Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Mon, 21 Oct 1996 18:31:14 -0700 |
Content-Type: | multipart/mixed |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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]
|
|
|