They sent out a competitor who now happens to be quoting against us at another site owned by the same customer. We have been forwarded an email sent by this other company to our customer where they are trying to rubbish us in order that they have a better chance of winning the project. The funny thing is they say in the email the following...

"Also I need to remind you that we were called to check a job they did in a house in Kingston and found out that the units were not installed properly. The unit was not installed on supports and it was installed near the neighbours window. Finally the condensing unit had a problem before they started the system."

Well - the units are installed on a concrete slab layed down for the single purpose of supporting the units. Thus the units are installed on supports and thus they are installed properly. We warned the customer about locating the units so near to the neighbours window and the customer agreed that should there be a problem he will have us relocate the units. And the unit that had a problem before it was commissioned for us - leaving it run for 3 or 4 days before the oil separator pipe blew - was not predicted by the Mitsubishi factory, or by us - but somehow they think they would have known of the pipes immanent failure.

I need to find out which company this is now :)

monkey spanners
16-04-2011, 06:19 PM
Mitsubishi did something similar to us, we were asked to quote for the replacement of about 30 splits at a site we had looked after for the previous five years, as they already had Mitsubishi kit we called them in to size up replacing it with a vrf, next thing we know our customer is getting quotes from another install company who between them and Mitsi tried to get us kicked of site. Kunts.

I dislike them nearly as much as Daikin. Not for their equipment but their business practices.

eggs
16-04-2011, 09:09 PM
I have learned from experience that whenever I am unfortunate enough to have to quote Mitsubishi Electric, I must always remember to give a false job reference.

Eggs

DTLarca
23-04-2011, 01:27 PM
I wrote the customer an email answering all the questions - the customer has given us the contract - heat recovery vrf installation in a 56 room hotel. Need to advertise for installers now.