[PONTIAC DUDE]

Now. Seems they are wanting to work with The Spidels. Glad to hear it. Big investment on their part. Hope they work with all the others now and in the future correcting issues, doing business, being forthright out their with products.

Looks like a step in the right direction. Sometimes when issues are brought forward attitudes change? .... for the better.

[tom s]

I have been in the retail business for over 40 years and WHENEVER we had a product liability problem,our lawyers instructed us to keep quiet and talk to no one untill they got things sorted out.Im hoping that is what was going on with the block deal.I hope everyone with a problem will be delt with fairly to everyones satisfaction.JMO,Tom

[J Brady]

Tom, I would guess you are right, But we have had people 2nd guessing everything from Bankrupcy to fraud. It is just amazing how people who really don't no what is going on jump int deals like this.

[machine shop tom]

Here are my 8 cents worth.

KRE was informed by a paying customer that there were problems (defects in material or worksmanship) in the block he purchased. These problems were found after the customer had ordered parts for and had time and machine work invested in that block. That he had done machine work to that block is irrelevent because that work in no way compromised or caused the original defects. That he missed the defects early on is his mistake and he is not charging anybody for HIS time.

KRE should take the block back, refund the original purchase price and shipping, and thank the customer for informing them of the defects. There should be NO restocking fee since the block will (should) not be put back into stock as it is defective, not just a return.

KRE has dropped the ball here. What was an opportunity to take a bad situation and make it at least palatable to the customer has turned into a pissing match. That will reflect negatively on their business as a whole, which is a shame because KRE has a lot to offer to the Pontiac performance customer base.

tom

[Tom Vaught]

MST, your comments make a lot of sense. Agree on the restocking deal

Tom V.

[Pontirag]

I hope this does not seem to be an attempt to stir the pot but looking at the february 2007 issue of Hi Performance Pontiac I see on page 37 that All Pontiac Is advertising that thier IA II is the STRONGEST pontiac Aftermarket Block. Conversely I cannot find an add for Kauffman Racing Equipment anywhere.I might be wrong,

Isn't that free market enterprise at its best. It takes a while and no G*D Dam lawyer in the world can stop it. I am thankful for this Pontiac Business Entities
Exchange. Too bad that it got shut down for being personally offensive But I think most people read past the BS and seek out the core facts to help them make choices.

I read in a previous thread that that Arbitration may or may not be available to resolve these issues. If The terms of a contract included an agreement to resolve issues through an arbitration board. rest assured that it is not the only avenue available to resolve these issues. If they made any product or service claim that a person relied upon as a condition to entering into a contract and they could not perform that service or provide that product then the the contract is essentially void and unenforcable. furthermore the specific terms to agree to resolve issues through arbitration do not exist and cannot be imposed upon either party because they were terms of a contract agreed upon by one or both parties that they cannot enforce. Essentially a contract that does not exist because one or both parties were perhaps unable to perform the terms of that agreement or entered into that contract KNOWING that they could not or would not be able to perform the terms of that agreement. The courts would typically restore each party to the condition it existed in before the contract was signed. No amount of small print absolves anybody thier responsabilities . Both parties must give and recieve equal value.

Its called Quid Pro Quo. essentially you give equal to what you get. Niether party can benifit at the expense of the other, profits accepted, But if one party gains or benifits materialy at the expense of the other party and or has substatial knowlege of this. then they are essentially entering into a contract that is unenforcable. Note that I stated and or has substantial knowlege. Its not nessessary to actualy have substantial knowlege but if information becomes available at any point that results in one person gaining at the expense of another then the courts must redress the imbalance. These premis make it inlawful to partake in activities such as buying a house for a dollar from a mentally ill person.Having a vendor unknowingly ship you too much product and not billing you and you try to avoid paying. Or In Kauffman vs. the Pontiac Community, selling a product and initially not knowing it to be defective. Finding out it is defective and continueing to sell it and or not refunding those who have recieved a product and or service that is substatially different or unsuitable for its intended purpose. A perpose for which it was intialy advertised in such a manor as to attract customers in the first place with the intention of engaging said customers in a contract to supply them with a product based upon that advertising for which it is implied that the product is suitably intended. If the customer relied upon the advertising directly or indirectly as an inducement to engage in a contract to obtain the product then that product must and can resonably be expected to perform in the fashion intended as implied in the advertising that induced the customer to engage in that contract initially.

That mean that if you advertise that you have for example a new school bus for sale at a price that typically all new school buses sell then, when I agree to buy your new school bus and agree to pay a price reasonable close approximation to what other new school buses sell then we have a deal. If I think I'm buying a new school bus for $300 and sue in a court of law to force the vendor to sell a new school bus for $300 then the courts will not enforce that contract. Also If I try to get out of the contract because the school bus I ordered does not fly .that also will not be allowed. However if I contract for a school bus and pay for a school bus but a recieve a cattle truck. I have a right to petition the court to redress the matter. If my new school buss does not meet DOT saftey standards I have a rite to petition the courts. If I recieve a New school bus that has been crushed and is unrepairable then I have a right to petition the court to redress the wrong.

In Kauffman Vs. the Pontiac Community. They can supply a suitable product replace it with a suitable product or be given the opportuniy to repair a given product to restore its suitability. or restore each party to its condition prior to the existence of the contract.. This only applies to those customers for whom Kauffman supplied blocks to prior to becoming aware of its defects. Any contract entered into after becoming aware is unenforcable and the courts will restore both parties to the condition they were in prior to the existence of the contract.

The question then becomes ....When did kauffmans become aware that they had a product that was unsuitable for the perpose for which it was intended. Was it when they recieved responses from customers?When they discovered through thier QC efforts that the blocks were dimentionaslly or materialy sub standard ?Did they themselves knowingly engage in a contract with the castibg supplier to purchase an unsuitable product or spec. out a material that make the product unsuitable for the perpose for which it was intended and later advertised? If they substantially changed the contract with a casting vendor or engaged in a contract with a new vendor providing a set of terms that materially changed the product they later sold and the terms clearly indicate they contracted for a product of substantially lesser quality while thiere advertising or price remained the same? Did they participated or engaged in any Quality control issues that substantially ignored verifiable standards they relied upon as a basis for a claim in thier advertising?

A smart lawyer would look at the contract between Kauffman and the block casting supplier to see if kauffman contracted knowingly for a substandard part or did they spec out verifya part and were supplied with a substandard part. Did one contract terms substatially change when it came time to contract out a second batch of blocks. How did they verify compliance and did this process change in any way?

Contract law and the uniform commercial code!

[Brian Baker]

"If they made any product or service claim that a person relied upon as a condition to entering into a contract and they could not perform that service or provide that product then the the contract is essentially void and unenforcable."

Huh? I think you mean if the service or product can't be performed/provided than the provider of said service/product in the contract is in breach, right? How could it void the contract?

[Pontirag]

actually voiding the contract is an option and usually the last option. The other options that should be persued first are: repair the existing defects, replace the product with one that meets the standard, or failing that, provide the service or part thru a source that can meet the standard. Sort of like when an airline overbooks a flight and you get bounced off, they often will put you on the next flight even if its on a COMPETITORS airline.

If they refuse to meet the terms of the contract then that is one issue. Tort law comes into effect when the courts punish them for failing to comply or avoiding compliance.

There are several primary issues and some secondary issues.
Primary ones:
How many contracts were let to cast these blocks? Comparing the contracts between casting companies would show several things. If the contracts were essentially the same then its a mute point. But if the contract for this batch of blocks was different that a previous contract for a previous batch , one would need to look at how it is differenti ie. with regards to certain specifications for , in this case the quality of the cast metal used. If the contract for this faulty batch of castings is materialy different that is of a lesser quality they they may be held liable. That is if they setteled for a lesser standard in the end product or actually specified a lesser product while thier advertising did not change especially if the lesser standard agreed to ment that the block could not meet the advertied claims. If That is reflected in the terms they let for this contract then that is a major issue.

Another primary point is with regards to thier advertising claim. How did they determine thiere product met sufficient quality standards to support the claims in thier advertising? If they had an initial batch that met the standard then how did they determine it met the standard claimed in thier advert? when the second or faulty batch arrived, how did they determine that it met the claims in thier adverts. And even befor that became (?) an issue what methods did they use to determine that either batch of blocks even met the terms of the contract with the casting company or machine shop. its not enough to simply put terms down in writting. due dilligance dictates that they must determine that the specs are met and failing this why did thye not perform the inspection and in the absence of that what form of inspection was performed that would determin the standard and was it applied and how.

Buy vertue of the fact that they accepted the blocks from the casting company and performed thier own machine work on them befor distributing them to the end user/ customer they have through these actions accepted the product as suitable. It need to be made clear ,by them,KRE, just how they determined that either batch was capable of meeting the standards claimed in thier advertising. Its not enough to simply state that it was spelled out in the contract (with the casting company or machine shop), a piece of paper means nothing. the casting company nor the machine shop made an agreement with the end user/customer to supply a casting or accurate machine work. they made the deal with KRE. KRE made the claim that they would supply the customer with a block that met the claims in thier advert. Not the casting company or the machine shop because niether of them made the performance claims. KRE did, in thier advertising. The advertising the enduser customer relied upon to enter into thier contract ,with KRE, to pay for and recieve a block that met the advertising claims. It just as easily could have been (or can still be) a badge engineered AI-II block. All the customer should or can care about is that the final product met the advert spec's and price.

Its not a deffence to state as was said in previously that KRE did not know what certain forms of hardness testing was. Ignorance is not an excuse or a deffence. because once again it goes back to the question how did KRE determine that these or any or ALL blocks met the standard and or were capaple of the performance atributes they claimed in thier advertiseing? and Again did the method of determination stay the same from batch to batch or did it change in some significant way that allowed the faulty batch to get into circulation. Could the QC standard acuaatly determine that to begine with negates any claim of ignorance. KRE should have remained silent on this issue as well because to claim ignorance is damnation.
Several questions arrise from this: How did they determine the QC standard. Does the QC standard support the claim in thier advert. Did they apply it. was it applied uniformally, Did the inspection criteria apply to all or some blocks in each batch and if to some how were the samples taken periodically chronologically, randomly or based on a statistical likelyhood as to when certain types of critical flaws might occure. And a comparison between each batch of blocks with regards to each criterion mentioned above to determin if a pattern of behavior occured that would indicate a failure to detect batches in general or blocks specifically that failed to meet the standards.

With regard to statistical sampling and QC, they should have QC'ed every block to determined that it would meet the claims stated in the advert. because every block they sold was represented as meeting these standards, not simply on paper but in actuality. The fact that some blocks had cylinder walls that were 4 tenths of an inch thick while others were less than a tenth clearly shows inconsistancies that should have been caught prior to any machine work. And failing that they had no right to claims made in the advertisement that they could not or did not know. If they did not know if eack block or could not have known because they failed to or chose not to check each block then they had no right to make the claims they did and knew that at best it was a crap shoot. thus they entered into contracts with each customer unwilling to know if they could meet the very terms they themselves dictated. Thus the contract can be said to not exist based on this and thier failing to meet the terms thru some other action or retoring each party to its pre contract condition. Failing to do even this and or simultaneously seeking protection thru bankruptcy could be fraud. especially if they fail to infor bankruptsy judge of this ongoing delema.

Each dissatisfied customer should contact them witha certified letter requesting that compliance with the terms of the contract be addressed by one of the means stated above. Giving KRE time to responde . Follow up should deal with a method of compliance agreed to by both parties and a time line for compliance. failing that, further corespondence regarding litigation and possible mail fraud concerns if applicable and contact various other government or concumer agencies should be persued.

Another concern as mentioned above is protection under bankruptcy. Each party should also contact KRE and demand to be made a party to whom they owe money. thier lawyer should also be contacted for this matter and it may not be the one they are using to defend themselves against liability. If you sent corespondence to the wrong law firm, they may convieneintly chose to delay responding or ignoring altogether any correspondence addressed to them regarding a matter of no importance to them. I would also place a lien on any and all personal property and notify each of the credit reporting aggencies. furthermore if the delaying strategy in dealing with customers issues is going on while alternatly they are seeking protection thru bankruptcy I would seek out locate and contact the specific federal judge that handles bankruptcies in thier district or region and innundate him with letters and correspondence. bankruptcy judges look very unfavorably on bisseness that hide behind bankruptcy Law to protect assets and pay Lawyers while customers are out in the cold. I would act now and boldly to protect your rights. If your wrong or have over reacted they an opology is due. It's nothing personal, just business.

[ponchospidel]

almost a week now, and no reply or correspondences from the company in question, that took parts from our blocks.

[Doug Christie]

Looking at all the legal Mumbo Jumbo that's being thrown around here, it occurred to me that we're not talking Supreme Court here. That's what we call it where I am. It is in the relm of the lower courts (Civil Court) where the standard or proof is way lower than the higher courts. It's left up to the Judge to interpret and administer (Judge Judy Law), ( Common Law). If the 1st poster was to take KRE and company to court and win (should be hands down). That would set a president and all following lawsuits, with a similar claim would win by default.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Doug Christie

That would set a president and all following lawsuits, with a similar claim would win by default.

I think you mean, precedent.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by ponchospidel

almost a week now, and no reply or correspondences from the company in question, that took parts from our blocks.

Patience, Kimosabe.;) They weren't equipped to check the quality of the block in the first place, so they probably aren't equipped to check it now. It may take some time for them to have those pieces analyzed. Hopefully they were smart enough to have it done by a 3rd party, and not the foundry where it originated.

[stags]

Originally Posted by tom s

I have been in the retail business for over 40 years and WHENEVER we had a product liability problem,our lawyers instructed us to keep quiet and talk to no one untill they got things sorted out.Im hoping that is what was going on with the block deal.I hope everyone with a problem will be delt with fairly to everyones satisfaction.JMO,Tom

I've been a contractor for 26 yrs. and have also been involved in p.l. cases and I agree with what tom s says. The only thing I would add is that some communication should have been made (to the customers) that an effort was under way to investigate the situation. That appears to have been sorely lacking.

No offense to any recent posters but I'm reminded of something I was told many years ago: "Free legal advice is usually worth what you paid for it".

I never met Red Box Rebel but I suspect he's capable of figuring this thing out at least as well as anyone else here. JMHO. Mark O.

[Ron H]

Originally Posted by Doug Christie

Looking at all the legal Mumbo Jumbo that's being thrown around here, it occurred to me that we're not talking Supreme Court here. That's what we call it where I am. It is in the relm of the lower courts (Civil Court) where the standard or proof is way lower than the higher courts. It's left up to the Judge to interpret and administer (Judge Judy Law), ( Common Law). If the 1st poster was to take KRE and company to court and win (should be hands down). That would set a president and all following lawsuits, with a similar claim would win by default.

I disagree Doug. No one would win by default. Otherwise you could walk up to the clerk of the court with a claim ticket and be rewarded without having to present your case.
Small claims court is only that because of the amount of money in question. This is on a civil level where there is no prosecutor and lawyers are not necessary. Judge Judy etc.
If a claim involving fraud or any type of Illegal act is filed it goes to court of law and the authorities must take action. The Province would have to try? the case.

[Doug Christie]

Originally Posted by Ron H

I disagree Doug. No one would win by default. Otherwise you could walk up to the clerk of the court with a claim ticket and be rewarded without having to present your case.
Small claims court is only that because of the amount of money in question. This is on a civil level where there is no prosecutor and lawyers are not necessary. Judge Judy etc.
If a claim involving fraud or any type of Illegal act is filed it goes to court of law and the authorities must take action. The Province would have to try? the case.

Ron, didn't mean it that way. First of all, I don't think anyone is looking at this in a criminal way. If one person takes KRE to court over this it will be too either, get the block they thought they were buying to begin with or get a refund. And if there were damages that came out of the purchase of the block, that also.

When that case was won, it would set a precedent (thanks Brian) and others that followed could use use this case as a guide for the Judge to follow. I don't know about where you are, but small debts court here has a limit of $25,000.00.

[Tom Vaught]

The block expert that I work with at Ford did some additional checking and says that it would be very difficult for the foundry not to be aware of the quality of the casting material right after it was poured. His take is that this process of checking the pour sticks is a common one and has been going on for many years.

So the questions again is:

If the Kauffmans have posted in several posts that they were using G3500 high tensile cast iron then why is the Brinell so low on the blocks tested?

Hopefully when the testing is done by "someone" it will confirm that the blocks are not as requested: (G3500 cast iron). Then it becomes a manufacturing mistake vs a marketing mistake.

Tom V.

[Old Man Taylor]

I got my engine (MR-1) out this weekend and took some quick shots of the problem areas I saw on the other blocks. This post is the front and rear pictures of the #2 main web. The next one will be the #4 main web. The short block is still together so some areas are blocked.

[Old Man Taylor]

These are of the #4 main web. I don't see anything unusual so far, but I will keep checking. I will also get the block checked for hardness.

[potentpontiac]

How many passes are on the motor??.It appears there are no signs of cracks in the main webbing.Curious to see the Brinnel hardness of this particular block.Good luck, maybe your block will check out OK.

[Old Man Taylor]

It has about 10 dyno runs and 23 quarter mile passes on it. I wouldn't have taken it apart except that Ponchospidel's Dad has an engine in the same HP range and about the same number of runs. However, my block is 6-8 months older. I am hoping they just had a bad batch.