Clutch safety switch. (In the wire between keyswitch and starter). One more: the multi - speed pto. 540 and sometimes 1000 rpm are the standard rear pto speeds on the US Yanmars.
Yup forgot those thank you.
Clutch safety switch. (In the wire between keyswitch and starter). One more: the multi - speed pto. 540 and sometimes 1000 rpm are the standard rear pto speeds on the US Yanmars.
I saw them arrive like that at the local VN importer. Except the carpentry wasn't that great and some of the the lower tractors had dented hoods, scuff marks etc where the load settled.
My RS1400 tiller must have come over in a poured-in load like that shipper's second container. I bought the importer's most weathered looking tiller because it was cheapest. Its adjustment wheel on top was crushed flat. But for $200 including a full set of replacement tines - which it doesn't need yet - it was worth it to straighten the wheel.The wheel straightened out fine. They even included a pto shaft extender, while I think the problem is my 3-point arms are longer than standard. I don't think we will see bargains like this again.
no rental places in your area?
no rental places in your area?
Tractors are shipped with tires and fenders off, but that is just so that they can fit more into the container. If you look it up you can find videos on either youtube and pics on some japaneese expoter sites where they show contianers being loaded in this way. They load them on top of the tires and then 2 high.
interesting! is he still getting these "tractor parts"?
I have read and thought about this situation for awhile. I really don't understand the basis for some these lawsuits, and cannot figure out how they have proceeded through the judicial system.
Most places I have seen, like Fredericks and Best Used Tractors (Who sell Fredricks units) are up front in stating their tractors are used. The lawsuits focus on trademark infringement, which as I understand it requires the use of another's trademark in a way that causes confusion. Trademark infringement | LII / Legal Information Institute
Selling used Chevrolet, Lexus, or Fiat cars does not cause trademark infringement. A used boat dealer marketing Bayliner, Eliminator and SeaRay vessels is not in danger of being sued for confusion over affiliation with the holders of the trademark.
False business practices like claiming affiliation with Yanmar when none exists have not been alleged in the synopses of court dockets I have read, so I don't understand how any infringement can even occur: these retailers are selling YANMAR products! Yanmar manufactured and sold them.
They were imported here, and sold as Yanmar tractors. There is no infringement of trademark I can determine, because there no dilution of the trademark. There is no confusion over who built the tractors: Yanmar did.
I understand Yanmar does not want their products for overseas markets sold here, but I find the grounds for this lawsuit baseless. I hope it is dismissed with prejudice; it would be nice to see the Kubota lawsuit overturned, too. It won't happen, but I feel these events are a miscarriage of justice, irrespective of the fact that I would like the importation of used tractors to resume/continue for personal reasons.
I hate reading discouraging things like this. If the lawsuits succeed, many people who are employed in a fully legal occupation will be put out of work for no good purpose.
I have read and thought about this situation for awhile. I really don't understand the basis for some these lawsuits, and cannot figure out how they have proceeded through the judicial system.
Most places I have seen, like Fredericks and Best Used Tractors (Who sell Fredricks units) are up front in stating their tractors are used. The lawsuits focus on trademark infringement, which as I understand it requires the use of another's trademark in a way that causes confusion. Trademark infringement | LII / Legal Information Institute
Selling used Chevrolet, Lexus, or Fiat cars does not cause trademark infringement. A used boat dealer marketing Bayliner, Eliminator and SeaRay vessels is not in danger of being sued for confusion over affiliation with the holders of the trademark.
False business practices like claiming affiliation with Yanmar when none exists have not been alleged in the synopses of court dockets I have read, so I don't understand how any infringement can even occur: these retailers are selling YANMAR products! Yanmar manufactured and sold them.
They were imported here, and sold as Yanmar tractors. There is no infringement of trademark I can determine, because there no dilution of the trademark. There is no confusion over who built the tractors: Yanmar did.
I understand Yanmar does not want their products for overseas markets sold here, but I find the grounds for this lawsuit baseless. I hope it is dismissed with prejudice; it would be nice to see the Kubota lawsuit overturned, too. It won't happen, but I feel these events are a miscarriage of justice, irrespective of the fact that I would like the importation of used tractors to resume/continue for personal reasons.
I hate reading discouraging things like this. If the lawsuits succeed, many people who are employed in a fully legal occupation will be put out of work for no good purpose.
Who ever has the most money to spend wins period. That is the way our judicial system is now. The days are long gone when you could get justice simply because you were right.