|
Joe in the world of contingent liability, you never admit to "testing" and your own engineering as bases for selecting a component.. I was in manufacturing business you take in as little overall liability as possible. In a real life legal situation "Keystone" just put the responsibility squarely in their lap. I ran this by my close friend who won the famous "Jeep Roll" over case. He found those statements to be fascinating. The way they should have responded was to say, "our engineers" "specifications" were provided to our suppliers and we followed their recommendations! If anything the email puts the liability back on Keystone! The only thing Keystone can posdible do is say the author overstepped their bounds. That however is not going to cut it! Keystone also better be prepared to show what "testing" they did and if no extensive testing was done" end of game. Instead of shifting liability for a "component" used in manufacturing they, by virtue of independent analysis made the choice. In addition they further complicated things by telling me, I was not given any "option" to have my unit delivered with a better tire. I got all they offered or recvomendeded. As far as over weight, a parade of experts will come forward to state, that the manufacture by virtue of experience knew it or should have known, "overloading happens", yet manufacturer failed to factor it into their calculations.
|