[no subject]

But I'll admit it could be equally likely that they couldn't do the mods
until the ETL testing was complete.  Or, maybe ETL found something *else*
that needs to be fixed in addition to the choke.  Something safety related.
Maybe they'll choose to let us know which. All we know is that *something*
made them decide to modify all the switches everywhere in the pipeline, and
apparently, in only the last few days.  And I know I wouldn't buy any of the
hand-worked switches, either.

We clearly differ in our belief in how vendors should behave.  I'll bet that
someone who built a new house and had electricians put in lots of the
switches and who dims large loads won't feel anywhere near as generous as
you're feeling.  They won't be as interested in forgetting the past and
back-slapping SH for finally doing the right thing.  Consider, too, Bruce,
that you can both do the electrical work yourself and got a substantial
discount.  That already makes you a lot more "whole" than many other
purchasers.

>  BTW, modifying a product after initial manufacture but prior to first
> sale does not constitute refurbishment or remanufacture.  It is still, >
in every way under the law, a brand new product.  I had personal
> experience in this matter where an initial batch of telecom products we
> produced in China needed modification here prior to sale. We had about
> 10,000 pieces and gathered up teams of employees, their families and
> friends to spend three weeks of nights and weekends making the change
> and repackaging them.  Our attorney advised us that the product was
> still considered brand new and in no way needed to be called anything
> else. As modified, they were still unused, first quality goods in every
> respect.

That's what you hired him to say, whether you realized it or not.  It's what
I am certain you wanted to hear.  I'm sure he would have been happy to
represent you had you been sued, though, and would have continued to support
his contentions all the way through to a judgement against you.

When he said "first sale" he could have meant before they were ever offered
for sale.  Were you a disgruntled buyer, unhappy because you bought what you
believed to be a reworked product that was not advertised as such, I'll bet
nickels to navy beans you could easily find a lawyer that would tell you
that you have a cause of action.  That's just lawyering.

Everyone here, I am sure, has at one point or another bought a product that
appeared absolutely brand new in every respect except for a refurb sticker.
For the big boys like IBM, leaving that out, even in the circumstances that
you relate personally, leave them open to exposure.  I'll bet your lawyer
made a judgement call specific to your circumstances and location of
business.  My understanding of the refurb laws is if you sell some, find out
they're bad and then pull them all back from anywhere in the channel to
correct them, you're in murky legal water.  It's that "informed consent"
idea I discussed previously.

What I wonder about is what happens to all the switches that are being
returned from customers for modification?  They're not new by any means.
Somehow, I get the feeling based on actions up until now, they won't be
marked "refurbished" either.  Wouldn't you agree that those switches would
fall under anyone's interpretation of "refurbished?"

--
Bobby G.