Point 2 - the manufacturer likely built to the prints and requirements stated in the functional specification at the time the product was being bid, and subsequent development. If there were known changes coming into effect that would be a point of discussion during the product development and the functional specification update at that time to reference the changed standard. But they are not soothsayers who can predict the entire future of a standard. It appears the company in this case did exactly the correct thing. They built the equipment to the customers functional specifications, maintained the design in a consistent fashion with those specifications and when a change that was not in the functional specification came about they contacted the customer to see if they wished to make said changes, and informed them of the cost and time required to make them.
Gary -----Original Message----- From: John Shinn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] standards update and legal madness 1. John Woodgate makes an excellent point regarding why didn't the manufacture know about the Standard Changes. 2. Does the manufacturer build to the customer's prints and requirements? If so, why didn't the customer know about the Standard Changes? John Shinn -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] standards update and legal madness In message <518cfcd229674efe916347038430c...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> , dated Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Brian Oconnell <[email protected]> writes: >A company makes a component for North American market designed for the >needs of a single customer. The company received notices from CSA and UL >with tabulation of standards corrections. The company informed affected >customer of time and cost to update. H'mmm. Why didn't the manufacturer know about the changes to the standards? Or is it a case of a running product that now needs to conform to updated, **improved** standards? That's how the real world works, not how the inhabitants of Planet Legal might like it to work. > >The company then receives letter from the customer's legal dweebs - they >want to see complete list of organizations and individuals that >"contributed to the errors" that caused a mandatory update to the standard. I'd be inclined to say that the culprits, if there are any, are UL and CSA and their managers! Standards committee members offer their work for approval at several stages in the organizations before the work is published. There is a big and vulnerable assumption that 'errors' are involved, but a defence based on 'state of the art' can be problematical because the legal people who have to present the case, however intelligent, cannot possibly absorb all the background that is involved in determining 'state of the art'. For example, what has been done once, or even a hundred times, in a university laboratory isn't state of the art in the real world. It's only state of the art if you can buy it or manufacture it. > >The company's customer is considering pursuing a tort for lost opportunity >and professional incompetence. Has this ever been done? Has a member of a >TC/WG ever been served with a subpoena for this stuff? Is this stupid or >just insane? It is beside the point but in Britain the British Standards Institution has legal protection against such an action. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Nondum ex silvis sumus John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
