Who Should Pay?

[Bob_Skurka]

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]

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]

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]

</font><font color="blueclass=small">
But to go with the balance / equilibrium concept, I suppose if I gave it much thought, I wouldn't think much of it. </font>
</font>

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( 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."
)</font>

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.