On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:52:58 -0700 (PDT), John Heath
<
heath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I have heard this argument too many times as if the costumer
>is responsible for electrical engineering issues. The customer
>paid for the amplifier leading a profit for the manufacturer.
>It is the manufacturer that is responsible to made sure the
>amplifier is idiot proof. Amplifiers have current limiting
>circuits which means you can sort the outputs all day long
>without any damage. If the manufacturer can not be bothered
>to be responsible for their own engineering leading to output
>transistor failure than they are in the wrong business.
>There is no such thing as a costumer that is wrong as he is
>the one that is paying the money. The failure is always up
>stream from the costumer. I will now get of my soap box.
In the past, when I needed some entertainment, I would read product
liability horror stories. It eventually became somewhat of a hobby
until I was overwhelmed with horror stories.
Your position is quite among customers and product liability
attorneys. The legal responsibility is a moving target, varying
depending on court decisions, commercial law, and both state and
federal laws. Over the years, it has swung in both directions, but at
no time has it ever been absolute. The manufacturer, retailer, and
customer all have their areas of responsibility with considerable
overlap.
Very briefly, the courts have recognized that manufacturers cannot
produce a 100% safe and reliable product. If they did, nobody could
afford it anyway. One compromise is that if a manufacturer can show
due diligence in informing the end user that there are some hazards
involved in using the product, and the customer is assumed to have
been so informed, then the customer cannot claim that they destroyed
the product or injured themselves in the manner specified in the
documentation. This is where the ever growing mass of legal documents
and "read me first" papers originate. If the manual warns that
shorting the speaker output is a bad idea, the court will not award
the customer damages if they ignore the warning and short the speaker
leads.
The other side of this coin is whether a "reasonable person" expects
products to operate in some manner. In this case, if literally every
other audio amp manufacturer includes speaker short circuit protection
in their products, but this one does not, a reasonable person would
probably expect that every amp is short circuit proof. Depending on
the court, that could be considered sufficient for the customer to
claim that they did not receive a product "suitable for the intended
purpose".
With today's low cost of electronic manufacturing, it is often cheaper
for a manufacturer to replace the few amps that a few clueless
customers manage to blow up, than to include protection circuitry in
every product. For example, if adding the protection circuitry
required an additional $5 in parts and Yamaha made 250,000 of these
amps, then that's $1.25 million in "excess" cost. However, replacing
perhaps 1,000 amplifiers, at a cost to sales of about $50/ea or
$50,000 is much cheaper. This is probably why Yamaha honored the
warranty.
If you have an questions, please consult a real attorney.