In defense of the fabricators...
     
     If an OEM (or other customer) chooses not to pay for a thorough 
     electrical test, they must be prepared to deal with the repercussions 
     of such a decision.  I think it's safe to say that the PCB fabrication 
     industry yields (prior to test) are not 100%.  As a result the 
     purchase of untested boards is a risky proposition.  The purchaser of 
     such product should have an understanding of the expected fall-out and 
     be able cost-justify (compensate) for it.  If this "justification" is 
     not satisfactory, the cost of a thorough test (100% netlist test) is 
     justified.
     
     On the other hand...
     
     If the OEM (customer) pays for 100% netlist test, then he or she is 
     justified in passing-on costs resulting from the delivery of a faulty 
     bareboard (shorts or opens) back to the fabricator.  The extra cost of 
     a netlist test is to insure that only "good" bareboards are delivered 
     to the factory.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: seek for powerful strike on customers who don't reaso
Author:  [log in to unmask] (Mike Avery) at Internet
Date:    10/21/96 8:37 AM


     Exactly!! In this day and age, with capacity in Asia increasing by 
     100% over the next few months, it may very well be time for the 
     industry as a whole to reexamine this entire issue. It is not the job 
     of an OEM to inspect PCBs. Rather, we would expect a marketable 
     product (i.e.: one that works!)
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: seek for powerful strike on customers who don't reason!
Author:  [log in to unmask] at Internet 
Date:    10/10/96 8:00 AM
     
     
     It always amazes me how PCB Fabricators expect OEM's to be 
     responsible for testing a board to prove the Fabricator has 
     done his job. Why doesn't the Fabricator test the board to 
     insure he has done his job properly? Why is this cost always 
     passed down to the OEM? 
     
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: seek for powerful strike on customers who don't reason!
Author:  [log in to unmask] at Internet 
Date:    10/19/96 4:13 PM
     
     
     
Hi!  This is JH.
     
 I read the article "Ownership of Liability for Board Defects before and
After Assmbly" on October issue of CircuitTree.  My customer is asking me to 
pay for  the components ,assembly labor, etc. loaded on the defected boards.
 The board is $9.00 that I charged him.  In return he wants me to pay $30.00
per board!  He is holding the payment for other invoices (totalled more than 
$10k), which has nothing to with this order.  The electrical test was not 
requested.  The customer took his own risk to load the components without 
having inspection.  I am willing to replace the bad boards but not willing to 
pay for the cost that I have no way to control.  
     
My intention here is to seek for a knowledgeable attorney who has experence 
in this area to punish this kind of customer(s) who don't care what you think 
or what you say!   In the article, it mentioned "tested many times in court."
  Do you have any case numbers and documents available?  Those can be very
helpful if  they are presented to the judge or attorneys who also needs to be 
"educated" .  
     
     
     
     
     
*************************************************************************** 
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 * 
*************************************************************************** 
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:           * 
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.        * 
***************************************************************************
     
     
*************************************************************************** 
* TechNet mail list is provided as a service by IPC using SmartList v3.05 * 
*************************************************************************** 
* To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to:           * 
* [log in to unmask] with <subject: unsubscribe> and no text.        * 
***************************************************************************
     


Received: from usr.com (mailgate.usr.com) by robogate2.usr.com with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 2.02 Enterprise) id 26B76660; Mon, 21 Oct 96 08:11:02
-0500
Received: from simon.ipc.org by usr.com (8.7.5/3.1.090690-US Robotics)
        id IAA29344; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 08:13:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
         id HAA16208; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 07:57:39 -0700
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 07:57:39 -0700
Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
        id m0vFJN1-0000RbC; Mon, 21 Oct 96 07:22 CDT
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:00:32 -0400
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: seek for powerful strike on customers who don't reason!
To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Resent-Message-ID: <"ovAuH3.0.QG4.lhsQo"@ipc>
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/7012
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]