A jointer saga part II

Page 2 of 2  
Lawyers would want the data that .008" variation would be causal. Was a torque wrench used and recorded in seating the knives, maybe motor bearings were the cause

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
joedog states:

Lawyers can want anything. What they get is often less but more practical. The variation could be causal, as you put it. I don't know ANYONE who uses a torque wrench on small, or for that matter larger, jointers. Period. If that's a requirement, it needs to be in the manuals--which lawyers vet. How are motor bearings going to cause a blade to be flung out of a cutterhead that is not directly attached? The belt would slip long before it would fling the blades.
Charlie Self "Property is not the sacred right. When a rich man becomes poor it is a misfortune, it is not a moral evil. When a poor man becomes destitute, it is a moral evil, teeming with consequences and injurious to society and morality." Lord Acton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yahoo wrote:

Belt driven. The wedges are held in place by small bolts with Allen wrench heads. No torque values are given in the manual which means that you cinch them down as tight as possible with an Allen wrench.
I have the original knives and now two new replacement wedge bolts. This afternoon I will test the movement of the cutter to see if it vibrates. If all goes well, I'll put in the blades and give it the old slice and dice test. We shall see.     mahalo,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn writes:

Just stand well to one side. I'd turn the sucker on with a stick.
Charlie Self "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." Thomas Paine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Marc) wrote:

That wasn't the point at all. The guy's problem was that the replacement knives that Sears sold were defective, and the defective knives damaged the machine. He's not complaining about the jointer wearing out, for Pete's sake, he's griping that it was destroyed by defective replacement parts.

Sure doesn't sound like it to _me_.

You've totally missed the point...
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
isn't there any culpability on the part of the person installing the wrong parts??? Is Sears 100% fault for providing the guy what they thought would fit his 33 year old equipment? gimmie a break!
dave
Doug Miller wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Suppose you go to the corner gas station and fill up your car -- but unbeknownst to you, the guy that delivers the fuel screwed up and put diesel in the underground tank instead of regular unleaded. And it damages your engine. Are you at fault for pumping the wrong stuff in your gas tank?

The problem, as I read it, was that the replacement parts were machined to such sloppy tolerances as would virtually guarantee a problem of some sort. So cast your question another way: Is Sears 100% at fault for providing the guy with poorly machined jointer knives? Absolutely.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BAAAAD analogy Doug.
Gas isn't something that you can scrutinize like a blade. He should have noticed the problem when assembling it. Besides, 33 years for a piece of equipment is long enough to have gotten his money's worth. He should quit being a whining tightwad and rush out and buy a new toy! :)
If the equipment was 6 months old, and he took it in to a repair station and they installed the wrong parts and handed it back to him in a dangerous condition, then for sure they are responsible. With the facts as the OP stated, I maintain HE is responsible to some extent. You can't turn a blind eye when installing parts for any fast rotating equipment, be it from Sears, Delta or blah blah blah.
dave
Doug Miller wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Uhhuh. and how often do you get out a micrometer and measure new blades before you put them in the jointer? Or are your eyes good enough to notice a variance of 0.008 of an inch over 6 inches?
Dougs analogy was spot on.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bay Area Dave wrote:

BAD,
The planer was not the problem. The blades were. The blades were 0 years old. The 33 year old planer is irrelevant to the issue.
If the OP had installed the same *DEFECTIVE* blades on a shiny new 0-year-old planer, they would have spun out and possibly injured someone.
I say it's a good analogy.
- Daniel
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
From at least one lawyer's perspective (i.e., mine), here's the issue: John orders parts from Sears with part number, which they stock, for the machine at issue. John installs part, part is not to spec, part damages machine. Semi-reasonable inquiry (in the context of negotiation, you want to lead with a strong demand, but everybody knows you will settle for less)on how to make it right by John. Sears admits replacement parts to put the machine back where it was before the blades damaged machine are in stock, but that they list for almost what a new machine is worth. Offer: 10% off a new machine.
Now, what we are talking about is proximate cause, or in other words, who did what that caused the damage to the machine. If the blade spec was indeed off, that to me would do it, as from what I understand the blades were thrown from the spinning cutterhead, and that caused the damage. Next, what is the remedy. Generally speaking, its to put the damaged party back in the same condition he or she was prior to the incident. In this case, replacement of the damaged parts. The fact that the machine is 33 years old is not particularly relevant; prior to the incident, it was servicable and did its job well. While the value of a 33 year old machine has relevance to the settlement value, I think that the cost of repair is recoverable notwithstanding the age of the machine. The old auto insurance analogy, i.e., the car is old, book value is $x and cost of repair $x+$y and therefore the care is "totaled" for $x book value is a creature of the insurance contract, not products liability tort (negligence)law.
My view is that John should file a small claims complaint against Sears in his local courts. Go down to the court clerk, they are helpful, have forms, and it does not cost all that much. He has admissions (i.e., statements in email writings) that Sears has the parts he needs to properly repair the machine, he can prove that the blades did not meet spec (his testimony is indeed evidential proof, he does not need the blades themselves, although he can demand Sears produce them for the hearing), and that Sears sold him the blades Sears said would fit his particular machine. Any Judge who has any balls (especially if the Judges in your state are elected - they'll stand up for the little guy on things like this) will agree Sears must pay for the repair costs, notwithstanding the age of the machine or its current market value, and are generally sympathetic to the average Joe who gets the short end of the stick from a large corporation. Now, on a practical note, after you file the small claims complaint, serve it on the Sears Headquarters by certified mail (mail service of complaints are generally allowed), and by the time they figure out WTF is going on and forward it to their internal lawyers, etc., the initial time for Sears to file an answering pleading in your local court may have past, and if you are on your toes you can get a "default" judgment, ie, a judgment granted by Sear's failure to file an answering pleading. Then Sears has to hire lawyers, which cost a lot more than $300, to "vacate" the judgment; alternatively, they file an answer, and again have to hire lawyers, etc.
I think the guy at Sears is trying to be a hero and save the company money by offering a 10% discount, which IMHO is bull###t. He knows better, and likely there is internal email somewhere in Sears saying "thank god there is no personal injury here, let's just grinF**k this guy and he will go away." Typical "loss management" behavior that I see all the time. So if they want to take the cheap way out of this, well, I say screw 'em, sue the bastuds, as John is left with an unusable jointer simply because they sent him the wrong blades, and that's not right. Instead of doing the right thing for the customer, he tried to save a few bucks at John's expense. Make them pay.
Now, if you really want to get nasty, in most states there is a consumer fraud statute, and if you can prove that Sears knew, or should have known that the blades were off spec, you can get treble damages. All you have to do is send them a demand for production of documents as to all prior orders of this part, any complaints they have gotten, and whether any were returned because they did not fit. If you get lucky, then you collect $900, and then you go out an buy an nice 8" Grizzly jointer for your trouble.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Mutt) wrote in message that we are not talking personal injury here.
The case may well be arguable, it could well have been faulty installation at fault. But unless we are talking a $1200 jointer there is no way it is going to be worth arguing over.
Sear's attitude would make sense if there was a likelihood of lots of similar claims. But this is a no brainer settler.
Phill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

If he still has undamaged blades in his possession that have the 0.008 variance, something not commonly checked for (I'll be checking from now on), faulty installation procedure becomes secondary, I would think, especially if he had installed blades without incident prior to this.
> But unless we are talking a $1200 jointer

Anythings worth arguing over.
--
Mark

N.E. Ohio
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.