Re: 110 VAC Fire Alarms

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Dec 9, 1:50=EF=BF=BDpm, Frank Olson
<use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Frank Olson wrote:
> > Roland Moore wrote:
> >> =EF=BF=BD>Where "liability" comes into play is when you've tagged >off =
=EF=BF=BDon
> >> something
> >> as "meeting spec" and it can be >demonstrated that it doesn't
> >> (negligence).
>
> >> It was not only that but if something doesn't work after the
> >> inspection, or
> >> fails a few weeks down the road, cheapskates like that will inevitably
> >> call
> >> up and insist your "fix" their problem for free "since it was working
> >> fine
> >> before your man touched it".
>
> > There is no warranty either provided or implied for annual
> > tests/inspections. =EF=BF=BDWarranty only applies to those devices you s=
upply as
> > "new" to a job. =EF=BF=BDDevices can fail at any time. =EF=BF=BDThe mana=
ger has to
> > perform his monthly and daily tests (and maintain records of those
> > tests). =EF=BF=BDIt's usually at this stage that you can document exactl=
y when
> > the device in question "failed".
>
> I should add that the "cheapskates" Roland mentions in his response
> wouldn't employ our services. =EF=BF=BDThey'd find some Nimrod to do it fo=
r the
> $100.00 (and they'd be welcome to the headache afterwards).- >


I've said it before.
Having no customer is better than having one who doesn't pay.