In this work sheet we looked at a car's interior safety systems. Well mostly the seat belt assembly and then performed another safety inspection check on the vehicle just like we did on that 1984 Toyota Corolla GT.
The car we were using for this worksheet was a 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer station wagon. This car was fairly new and it had a few safety equipment equipped to it. We made a list of nine safety equipment found on this car.
1. SRS Airbag (Driver)
2. SRS Air bag (Passenger)
3. Seat belts
4. Hand brake
5. Head rests
6. SRS Airbag (Front and Rear pillars)
7. ABS (Anti-Lock Braking System)
8. Airbag warning light
9. Child safety locks on the rear doors.
Now before we got started on the seat belt checks we needed to learn a few seat belt systems names and what their purpose was.
Tongue and Buckle Assembly
This is the locking mechanism that we use for the seat belt. The tongue is on the seat belt itself. It is the metal part that you insert into a unit next to your seat. This unit next to your seat is called a buckle. It is important to make sure that this locking mechanism is secure and operating correctly.
Retractor
The retractor is a mechanism that is often hidden out of site and inside the side panel from which your seat belt comes. The purpose of the retractor is to automatically retract the seat belt once it is disengaged from the buckle. It is very important that the entire seat belt gets fully retracted in a continues and smooth motion. The retractor also prevents its occupants from moving forwards violently in a crash situation. It is what locks up the seat belt when you pull on it suddenly. The retractor is ma mechanical device and just like all mechanical devices it does wear out over time. That is why it is important to check the retractor in a vehicle from time to time.
Webbing
The seat belt webbing is a special polyester weave which is manufactured and tested to a specific International Standard for use in motor vehicles. Any damage to this webbing can dramatically reduces the effectiveness of the seat belt. Small cuts, frayed edges and holes in the webbing can cause it to tear when sudden force is applied to it, like in a car crash. Also badly faded webbing caused by sunburn and UV exposure can have it's strength reduced by up to 50%. Therefore it is important to check the seat belt webbing for any damage or wear as it can result in serious injury.
Anchorages
Anchorages is the name given to the seat belt mounting points. The seat belt must be securely fixed to the car. Any loose fitting, damage or rust can cause these fittings to fail under load. That is why it is important to check these fittings for wear and damage.
After we were familiar with the seat belt system names and their purposes we went on to perform safety checks on them. We first checked the tongue and buckle assembly. The tongue and buckle engagement was smooth and secure. There was very little play once the tongue and the buckle were latched together. When the release button was pressed on the buckle the ejected straight away. This was good as it showed us that the tongue and buckle were operating correctly. We then checked them for damage. There were no visible cracks on the buckle and the buckle cover was intact. The tongue had no metal deformations or any visible cracks. There was no damage to the tongue and buckle assembly and therefore they passed the inspection.
Next we inspected the retractor. We pulled the seat belt as far out as it would go and then we released it. This checks the retractors ability to retract the seat belt fully and smoothly in one continues motion. It did and the seat belt returned all the way up to its resting position without sticking, gripping or stalling. We also checked the retractors locking mechanism for sudden heavy pulls on the seat belt. We did this by suddenly pulling on the seat belt and seeing if the retractor locks. It did lock up when pulled on it. These tests ensured us that the retractor is in good working condition with no damage and wear. As a result it passed the inspection.
We then inspected the webbing of the seat belt. The webbing was securely attached to its end fittings and showed no signs of stretching or pulled stitching. The webbing was flat throughout its entire length and showed us no sign of fading. We also looked for damage to the webbing and found none. There were no burn marks, frayed stitching or any signs of rippling. Therefore the webbing had passed its inspection.
Lastly we inspected the anchorages. All the anchorages were free from any signs of corrosion and they were all securely attached to the vehicle's structure. None of the mounting points showed and signs of damage or deformations. As a result of this it passed the inspection.
These four tests were then performed on all the remaining seat belts within the car and they all passed with flying colors. This wasn't very surprising as this car was fairly new and was in good condition. After like i mentioned above we did the same safety inspection like we did on the Toyota Corolla GT. This car being new passed on everything. It had all of its lights working. There was no structural damage or rust on the car. All of the interior of the car was still in place with no damage. The engine bay was clean and standard hence no cert required. All of the wheels and the tires were in good condition with plenty of tread (4mm). There were no cracks or chips on the windscreen. Overall this was a good and a safe car to drive.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Post Three: Vehicle Safety Inspection
This was a simple task to perform. We had to check a car's safety for the road under tutor supervision. It's pretty much doing a WOF inspection, making sure that the vehicle is safe for New Zealand roads. The car we tested was a 1984 Toyota Corolla GT. It did not have a VIN number but it did have a chassis nuber which was AE82-0037061. The car's fuel tyoe was petrol.
First you do an External inspection. Making sure that all your lights are working, checking you windscreen for cracks and chips, checking your doors and hinged panels and your also checking for rust corrosion in structural positions.
External Inspection:
Compliant? Item: Comments:
Yes .Pass. No ….. Direction Ind. Lamps Front …All working good…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Forward Position Lamps …In good working order…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Front Fog Lamps …The vehicle had no front fog lamps…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Direction Ind. Lamps Rear …In working order…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Rearward Position Lamps …In working order…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Stop Lamps …In working order…
Yes .Pass. No ….. High-mounted Stop Lamps …In working order…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Registration Plate Lamps …Only one working but lights up the entire number plate…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Rear Reflectors …In good working condition…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Other Lamps …There were no other lamps…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Windscreen …No chips or cracks on the windscreen…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Other Glazing ……………………………………………………………
Yes .Pass. No ….. Doors and Hinged Panels …All the doors opened and closed smoothly…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Mudguards …Good and secure…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. External Projections …No external projections…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Structure/Corrosion …No corrosion found…
As you can see the external condition of the car was in good condition for the car's age. Even though it only had one number plate light it passes because the one light was enough to light up the entire number plate and it was visible from 20m back. This car passes the external condition inspection.
The second thing we did was inspect the interior condition of this vehicle. Making sure that it is safe for the driver and the passengers.
Internal Inspection:
Compliance? Item: Comments:
Yes .Pass. No ….. Wipers/Operation …In good working condition…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Rear View Mirrors …Showed good vision…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Sun Visors …In good working order, no damage…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Seatbelts …Good condition, no damage to the stiching…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Seatbelt Anchorages …In good condition, no damage or cracks…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Seats & Seat Anchorages …In good condition, no damage…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Head Restraints …Good and secure…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Interior Impact …No roof lining…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Air Bag Self Check …No air bags were fitted in this car…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. ABS Self Check …No ABS fitted to this car…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Audible Warning Device …No audible warning device fitted to this car…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Spare Wheel Security …Spare wheel was secure…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Space Saver Warning Label …N/A…
As you can see this car failed on the interior impact inspection. The car had no roof lining. The whole purpose of a vehicle's interior is to reduce the danger of injury to its occupants. By fitting interior to a vehicle you are reducing the risk of causing serious injury to the driver and passenger. By removing the roof lining the risk of injury to the car's occupants have increased. This is why this car failed on the interior impact inspection. As a result of this it fails internal inspection test.
The next thing we did was check the under body and chassis condition. Make sure that there is no structural damage and that it is safe for the New Zealand roads.
Chassis Underbody:
Compliance? Item: Comments:
Yes .Pass. No ….. Wheels, Hubs & Axels …No damage to wheels or hubs or axels…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Steering Mechanism …No damage or knocking noises…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Suspension Mechanism …All the four shock absorbers were leaking…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Fuel Tank & Fuel Lines …Fuel filler hose not secure…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Cable Linkage …Good condition and secure…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Brake Controls …Front left brake caliper contaminated with CV boot grease…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Lines & Hoses …Front brake lines not secure…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Exhaust System …Secure and no leaks…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Tire Condition …Good condition, no cracks or nails on the tires…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Tire Tread Depth …New tires so all above 1.5mm…
LF …5.. mm RF …5.. mm LR …5.5.. mm RR …5.5.. mm
Yes Pass.. No ….. Towing Connections …No damage or corrosion…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Towing Safety Chain(s) …No safety chains fitted to this vehicle…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Structure/Corrosion …Very minor amounts of surface rust. No corrosion…
As you can see this car fails the under body inspection as well. There are too many things wrong with it. It needs some attention. The front left drive shaft had its CV boots unsecured. This caused the CV grease to go everywhere including on the front left brake caliper. All the shock absorbers were leaking in this vehicle. They need to be replaced. The front brake lines need securing as they have been broken off there mounting points and are hanging freely. The fuel filler hose was not secure, this could cause fuel leaks and hence doesn't pass the inspection. The surface rust on the structure of the car was very minor and small. It can be easily sanded off and is not of any danger to the structures strength. That's why it passes the inspection. Overall this car fails the under body inspection.
The next thing we did was we tested was the brakes of the vehicle. We checked to see if they were working and all tested how off the brake balance was. This test was done on a rolling road machine that the uni had. All we had to do was drive the vehicle on this road, keep it in neutral and engage the brakes as instructed by the tutor.
Road Brake Test:
Compliance? Item: Comments:
Yes .Pass. No ….. Service Brake Readings …All under 20%…
Front …19.. % Rear …4.. % or LF …2.86.. RF …3.55.. LR …1.15.. RR …1.20..
Yes .Pass. No ….. Service Brake Performance …Good for the car's age and brake condition…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Service Brake Balance …In good working condition…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Parking Brake Readings …Good reading under 20%…
…9.. % or LH …1.17.. RH …1.29..
Yes .Pass. No ….. Parking Brake Performance …Good for its age…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Speedometer …Good working condition…
The car passed on all the brake tests but as you can see the frontal brakes need balancing. As per my knowledge this assists the vehicle in braking. Therefore it must be in a good range. This vehicle was close to not passing the test but since all teh readings are under 20% off balance the car passes.
The last thing we did was to inspect the engine bay area. Make sure that everything is secure and all modifications are certed and safe.
Under Bonnet:
Compliance? Item: Comments:
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. A/F System in Working Order …N/A…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. A/F System Cert. Current …N/A…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. A/F System Safe …N/A…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Modified Vehicle …No modifications…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Chassis VIN Number …It had a chassis number…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Structure/Corrosion …No corrosion found…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Engine & Drive Train …Good condition and secure…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Fuel System …Good condition and secure…
This was the end of our inspection for this vehicle. Unfortunately the car fails the safety inspection. It needs a fair amount of work done to be able to pass the safety inspection. This car is not safe to be on the road as it can cause a crash and be in danger of other road occupants.
First you do an External inspection. Making sure that all your lights are working, checking you windscreen for cracks and chips, checking your doors and hinged panels and your also checking for rust corrosion in structural positions.
External Inspection:
Compliant? Item: Comments:
Yes .Pass. No ….. Direction Ind. Lamps Front …All working good…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Forward Position Lamps …In good working order…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Front Fog Lamps …The vehicle had no front fog lamps…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Direction Ind. Lamps Rear …In working order…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Rearward Position Lamps …In working order…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Stop Lamps …In working order…
Yes .Pass. No ….. High-mounted Stop Lamps …In working order…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Registration Plate Lamps …Only one working but lights up the entire number plate…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Rear Reflectors …In good working condition…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Other Lamps …There were no other lamps…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Windscreen …No chips or cracks on the windscreen…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Other Glazing ……………………………………………………………
Yes .Pass. No ….. Doors and Hinged Panels …All the doors opened and closed smoothly…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Mudguards …Good and secure…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. External Projections …No external projections…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Structure/Corrosion …No corrosion found…
As you can see the external condition of the car was in good condition for the car's age. Even though it only had one number plate light it passes because the one light was enough to light up the entire number plate and it was visible from 20m back. This car passes the external condition inspection.
The second thing we did was inspect the interior condition of this vehicle. Making sure that it is safe for the driver and the passengers.
Internal Inspection:
Compliance? Item: Comments:
Yes .Pass. No ….. Wipers/Operation …In good working condition…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Rear View Mirrors …Showed good vision…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Sun Visors …In good working order, no damage…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Seatbelts …Good condition, no damage to the stiching…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Seatbelt Anchorages …In good condition, no damage or cracks…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Seats & Seat Anchorages …In good condition, no damage…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Head Restraints …Good and secure…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Interior Impact …No roof lining…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Air Bag Self Check …No air bags were fitted in this car…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. ABS Self Check …No ABS fitted to this car…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Audible Warning Device …No audible warning device fitted to this car…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Spare Wheel Security …Spare wheel was secure…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Space Saver Warning Label …N/A…
As you can see this car failed on the interior impact inspection. The car had no roof lining. The whole purpose of a vehicle's interior is to reduce the danger of injury to its occupants. By fitting interior to a vehicle you are reducing the risk of causing serious injury to the driver and passenger. By removing the roof lining the risk of injury to the car's occupants have increased. This is why this car failed on the interior impact inspection. As a result of this it fails internal inspection test.
The next thing we did was check the under body and chassis condition. Make sure that there is no structural damage and that it is safe for the New Zealand roads.
Chassis Underbody:
Compliance? Item: Comments:
Yes .Pass. No ….. Wheels, Hubs & Axels …No damage to wheels or hubs or axels…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Steering Mechanism …No damage or knocking noises…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Suspension Mechanism …All the four shock absorbers were leaking…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Fuel Tank & Fuel Lines …Fuel filler hose not secure…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Cable Linkage …Good condition and secure…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Brake Controls …Front left brake caliper contaminated with CV boot grease…
Yes ….. No .Fail. Lines & Hoses …Front brake lines not secure…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Exhaust System …Secure and no leaks…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Tire Condition …Good condition, no cracks or nails on the tires…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Tire Tread Depth …New tires so all above 1.5mm…
LF …5.. mm RF …5.. mm LR …5.5.. mm RR …5.5.. mm
Yes Pass.. No ….. Towing Connections …No damage or corrosion…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Towing Safety Chain(s) …No safety chains fitted to this vehicle…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Structure/Corrosion …Very minor amounts of surface rust. No corrosion…
As you can see this car fails the under body inspection as well. There are too many things wrong with it. It needs some attention. The front left drive shaft had its CV boots unsecured. This caused the CV grease to go everywhere including on the front left brake caliper. All the shock absorbers were leaking in this vehicle. They need to be replaced. The front brake lines need securing as they have been broken off there mounting points and are hanging freely. The fuel filler hose was not secure, this could cause fuel leaks and hence doesn't pass the inspection. The surface rust on the structure of the car was very minor and small. It can be easily sanded off and is not of any danger to the structures strength. That's why it passes the inspection. Overall this car fails the under body inspection.
The next thing we did was we tested was the brakes of the vehicle. We checked to see if they were working and all tested how off the brake balance was. This test was done on a rolling road machine that the uni had. All we had to do was drive the vehicle on this road, keep it in neutral and engage the brakes as instructed by the tutor.
Road Brake Test:
Compliance? Item: Comments:
Yes .Pass. No ….. Service Brake Readings …All under 20%…
Front …19.. % Rear …4.. % or LF …2.86.. RF …3.55.. LR …1.15.. RR …1.20..
Yes .Pass. No ….. Service Brake Performance …Good for the car's age and brake condition…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Service Brake Balance …In good working condition…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Parking Brake Readings …Good reading under 20%…
…9.. % or LH …1.17.. RH …1.29..
Yes .Pass. No ….. Parking Brake Performance …Good for its age…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Speedometer …Good working condition…
The car passed on all the brake tests but as you can see the frontal brakes need balancing. As per my knowledge this assists the vehicle in braking. Therefore it must be in a good range. This vehicle was close to not passing the test but since all teh readings are under 20% off balance the car passes.
The last thing we did was to inspect the engine bay area. Make sure that everything is secure and all modifications are certed and safe.
Under Bonnet:
Compliance? Item: Comments:
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. A/F System in Working Order …N/A…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. A/F System Cert. Current …N/A…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. A/F System Safe …N/A…
Yes .N/A. No .N/A. Modified Vehicle …No modifications…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Chassis VIN Number …It had a chassis number…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Structure/Corrosion …No corrosion found…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Engine & Drive Train …Good condition and secure…
Yes .Pass. No ….. Fuel System …Good condition and secure…
This was the end of our inspection for this vehicle. Unfortunately the car fails the safety inspection. It needs a fair amount of work done to be able to pass the safety inspection. This car is not safe to be on the road as it can cause a crash and be in danger of other road occupants.
Post Two: Treaty of Waitangi
Treaty Of Waitangi
1. What part of the Treaty relates to pollution and sustainability? Write the phrase that relates.
The quote is "Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties". This quote clearly states that the queen will not disturb the natural state of the land.
2. What are ways that modern civilization could pollute the land, the sea, or the air?
There are many ways in which the modern civilization can cause pollution. Say you want to build a nuclear plant. To build this nuclear plant you will have to first fine a good space that is away from any city life. This means that you build your nuclear plant near the rain forest. To make way for your nuclear plant you have to cut down the trees and level the land in near the forest. This would be called disturbing the land. By cutting down the trees and leveling the ground you are disturbing the natural state of the land. Now you will have machines working in that space trying to build your nuclear plant. The machines might then leave small oil spills on the site, The workers may leave their rubbish on the site. This indeed is called polluting the land. After the plant is build you will giant chimneys blowing out hot gases into the atmosphere. This is called polluting the air. You are dumping harmful gases into the air via hot steam from your plant's chimneys. Now it being a nuclear plant nuclear waste will be created. This waste then might be dumped into the sea, polluting the sea and killing sea life. This was a small example of how modern civilization could pollute the land, the air, and the sea. There are many other ways to pollute the air, the land and the sea as well. Harmful gasses coming out of our car's exhaust pipe is polluting the air. Giant rubbish waste lands are another example of polluting the land. Sewage being dumped into teh ocean is a way of polluting the sea.
3. What New Zealand legislation directs what should happen about pollution?
The New Zealand legislation states that individual companies and individuals are responsible for their own actions when it comes to polluting the environment. The legislation wants people to use cleaner materials so that the output is less harmful to the environment. "focus on managing risks ‘at source' rather than relying on cleaning up after contamination has occurred." It also states that the company is held responsible for any environmental damage caused by the employees or contractors of that company. It also restricts companies on dumping their discharge on the land or the water water. "Any unauthorized discharge to land from industrial or trade premises is prohibited whether or not it may end up in water." The legislation is also trying to phase out ozone depleting substances from use. These substances should only be used when necessary. The legislation also stops ships and boats from dumping their discharge into the water. They must dispose it off in a proper manner. From the information I have read the New Zealand Legislation is trying to control the discharge onto land and water from industrial and commercial activities. But is is still not strict on the discharge we get from out cars. The only rule we have around this that I have read is that you need a CAT converter on your car. With out this you don't pass the WOF and can't drive your vehicle on the road.
1. What part of the Treaty relates to pollution and sustainability? Write the phrase that relates.
The quote is "Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties". This quote clearly states that the queen will not disturb the natural state of the land.
2. What are ways that modern civilization could pollute the land, the sea, or the air?
There are many ways in which the modern civilization can cause pollution. Say you want to build a nuclear plant. To build this nuclear plant you will have to first fine a good space that is away from any city life. This means that you build your nuclear plant near the rain forest. To make way for your nuclear plant you have to cut down the trees and level the land in near the forest. This would be called disturbing the land. By cutting down the trees and leveling the ground you are disturbing the natural state of the land. Now you will have machines working in that space trying to build your nuclear plant. The machines might then leave small oil spills on the site, The workers may leave their rubbish on the site. This indeed is called polluting the land. After the plant is build you will giant chimneys blowing out hot gases into the atmosphere. This is called polluting the air. You are dumping harmful gases into the air via hot steam from your plant's chimneys. Now it being a nuclear plant nuclear waste will be created. This waste then might be dumped into the sea, polluting the sea and killing sea life. This was a small example of how modern civilization could pollute the land, the air, and the sea. There are many other ways to pollute the air, the land and the sea as well. Harmful gasses coming out of our car's exhaust pipe is polluting the air. Giant rubbish waste lands are another example of polluting the land. Sewage being dumped into teh ocean is a way of polluting the sea.
3. What New Zealand legislation directs what should happen about pollution?
The New Zealand legislation states that individual companies and individuals are responsible for their own actions when it comes to polluting the environment. The legislation wants people to use cleaner materials so that the output is less harmful to the environment. "focus on managing risks ‘at source' rather than relying on cleaning up after contamination has occurred." It also states that the company is held responsible for any environmental damage caused by the employees or contractors of that company. It also restricts companies on dumping their discharge on the land or the water water. "Any unauthorized discharge to land from industrial or trade premises is prohibited whether or not it may end up in water." The legislation is also trying to phase out ozone depleting substances from use. These substances should only be used when necessary. The legislation also stops ships and boats from dumping their discharge into the water. They must dispose it off in a proper manner. From the information I have read the New Zealand Legislation is trying to control the discharge onto land and water from industrial and commercial activities. But is is still not strict on the discharge we get from out cars. The only rule we have around this that I have read is that you need a CAT converter on your car. With out this you don't pass the WOF and can't drive your vehicle on the road.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Post one: Bad Cunstomer experience
Bad Customer Experience
1. From Don's point of view, what was wrong here? What did the shop do wrong that upset Don so much. (After all, they were fixing his van.)
The reason why Don was so upset was because the shop owner had not discussed the repair process with Don. Being a shop owner it is his responsibility to communicate with the customer (Don) before starting the repair job. As we can tell from the case study that Don was under the impression that van only had a minor problem. He hadn't given them permission to do what is needed to fix his van. He only told them that there was a problem but he didn't mention anything about fixing it. It sounded more like he needed the shop to investigate what the the problem was "maybe just a tune up". When the problem about the burnt exhaust valve was detected, the shop owner should have phoned Don and ask for his OK to start the repair job. This wasn't done and that's why Don was upset. They had taken his engine out and apart and now Don was looking at a very expensive repair bill. The engine was taken out with out Don's permission. Now because of this Don would even have to sort out a temporary vehicle for his business as his van was now out of commission for the next three to four days. That is why Don was very upset, he hadn't given them permission to take his engine out and now he was inconvenienced for his job as well.
2. From the repair shop owner's point of view, what was wrong with Don getting upset at them? What did they do right or wrong?
From the owner's point of view Don had given permission to fix his van when he had dropped it off. Don had told them that the van needed fixing. The owner misinterpreted this into thinking that he was to do what it needed to fix the van. This was wrong of him and he should have clarified with Don as to what he wanted to be done with the van. Even afterwards when the cause of the rough engine running was found, he should have called up Don and discussed the next step to take. He should have done this because the repair job was very costly. People like to know the price of a job before committing to it and Don didn't know the price. The owner of the shop should have called up Don and spoken to him about the fault in his engine. He should have explained the repair procedure required for the van and should have also told him the cost involved. The owner should have then waited for an answer from Don, whether to go on with the repair or not. The shop owner did not do this and that was wrong.
3. What should have been done in this circumstance? If you were Don, what would you have wanted to be done?
If i was Don i would have liked to know the fault within my vehicle and the cost of repairing it first. I would not have wanted them to take my engine out of the car either. I would have wanted them to call me up and ask me if it was OK to remove my engine to further investigate the fault in the van. Even if they didn't ask me about removing the engine I would have wanted them to call me up and explain the fault within my van. I would have liked to know about the repair procedure and the cost involved with repairing it. I would have also liked to know the time frame of the repair as I am using the vehicle for my business. Not having my van means that I am not being able to do my business efficiently.
4. When the repair was finished, and Don went to pick up his van , he took the van and did not pay the whole repair bill. Did the repair shop have the right to hold the van until they got paid?
No the repair shop did not have the right to hold the van until full payment was made. The reason being is that Don was never quoted a price for the repair he was told the repair was costing him $400.00. Don had never agreed to a repair of such and as a result of this no valid contract was made. Neither Don or the shop owner discussed the repair procedure and the cost. There was no contract binding the two parties together and as a result of this Don doesn't have to make the full payment. He can pay what he believes is a reasonable price for the repair job done to his van. Since there was no legal contract binding the two parties together, the repair shop has no rights to hold the van until they got paid.
5. If Don took the repair shop to court, what would you have ruled if you were the judge? Should the repair shop pay for a replacement rental vehicle? Should Don pay the whole repair bill? Should the repair shop pay Don for lost business because he could not pick up and deliver clothes to his customers?
Being the judge I can see that there was miscommunication involved between Don and the shop owner. I would have also noted that being the seller of a service the shop owner should have informed Don about what has to be done to his van to fix it. It would have then been up to Don if he wanted to go ahead with the repair plan or not. Because of this action Don did lose out on a bot of business causing him some financial loss. But in the shop keepers defense Don did say the van needs fixing and left the van at the shop. There was defiantly lack of communication between the buyer and the seller in this circumstance. Because of this I would have not ruled in Don's favor for the shop to pay for his lost business. He should have been more clear with what he wants to be done with his van. But saying this I would rule in favor of Don to not pay the entire bill. It is the shop owners responsibility to make sure that his customers understand what is being done to their vehicles. He should have called up Don upon finding the fault within his van to discuss what further action needs to be taken place. Do the repair or not. The repair shop should also pay for the replacement rental vehicle as this was Don's work vehicle and it being in the shop caused Don to lose business.
6. What New Zealand laws relate to this story? What do New Zealand laws say should have been done in this case?
The law that relates to this story is the Fair Trading Act. In this act there is a section about Consumer Information Standards. Don wasn't informed about the job before it started. If he was informed about the job needed to fix his van he would have said no or considered other alternatives. "These standards make it mandatory for information about certain products to be disclosed to consumers. They are made as regulations under the Fair Trading Act and are enforced by the Commerce Commission." The information was not disclosed with Don before starting work with the engine. It was also an "unfair practice" that the engine was out and apart before the owner told Don about the repair that needed taking place. Don had no choice but to repair the van. It was an unfair practice because Don didn't have a say in the mater. He was not aware of the expensive and lengthy repair job that was needed with his van. Also The Consumers Guarantees Act comes into play here as well. Since no price was never agreed upon (Don was just told the price) he is entitled to pay what he thinks is a reasonable price for the repair job "A reasonable price, if no price or pricing formula has been previously agreed." Also the Contract law comes into play here "A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation". Don had never agreed to the engine being taken out of his van in the first place and nor did he agree with the repair job. There was no agreement made and as a result of this no contract between Don and the shop owner was made.
1. From Don's point of view, what was wrong here? What did the shop do wrong that upset Don so much. (After all, they were fixing his van.)
The reason why Don was so upset was because the shop owner had not discussed the repair process with Don. Being a shop owner it is his responsibility to communicate with the customer (Don) before starting the repair job. As we can tell from the case study that Don was under the impression that van only had a minor problem. He hadn't given them permission to do what is needed to fix his van. He only told them that there was a problem but he didn't mention anything about fixing it. It sounded more like he needed the shop to investigate what the the problem was "maybe just a tune up". When the problem about the burnt exhaust valve was detected, the shop owner should have phoned Don and ask for his OK to start the repair job. This wasn't done and that's why Don was upset. They had taken his engine out and apart and now Don was looking at a very expensive repair bill. The engine was taken out with out Don's permission. Now because of this Don would even have to sort out a temporary vehicle for his business as his van was now out of commission for the next three to four days. That is why Don was very upset, he hadn't given them permission to take his engine out and now he was inconvenienced for his job as well.
2. From the repair shop owner's point of view, what was wrong with Don getting upset at them? What did they do right or wrong?
From the owner's point of view Don had given permission to fix his van when he had dropped it off. Don had told them that the van needed fixing. The owner misinterpreted this into thinking that he was to do what it needed to fix the van. This was wrong of him and he should have clarified with Don as to what he wanted to be done with the van. Even afterwards when the cause of the rough engine running was found, he should have called up Don and discussed the next step to take. He should have done this because the repair job was very costly. People like to know the price of a job before committing to it and Don didn't know the price. The owner of the shop should have called up Don and spoken to him about the fault in his engine. He should have explained the repair procedure required for the van and should have also told him the cost involved. The owner should have then waited for an answer from Don, whether to go on with the repair or not. The shop owner did not do this and that was wrong.
3. What should have been done in this circumstance? If you were Don, what would you have wanted to be done?
If i was Don i would have liked to know the fault within my vehicle and the cost of repairing it first. I would not have wanted them to take my engine out of the car either. I would have wanted them to call me up and ask me if it was OK to remove my engine to further investigate the fault in the van. Even if they didn't ask me about removing the engine I would have wanted them to call me up and explain the fault within my van. I would have liked to know about the repair procedure and the cost involved with repairing it. I would have also liked to know the time frame of the repair as I am using the vehicle for my business. Not having my van means that I am not being able to do my business efficiently.
4. When the repair was finished, and Don went to pick up his van , he took the van and did not pay the whole repair bill. Did the repair shop have the right to hold the van until they got paid?
No the repair shop did not have the right to hold the van until full payment was made. The reason being is that Don was never quoted a price for the repair he was told the repair was costing him $400.00. Don had never agreed to a repair of such and as a result of this no valid contract was made. Neither Don or the shop owner discussed the repair procedure and the cost. There was no contract binding the two parties together and as a result of this Don doesn't have to make the full payment. He can pay what he believes is a reasonable price for the repair job done to his van. Since there was no legal contract binding the two parties together, the repair shop has no rights to hold the van until they got paid.
5. If Don took the repair shop to court, what would you have ruled if you were the judge? Should the repair shop pay for a replacement rental vehicle? Should Don pay the whole repair bill? Should the repair shop pay Don for lost business because he could not pick up and deliver clothes to his customers?
Being the judge I can see that there was miscommunication involved between Don and the shop owner. I would have also noted that being the seller of a service the shop owner should have informed Don about what has to be done to his van to fix it. It would have then been up to Don if he wanted to go ahead with the repair plan or not. Because of this action Don did lose out on a bot of business causing him some financial loss. But in the shop keepers defense Don did say the van needs fixing and left the van at the shop. There was defiantly lack of communication between the buyer and the seller in this circumstance. Because of this I would have not ruled in Don's favor for the shop to pay for his lost business. He should have been more clear with what he wants to be done with his van. But saying this I would rule in favor of Don to not pay the entire bill. It is the shop owners responsibility to make sure that his customers understand what is being done to their vehicles. He should have called up Don upon finding the fault within his van to discuss what further action needs to be taken place. Do the repair or not. The repair shop should also pay for the replacement rental vehicle as this was Don's work vehicle and it being in the shop caused Don to lose business.
6. What New Zealand laws relate to this story? What do New Zealand laws say should have been done in this case?
The law that relates to this story is the Fair Trading Act. In this act there is a section about Consumer Information Standards. Don wasn't informed about the job before it started. If he was informed about the job needed to fix his van he would have said no or considered other alternatives. "These standards make it mandatory for information about certain products to be disclosed to consumers. They are made as regulations under the Fair Trading Act and are enforced by the Commerce Commission." The information was not disclosed with Don before starting work with the engine. It was also an "unfair practice" that the engine was out and apart before the owner told Don about the repair that needed taking place. Don had no choice but to repair the van. It was an unfair practice because Don didn't have a say in the mater. He was not aware of the expensive and lengthy repair job that was needed with his van. Also The Consumers Guarantees Act comes into play here as well. Since no price was never agreed upon (Don was just told the price) he is entitled to pay what he thinks is a reasonable price for the repair job "A reasonable price, if no price or pricing formula has been previously agreed." Also the Contract law comes into play here "A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation". Don had never agreed to the engine being taken out of his van in the first place and nor did he agree with the repair job. There was no agreement made and as a result of this no contract between Don and the shop owner was made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)