Who Should Pay?

SethO · Oct 2, 2003

There is a current thread that discusses the experience of a tractor owner whose warranty claim has been turned down for the use of an unapproved modification to his implement.
Another example is of a post in the JD forum of a backhoe for the 2210, yet JD does not recommend the use of a backhoe on the tractor.

My question is, should the manufacturers of these attachments/implements that are clearly not recommended for some tractors be responsible for damage to the tractor to some degree.

There may also be a statement to the effect that the implement is not approved for use on some tractors. Something like a disclaimer, and it does not have to be in small print.

Comments welcome

SethO

Mrwurm · Oct 2, 2003

With the versatility of utility tractors and the myriad of implements available, it would seem impossible for a manufacturer to identify and exclude certain ones. It's fairly easy for them to just say 'we only warrant our machines if used with our attachments'.

Kinda reminds me of two stroke Dirt Bikes. The manufacturers offer no warranty whatsoever on those.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 2, 2003

I would tend to think that the manufacturer should NOT be liable because they pretty clearly state what they do not recommend. If you do it anyway then you are at fault.

Now the dealer has a tendancy to muddy the waters a bit because he might sell you a backhoe for a tractor that the manufacturer doesn't recommend use a backhoe, and that opens a new can of worms. Let's say the dealer installs it as says it won't void the tractor warrenty . . . FIRST, YOU BETTER HAVE THAT IN WRITING FROM THE DEALER . . .

SECOND, a dealer's promise to a customers is probably NOT binding legally back to the manufacturer so the manufacturer can probably still void the warrenty but then I would think IF YOU GOT THE DEALER IN WRITING then even a dumb lawyer could get the dealer to fix the implement and the tractor at his expense. . . .

THIRD, what if the dealer doesn't bother to say anything about the fact that the implement he is about to install on your tractor is not designed for that tractor? My bet is that YOU are then liable because you signed off on the purchase, you ordered the install, and you created a situation where there was abuse of the equipment. . .

AND if you buy and install something the manufacturer does not recommend then you are clearly at fault.

If you modify an implement in any way that is not specifically approved by the manufacturer and it fails, I'd suggest you are at fault for repairs to the implement.

If you modify an implement in any way that is not specifically approved by the manufacturer and it fails and it damages the tractor, I'd suggest you are at fault for repairs to the tractor and to the implement.

If you modify the tractor in any way that is not specifically approved by the manufacturer and it fails, then I'd suggest that they have the right to void the warrenty.

My dealer's sales rep is a real farmer full time and tractor salesman part time. He told me to go ahead and drill into the ROPS to hang some extra lights. He did not say it was approved. He just said as a farmer sometimes he has to do what he has to do to get the job done. Did I drill holes in my ROPS? NOPE. I am still toying with adding lights, but I think I'll weld them on, or clamp them on, or stick them on with magnets. Now if I lived on FLAT land, I might now worry about the ROPS but I have a lot of steep spots to deal with and consequently I wear my seatbelt everytime I get on any of my tractors, so I'm a little paranoid about a ROPS failure. But the fact is, if I weaken the structure, there is nobody to blame but me. And if I put too much load on my electrical system and it starts a fire instead of blowing a fuse, well that is my fault too.

Etcetera ad infinitum . . . /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

jcollins · Oct 2, 2003

Welding to the ROPS weaken the structure as well. MFG's say to clamp to the rops only.

nomad · Oct 2, 2003

You buy that attachment from a dealer? Then, the dealer pays.

But this is in 'formal life'. On the other hand, there is the 'informal life' in that you consider 'there is/are powers above the laws' - then, who will pay? This is true question to be answered.

nomad · Oct 2, 2003

Let me try to answer my own question above;

If you believe in that the laws is the power, you pay to the laws (lawyers.)

If you believe in that there are other powers above laws, you pay to those (other powers.)

In either case, you the believer pay.

There is third option which I call balance/equilibrium in which all pay - but will not go into it because too philosophical for you for the moment as I think people aren't familiar with balance/equilibrium understanding even though it's always there.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 2, 2003

Nomad, I have multiple tractors, I buy the implement from the dealer, he doesn't know what tractor I am putting it on. For that matter, he might not even know I have a different brand machine in the garage other than the one he sold me. And if I bought the tractor last year and the implement this year then unless I got the same sales rep, and that guy has a good memory, then there is no way the dealer is liable.

The only way I see the dealer as possibly being liable is if he is my brother in law, he sells me everything I have in the garage, he does the repairs to everything, he makes the recommendations, and I have everything he told me in writing. Other than that, it is kind of like smoking. . . cigarettes cause cancer. . . or like eating too many Big Macs . . . you will get fat . . . or eating too much sugar . . . you will have cavities, and probably develop diabetes

Regarding welding on the ROPS, yes it will weaken it if it is done incorrectly or if it is done correctly but with little thought to the structure. However, if a corner bracket is added with a flange that holds the light, then it will strenghten the ROPS structure, but still probably void the warrenty.

I take exeption with those who blame others. I feel I am responsible for my own actions and my own mistakes. Maybe I was born 100 years too late to live in today's society that accepts no blame, makes everyone a victim and rewards idiots.

Soundguy · Oct 2, 2003

( Welding to the ROPS weaken the structure as well. MFG's say to clamp to the rops only )

I agree fully. No welds, cuts or drills to the rops.. why take the chance.. even if the chance is .0000001%.

Even the manufacturer uses ridged U-bolts to install canopies on the rops.

Soundguy

nomad · Oct 2, 2003

Bob_Skurka, I guess you were typing while I was posting my last post above. So, you probably didn't see my last post. Please, read my last post above, especially "balance / equilibrium" part which is its important part as it's the true reality.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 2, 2003

No, I saw it, but I choose to believe something different, maybe you are right and it is too phylisophical for me. Maybe I am just too black and white.

But to go with the balance / equilibrium concept, I suppose if I gave it much thought, I wouldn't think much of it.

BillyP · Oct 2, 2003

The way I see it is if you go buy brand x tractor, it's the seller's responsibility to educate you on what is allowed and what is not. After all, that is part of his 'job'. He should be capable of knowing the specs allowed/disallowed. If whatever implement/attachment is within the tractor's specs, then it's tractor company's fault.

If you go buy a JD 2210 and the dealer says brand x backhoe will work, then it's his call. Unless he tells you JD doesn't recommend one. Then it's your baby.

I'd say, more than 90% of warranty issues are left up to the dealers discretion. If you have a good dealer, he'll take care of you.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 2, 2003

BillyP: I think you are right to a point, but only under some circumstances. First, I totally agree that a good dealer will find a way to make things work. And I do think that it is the dealers job to know what will and will not work. But that only goes as far as the dealer selling a package of products, or selling an implement for a specific product. What about the guy who has an old Ford 8N and buys a modern trip bucket front loader on it. No warrenty on the Ford because it was built 50 years ago, but lets say the front end fails, and the tractor comes crashing down and damages the subframe of that new loader. Is that loader warrenty going to cover the damage caused to the loader because the front end gave away? The example is extreme, but many of us buy equipment over several years, or buy used equipment, or buy from multiple dealers. Your example in your post only allows for the 1 tractor 1 dealer senario, which, while valid in its own right, is very limited in scope.

Like I said, I agree with you within that limited scope, but what about all the other possibilities, in most of those, the owner is the one who is probably causing his own grief.

nomad · Oct 2, 2003

But to go with the balance / equilibrium concept, I suppose if I gave it much thought, I wouldn't think much of it. 


Actually, it's very simple concept.
Let me make it concrete a little.
LETS SUPPOSE the dealer knew that attachment would not fit your tractor, but you didn't ask that and the dealer didn't say that it wouldn't fit your tractor HP because he wanted to make some profit. Then, you bought the attachment and used some days, but you found out that your attachment isn't doing the work at rated power. NOW? You question who should pay - You think the dealer should not pay because you THINK he didn't know or you didn't ask him if it would fit or not. You take the blame? Correct - because you made a mistake and you pay for that by hurting yourself by blaming yorself. But the dealer too will pay somehow because he knew it wouldn't fit even if you don't think so. This is in the balance/equilibrium concept.

But there is also another problem. You lost some days too that you wasted with an inappropriate attachment you were sold or you bought. How/who will pay your days/time you lost? This is another story... When we were kids we were asking payments back by the "exactly same" ball when someone blew up our ball. We weren't considering it was a pay back even if we were given a very similar ball. Kids don't know as much as adults do, but them kids feels the reality.

BillyP · Oct 2, 2003

Bob, I was addressing SethO's question on warranty issues, in my scenario.

Now what you're talking about, I'll agree. That's a whole new ballgame. The best advice I can give is to educate yourself before you jump in.

I just wish I had been on the jury when the lady sued MacDonalds over the hot coffee deal. How can someone sue another for their own stupidity /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Bob_Skurka · Oct 2, 2003

Naw, I wouldn't have wanted to be on the jury, I would have loved to have been the judge. After thowing the case out the window I would have ***** slapped her lawyers for even disgracing the courtroom with such ignorance.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 2, 2003

You are right it is a simple concept.

I understood it the first time.

I still generally dismiss it.

The buyer is responsible for the ultimate decision of buying, using and misuing. If the buyer is not informed, that is still his fault. The dealer should try to educate and try to recommend what is appropriate, but the buyer makes the final choice of what he will buy, what he will attach to what, how he will use the attachment, and if he will modify it.

I'm sorry if I was unclear in the fact that when I wrote that I didn't think much of it you didn't understand that I did understand it. I did.

I just live my life differently. . . scientiae et virtuti . . . loosely translated: knowledge and guts. I am responsible for my own level of knowledge, and how I live my life.

nomad · Oct 2, 2003

Responsibility is also in "unknown-knowledge-yet" which is an ocean comparing with "known-knowledge" which is a droplet in that ocean with billions of droplets.

Yes, buyer is responsible in his part; buying process and seller is responsible in his part, in selling process. If buyer is making a mistake and if seller is aware of that mistake of buyer? Then? Again, the both pays (to my balance / equilibrium concept.)

Also, the seller has to educate on the implements? I don't think this is correct. If the seller does education process, then he/she also has to take the money given to agricultural professors.

Bob_Skurka · Oct 2, 2003

You are making some assumptions that cannot be applied in way too many cases, such as the dealer knowing he is selling you something that won't work but not telling you . . .

As for the vastness of the ocean of knoweldge stuff. . . whatever that is, I disagree. In fact I think it is bull.

On a given topic, say the weight capacity of a 3pt hitch on brand X tractor, there is SPECIFIC knowledge as to the limit, there is not some vast amount of unknown knowledge about the capacity limit it is defined by the capacity of the hydraulic pump and flow, the capacity of the lines, further by the capacity and breaking strength of the metal arm, all of that is KNOWN and SPECIFIC. In fact, it is published in the owners manual, typically with 1 simple statement that reads like this: "The capacity of the 3pt is 1200 pounds as measured 24" behind the hitch point."

Something above the capacity is not going to work. The buyer needs to take responsibility. However the vastness of his responsibility is apparently limited in the universial axiom of sloppy thought and incomplete theory.

nomad · Oct 2, 2003

( all of that is KNOWN and SPECIFIC. In fact, it is published in the owners manual, typically with 1 simple statement that reads like this: "The capacity of the 3pt is 1200 pounds as measured 24" behind the hitch point."
)

If the buyer is responsible in his/her mistakes, then think about this; what if this "The capacity of the 3pt is 1200 pounds" statement in the manual is an error? Would you as a buyer consider you made a mistake? No? It's No because you believed in the manual? Will you blame the manual printer, manufacturer who ordered printing or dealer who gave you that manual or will you again blame yourself how poor buyer you are because you believed in a wrong manual? Ok, this errorous manual example is maybe very simple. But the communication/interaction between a seller and a buyer is full of such errors/mistakes similar to the errors/mistakes in that manual. We are questioning such a difficult case. And, this interaction/communication between two humans is much more complicated than the interaction/communication between a buyer and a manual. Usually, it's not so clear who is doing mistake. If you claim you as a buyer still take the responsibility (without knowing seller is making a mistake or not) and blame yourself (maybe for seller's mistake), then, it's your own choice.

To me, too many unknowns - especially, if the question is "who should pay/blame"... But I simplified too many unknowns to a simple concept that I called balance / equilibrium in which all pay. this way or that way.