wxman:
First, let me say I’m glad that both you and Tendencies' are getting the proper remedies. That was my purpose in trying to load Tendencies "consumer rights" gun with things to say--to AVOID having to go to the litigation stage. (Please see posts #35, 71 and 72 should you wish to refresh your memory.)
However, I take issue with the bolded portion of your remarks, below:
To be fair Tendencies post this on Friday or Thursday. His dealer is the Monday and VC has a new stove in the works. Seems like a pretty good response time to me. Just because they dont post it on this website, they let the dealer do his job. Hope I have the same happy outcome. Sure will be showing my dealerthe results here.
Edit: he posted on Friday near 4:00 PM sure they dont work Sat and SUN so Its a one workday Response. Cant ask for anything more
and all you guys wan ted to SUE after 2 hours. (by wxman)
Please tell me who "all" those guys are who wanted to sue--at all, let alone, after only two hours?
You can start with my posts: #35, 71 and 72.
And, you're welcome for the assistance of my suggestions to Tendencies, of the kinds of things that can be said to a foot-dragging mfr., who needs to be informed as to how best to resolve a serious situation, for the benefit of BOTH parties, while AVOIDING LITIGATION. Everyone likes to be appreciated. :lol:
But again, I defy you to even one person who was “wanted to SUE after 2 hours.”
You see, words matter. For example, when I tried to explain to Elk, in post #72, that
Shipping defective product and mishandling the complaints is, again, the surest way to financial ruin. Remember Merck and VIOXX? At one point, there was speculation that the CLASS ACTION SUITS would, literally, cause the co. to fold.
…I knew we would soon see the totally understandable post by someone such as Davidv:
Well I read the first 2 pages and skipped to the end. My 18 year old Appalachian has done us proud. I am considering replacing it next year and The Dutchwest was on my list. WAS! No way now. If this is indicative of VC products and service I’m definately steering clear.
For the record, Davidv, I feel exactly as you do.
Now,
wxman, I know you subsequently modified some of your original statements, evidenced in this exchange with TMonter:
If you read the original post, it took more than a week for the first response from VC and then they only replied after catching some heat from here on the boards.
It’s one thing to get a response that they are working on the problem and quite another to have to wait an entire week with an obvious stove defect. (by TMonter)
True I missed that part, but as soon as his dealer showed up it was same day service. The dealer may hold more clout in this case?? He buys Dozens of stove a year? Losing that hurts the bottom line more. I know thats not the best case but it did get the job done. (by wxman).
So I’m just asking for a similar clarification: please give me even one example of who is “all you guys wan ted to SUE after 2 hours. ”
I’ll give you one hint to get you started—it **** sure wasn’t me.
Have a nice day.
And to the group:
I believe it was Roo who first (and I believe correctly) raised the possibility that there is a design defect here. Roo (and I) now ask:
So what is the deal with bottom supports ? Why does your stove not have them and what is different with the new stove? Are they adding bottom supports to the new stove? were the bottom supports left out when they made your stove ?
You know, the addition of after-the-fact-fixes is no small matter. Now, I’m a little rusty on my law (haven’t practiced in many years) but I seem to remember a special part of evidence law dealing with just such a situation. I believe it holds that evidence of subsequent modifications is inadmissible in some situations, in product liability litigation.
Here’s the rationale: if you don’t give mfrs. some protection on this point, they’ll avoid making needed fixes, which can later be used against them to prove a defect. Mfr's not making needed fixes would lead to more potential injury and death, so let's encourage them to make the necessary fixes, by not allowing the evidence of those "redo's" into the trial. (And like most evidence law, I'm sure there are multiple exemptions.)
My point here is not to apply an actual law to this situation, but to point out that the addition of a subsequent “patch” IS A BIG DEAL.
If it were not, the law would not have evolved special rules and exceptions to general evidence law, to deal with just such situations.
Therefore, I think Roo's question is a very good one—let’s read it again, as I’m hoping someone will comment on it:
So what is the deal with bottom supports ? Why does your stove not have them and what is different with the new stove? Are they adding bottom supports to the new stove? were the bottom supports left out when they made your stove ?
Peter