Post in 'The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces' started by Tendencies, Mar 23, 2007.
Helpful Sponsor Ads!
It's amazing this post has had over 2200 hits in 3 days!! :ahhh: Talk about the power of the web!! ;-)
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 ?
Along those lines, what thread has had the most hits and what did it number? Anyone know off hand?
You shouldn't have to be an inspector who has clout in the industry to get results. They only want to help you out if they think you can hurt them. The courts are the defense of the little guy.
This was pretty good http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.php/forums/viewthread/4464/
Still wonder how they made out?
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.
Sometimes jerking the chain is more fun than playing it straight. I have some special business card. They are for those persons who think that the initials after the name are more important than skills they have.
So I have cards that read:
Uncle Rich, BA,BS,MA,MS,CA,DIDPT
Occasionally, I get the question, "So, I have the BA,MA,CA down, but what's a DIDPT?" And in a straight face I say, "Dealer In Dead Peoples' Things."
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:
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
…I knew we would soon see the totally understandable post by someone such as Davidv:
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:
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:
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:
Well as I stated, there is still no bottom support coming on or with the stove, my dealer made hand made shims and placed them under the stove to hold it up, may stop the stove from drooping down but I don't think it will stop the welds from letting loose. As a side note, the Consumer Protection Agency is now handling my case and is also interested in the Weathermans stove as well so I would expect some serious repercussions to happen sooner or later....ie a recall or something else....... As the season is now over for heating, it won't be until next winter before I know how this new unit will hold up..
I definitely think you made the right decission with filing a safety report with the CPSC. They are a great organization.
I hope your response from them is as quick as mine, (two days, start to finish), thanks to a field investigator, Laurie Lovelace.
She was one heck of a dedicated individual who pursued my problem and complaint with a unbelieveable amount of dedication.
The idea of the shims sounds like a piss poor, half assed, solution to your problem. Which engineer designed this? It sounds really high tech and took alot of brain power.
This is suppose to be well constructed and designed unit. If you wanted this kind of "Bush League Fix", you could of probably used a 55 gallon drum for a insert and saved much ching.
These stoves are economy line plate steel stoves. The only this different is the castiron loading door option, than the plate steel body of century stoves These are not $3500 Woodstocks but in line with Endlanders and Droits.. I agree about the support should be there, and agree that comsumer agiencies should be informed and that issue persued.
To clarify it is hard to get BMW engineering in a Hugo or expect it
Separate names with a comma.