Join for free
Page 4 of 4 « First < 2 3 4
Donkeyman
Chatterbox
Donkeyman is offline
Melton,United Kingdom
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 9,088
Donkeyman is male  Donkeyman has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
12-11-2020, 11:56 AM
31

Re: Product endorsement

Originally Posted by The Artful Todger ->
Fit for purpose within the expressed limitations of the spec or application notes. If the buyer uses the product outside of the spec then that's down to them.

If in this case the product was used within the specs valid at the time then "state of the art" defence applies. In the case of buildings that are now potential fire hazards because of what has been learned then the onus to do something about it is on the leaseholder or possibly the building management business.
Surely that requires that the purveyor of the faulty goods can prove
that he UNKNOWINGLY sold a dangerous product?
In the case of Grenfell it is obvious from evidence presented
at the inquiry that the purveyor was all too aware of the shortcomings
of their product! The inquiry has the E mails to prove it !!
The case of the poor sods living in high rise accomodation clad
with what is now accepted to be a life threatening product is more
complicated and needs government intervention via new laws to
control the sale and leasing of multi tenancy accomodation and who
is liable for what etc!
At the moment it seems landlords have the whip hand and the
relationship needs rebalancing imo??

Donkeyman! 👎👎
The Artful Todger's Avatar
The Artful Todger
Chatterbox
The Artful Todger is offline
Suffolk UK
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 12,816
The Artful Todger is male  The Artful Todger has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
12-11-2020, 01:37 PM
32

Re: Product endorsement

Originally Posted by Donkeyman ->
Surely that requires that the purveyor of the faulty goods can prove
that he UNKNOWINGLY sold a dangerous product?
In the case of Grenfell it is obvious from evidence presented
at the inquiry that the purveyor was all too aware of the shortcomings
of their product! The inquiry has the E mails to prove it !!
The case of the poor sods living in high rise accomodation clad
with what is now accepted to be a life threatening product is more
complicated and needs government intervention via new laws to
control the sale and leasing of multi tenancy accomodation and who
is liable for what etc!
At the moment it seems landlords have the whip hand and the
relationship needs rebalancing imo??

Donkeyman! 👎👎
But were any shortcomings of the product known by the manufacturer at the time of sale that were not addressed in the limitations of use contained within the specification? There is still no evidence that such was the case.

As for folk living in accommodation that is unsafe based on what is known today but was not known when the cladding was installed it's a realcan of worms and all sorts of variables become involved such as warranties given in contract by who and to whom.
Longdogs's Avatar
Longdogs
Chatterbox
Longdogs is offline
SW England
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 43,957
Longdogs is male  Longdogs has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
12-11-2020, 02:52 PM
33

Re: Product endorsement

Does Claudia Winkleman really use Head & Shoulders?
Does Stacey Dooley really die her own hair with 'Nice & Easy'?
Does Parky only drink Yorkshire tea?

I doubt it. Personally I couldn't sell anything I didn't believe in.
 
Page 4 of 4 « First < 2 3 4



© Copyright 2009, Over50sForum   Contact Us | Over 50s Forum! | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.