I'm fairly confident it's more than just a theory, I think it's law. The critical word in law is always what's "reasonable." Anything relating to the safe use of a product should be included with the product or at least a pointer to the safety information should be included with the product. If neither were included, then it seems clear to me they haven't exercised their care of duty. By stating the warranty is null and void with anything but factory ammo, it's inferred there is a chance the rifle could fail.
Cheers,
Craig.
Dangermouse wrote:Halodin,
That is an interesting theory regards being given a manual with the product. In this electronic age and one where companies are looking to save the planet / reduce costs, it is becoming more common to purchase items and find the user instructions are on the manufacturers web sites.
I know the instructions for the LR9mm are on the internet,
Thanks for taking the time to post the photos, it's appreciated. I read on the other SGC thread that there are 4 known catastrophic failures of this rifle, do all 4 show the same signs of failure?
phaedra1106 wrote:Halodin, thanks for the input. Luckily neither of us were hurt, both rifles failed with exactly the same resultant damage.
If someone sues you under product liability laws, your first step is to consider who is liable. If you are a distributor, such as a shop, you may not be liable if you can identify the original producer.
If you’re the producer and you believe the problem was caused by a fault in your production process, you may want to admit liability and settle the claim. Alternatively, you will need to prove one of six defences:
1.You did not supply the product. For example, you are not liable if a product is stolen or is a fake copy of one of your products.
2.You could not reasonably be expected to discover the safety fault. For example, if scientific evidence first comes to light after you have manufactured or sold your product.
3.The safety fault was an inevitable result of obeying other laws.
4.Someone else caused the fault after you supplied the product.
5.You didn’t supply the product in the course of business. For example, the law does not apply to private gifts.
6.If you make components, you are not liable if you can show that the manufacturer who assembled the product caused the fault. For example, the manufacturer might have made a poorly designed product or ordered the wrong components from you.
You can’t defend yourself simply on the basis that a user was careless. But if you can show that they contributed to a problem, the amount of damages may be reduced.
If Trading Standards take enforcement action against you under product safety rules, you can also choose to defend yourself. You need to prove you did everything that could reasonably be expected. If you’re successful, you may get compensation for any loss suffered - eg if Trading Standards destroyed your goods.
You should be aware that court cases are usually expensive and complicated. Take professional legal advice before taking any action.
Political Correctness is the language of lies, written by the corrupt , spoken by the inept!
HALODIN wrote:Thanks for taking the time to post the photos, it's appreciated. I read on the other SGC thread that there are 4 known catastrophic failures of this rifle, do all 4 show the same signs of failure?
Which other thread?, as far as I know there's only the two failures, one of the Aberdeen club guys had his refunded as not fit for purpose and I think the other one is still using it with continuing feed problems.
There's room for all Gods creatures, next to the mash and gravy :)
ovenpaa wrote:One failure in the field is hardly a trend of failures...
ONE = I'd agree 100%
I know of FOUR, one being Jeff's
phaedra1106 wrote:
HALODIN wrote:Thanks for taking the time to post the photos, it's appreciated. I read on the other SGC thread that there are 4 known catastrophic failures of this rifle, do all 4 show the same signs of failure?
Which other thread?, as far as I know there's only the two failures, one of the Aberdeen club guys had his refunded as not fit for purpose and I think the other one is still using it with continuing feed problems.
This is now a well trodden road chaps, suffice it to say I am in business and have been for a good number of years now, in that time I have had to go to town on a number of Companies we deal with/dealt with to recover moneys owed etc.......so far I have been successful in getting our money back.......
Two points, Anything you buy has to be "fit for purpose" this would be my main point of attack in this position.
Second is this, really very simple, when having to deal with a Company when things go wrong with a deal do everything via email, the reason is quite simple, emails are admissible evidence in court, they are regarded as evidence, while phone call promises are deniable and "Never happened Gov"!
So if someone won't email you back and insists on phoning you, expect trouble, its an early warning!!!!
