Luke's dad Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I recently bought an ashdown abm500 evo III. It quickly developed a fault and blew an ampeg 2x10 cab that I already owned. Where do I stand legally as the item i bought damaged something I already owned. Can I claim against ashdown? Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassBus Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I'd get in touch with Ashdown. I had a fault on my MAG210T when I had it. They took the amp back via the point of sale and dealt with it. They were very helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr M Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 A bit of a tricky one. I'm assuming the ABM was bought new, and is still in warranty? If that's the case, I understand Ashdown have a pretty good reputation for customer service. However, they may not be inclined to take responsibility for the Ampeg cab. I've always been under the impression that most companies work on the principle that they won't guarantee their equipment is compatible with any other manufacturer's. There's also a question of the age and specs of the cab. Ashdown themselves only guarantee speakers for 2 years. In addition, the ABM is rated at 1000W at 4 ohms / 575W at 8 ohm (I believe). If the Ampeg cab doesn't meet either of these, then it's very unlikely Ashdown will take any responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I think they will sort the amp of course, but you have next to no chance with the cab...as per Dr M's post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protium Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 [quote name='Luke's dad' timestamp='1354552475' post='1887262'] I recently bought an ashdown abm500 evo III. It quickly developed a fault and blew an ampeg 2x10 cab that I already owned. Where do I stand legally as the item i bought damaged something I already owned. Can I claim against ashdown? Cheers [/quote] Depends on the fault, though I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I reckon you're in goodwill territory, depending on the nature of the fault. I doubt that manufacturers have any liability for consequential damages. Imagine if a house was burned down because of, say, a faulty toaster - do we really think the toaster manufacturer would be liable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurksalot Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1354561960' post='1887430'] I reckon you're in goodwill territory, depending on the nature of the fault. I doubt that manufacturers have any liability for consequential damages. Imagine if a house was burned down because of, say, a faulty toaster - do we really think the toaster manufacturer would be liable? [/quote] Quite possibly yes, if they could be proved negligent in the design or manufacture iof the toaster , but in the real world ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 . . . in the real world they will have had the item independently tested and certified as being compliant with the relevant product standards. This, together with their ISO9000 manufacturing quality system, will be their defence against any negligence claims. If manufacturers were liable for consequential damages, their products would be unaffordable because they'd have to insure against potentially infinite (well, almost!) claims at an astronomical cost, making product manufacture an uneconomic proposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke's dad Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Had a reply from the Ashdown repair guy, it makes no sense to me but they said: "The power amp pcb had gone down. One of the main smoothing capacitors had failed to start with and took the output devices with it. Have now replaced the complete power amp pcb" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Not the clearest explanation but he's basically saying a faulty component caused a wider problem (not uncommon) and they've replaced the entire board (not uncommon). Not really enough info there to be sure about what happened to the attached speaker. A reasonable guess might be that the failure of the output devices could have resulted in the full voltage of the power supply being sent to the speaker outputs, which might have damaged the voice coil of the speaker - but it is just a guess. Have you told them about the damage to the speakers? I doubt they'll accept responsibility, for the above reasons, but there's no harm in asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke's dad Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 I've been dealing with the dealer I purchased the amp from, who have in turn dealt with Ashdown. The shop are fully aware as the amp also blew a 1x15 ashdown cab I bought off them at the same time (second hand). The dealer has repaired that cab already. Will definately ask them as can't really afford to replace the speakers in the 2x10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Ah well, if the dealer has already repaired one broken cab because of the faulty amp then it would be inconsistent not to repair the 210 as well. Definitely worth asking - good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretmeister Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 If your new amp caught fire and burned your house down, your house insurers would sue the amp company for their outlay. It's called product liability. If you can prove your faulty new amp shagged your cab, then they should be paying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurksalot Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1354573112' post='1887690'] . . . in the real world they will have had the item independently tested and certified as being compliant with the relevant product standards. This, together with their ISO9000 manufacturing quality system, will be their defence against any negligence claims. If manufacturers were liable for consequential damages, their products would be unaffordable because they'd have to insure against potentially infinite (well, almost!) claims at an astronomical cost, making product manufacture an uneconomic proposition. [/quote] All well and good , but if a dodgy one comes off the production line on a friday afternoon shift and causes an issue , if it can be proved , then they will be liable , despite all the bits of paper that say how good the thing should be . Companies have liability insurances for a reason Consequential damages were always argued away contractually , and to a degree still hold up , but if they have a faulty product that gets through and cause injury or damage that can be proved it is a different story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 [quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1354654474' post='1888863'] If your new amp caught fire and burned your house down, your house insurers would sue the amp company for their outlay. It's called product liability. If you can prove your faulty new amp shagged your cab, then they should be paying. [/quote] Do you know whether the £275 minimum limit still applies, and whether this would apply to the value of the item at the time of the damage (ie replacement cost like for like, rather than new)?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 [quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1354654652' post='1888867'] Consequential damages were always argued away contractually , and to a degree still hold up , but if they have a faulty product that gets through and cause injury or damage that can be proved it is a different story [/quote] I agree in principle, but it's a very big 'if', especially when you can show the court all your quality system documentation and the test certificates from independent test houses etc etc. Sure, sh1t can still happen, but proving negligence against such a background will be a very difficult, time-consuming and costly business . . . which is probably why product liability insurance isn't really all that expensive to buy in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke's dad Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 cheers for the advice, i'll let you know what happens! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurksalot Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1354663968' post='1889018'] I agree in principle, but it's a very big 'if', especially when you can show the court all your quality system documentation and the test certificates from independent test houses etc etc. Sure, sh1t can still happen, but proving negligence against such a background will be a very difficult, time-consuming and costly business . . . which is probably why product liability insurance isn't really all that expensive to buy in the first place. [/quote] I would not argue negligence , just arguing that if their product had caused damage or injury they would be liable for more than the cost of replacing their product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Argue away - but you'll need deep pockets to test it in the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johngh Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1354573112' post='1887690'] . . . in the real world they will have had the item independently tested and certified as being compliant with the relevant product standards. This, together with their[b] ISO9000 manufacturing quality system, will be their defence against any negligence claims.[/b] [/quote] Doubt if ISO accreditation would come into it. Any accredited 3rd party auditor will include a clause in the audit report that states that they can't guarantee full compliance with the system as the audit only covered selected criteria and not the whole system. Glad the problem with the amp has been sorted though. Think you have a good case to get the cab repaired as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 [quote name='Johngh' timestamp='1354798364' post='1890476'] Doubt if ISO accreditation would come into it. Any accredited 3rd party auditor will include a clause in the audit report that states that they can't guarantee full compliance with the system as the audit only covered selected criteria and not the whole system. [/quote] Agreed. No quality system is so perfect that it can guarantee no faults 100% of the time, but what it can do is prove that the company has been sufficiently diligent to have considered the risks and done everything reasonable to minimise them. In this respect it greatly assists a company's defence against negligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1354806562' post='1890650'] Agreed. No quality system is so perfect that it can guarantee no faults 100% of the time, but what it can do is prove that the company has been sufficiently diligent to have considered the risks and done everything reasonable to minimise them. In this respect it greatly assists a company's defence against negligence. [/quote] I think Fretmeister would probably be in the best position to chip in here, but I'm not sure they'd be defending against a charge of negligence. If someone has to claim under a guarantee for a defective item they have no need to prove negligence, just that there is a fault that wasn't caused by misuse. The amp in question was faulty, and that fault caused damage to another item. As the amp has been repaired by the retailer he should be able to prove whether the fault was caused by a manufacturing defect, faulty component or poor design that a reasonable person wouldn't expect. I don't think most people would consider it reasonable that a new ABM curls it's toes and dies under normal use. Now all he has to do is establish whether the fault caused the damage to the speaker. As he already has had one speaker repaired due to a fault in the amp, he stands a good chance of getting the second speaker fixed (as long as it has a value of at least £275). The OP originally posted this question in another thread, and I suggested he might get a better response with his own thread as well as pointing him to [url="http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/consumer/consumer_protection/139.html"]this page[/url], which suggests he has a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Yes, I understand that point of view. It seems reasonable but how many such claims are ever successfully made? We had a thread not so long ago about car engines being damaged when cam belts break. So you buy a new car, service it according to the manufacturers schedule, at a main agent, the cam belt change is scheduled at 60k miles but at 50k miles it breaks and the engine is wrecked. Must have been a faulty belt because it didn't last the 60k miles that the manufacturer expected (and even then with a big safety margin). Does anyone really believe that the cam belt manufacturer is going to pay for a new engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I suspect you're right, but given the amp has now been repaired twice and a speaker has already been repaired in the first instance the OP's case would appear to be stronger. Fingers crossed for the guy anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I'm not sure that the 'case' is stronger - as I originally said, I think it's a matter of discretion. But as you rightly say, the OP's dealer has already repaired one cab so let's hope they repair the second, though I reckon it would be an example of a good customer service rather than entitlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.