Thank you for good idea! I will follow your advice.
Steven
As you donât have a clue about the OPâs electrical service provider, his home or the condition of his electrical system you are again just making things up as you go along. And unless I have missed it somehow in the abundance of posts about your personal system over the years you have no experience with the current Power Plants to make an assumption about what did or didnât happen with his or his panel. As was the case with other members his initial explanation didnât make sense to me so I asked questions he answered and I dropped it. Itâs now up to the distributor and PSA to make the determination.
3 Likes
Iâm afraid you are too hopeful in your expectations that testing of each component will result in clarity from the tester on why the failure occurred. That generally does not happen as people have a tendency to hedge their bets in these situations unless legally obliged.
While EU consumer laws and electrical regulations are robust, these do not extend necessarily to liabilities, contingent or otherwise, to say nothing of consequential loss.
In the UK for instance in relation to defects, the Supreme Court also handed down a famous judgment in Hastings v Finsbury Orthopaedics [2022] (reinforcing the approaches of the High Court in Wilkes v DePuy [2016] EWHC 3096 and Gee v Depuy [2018] EWHC 1208)
âThe test of whether a product is defective is whether the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect. The test is not what is expected but one of entitled expectation. The test is an objective one. The standard of safety is measured by what the public at large is entitled to expect.â
The OP needs to revert in the first instance to PSA, and invoke local consumer protection if applicable. It is unlikely pursuing liability will be fruitful outside of legal proceedings.
Steven, you have subjected us to this lecture dozens of times. We got it the first time.
Instead of pontificating and speculating, letâs allow those involved work it out.
@franta2 may then report back to whatever degree he chooses
6 Likes
So it took 43 people to change a light bulb (-:
You just go on and on and on - talking to yourself about yourselfâŚ!
8 Likes
Correct this pertained to hip implants but this is case law being used as a general precedent here which is the reason why I followed it with the quote.
You are also behind the times when it comes to hip replacements. In my medical experience I knew of no Orthopoedic surgeons who would advise a patient to be in pain and delay as long as possible, because they only last about 10 years.
1 Like
IMO, this thread title is presumptuous.
Good luck with troubleshooting and accomplishing your repairs.
[Post Script: Appreciate the consideration RE: original thread title.]
1 Like
Agree the title of the thread is misleading, and I do believe it has been changed as well. Hmmm.
1 Like
Yes, a more reasonable title now.
1 Like
Plus there are at least two more possible causes of the situation that have not been discussed or resolved but they donât fit Stevenâs need to pontificate as a âconsumer advocate.â
3 Likes
I changed the thread title in an effort to make it both accurate and fair.
4 Likes
That could be the response of 2023! Iâm still giggling.
5 Likes
Perhaps in England.
Very sad.
I donât believe a powerplant is not protected against everything that could cause harm downstreamâŚsimply because this I guess would be the end of powerplant sales (to those whoâd know). My only topic isâŚwhy isnât this clarified here.
Some may wonder why I care at all although I donât even own one. I wonder that those who own one, donât.
Huh?
1 Like
This is not the case in England. It may have been a few decades ago. Not now.
You mean why this should be problematic for powerplant sales?
Would you use one if you knew downstream damages could happen due to a failure in this unit? I donât believe in successful refund cases for expensive amps then.
But as I said, I guess there is a measure that this canât happen,
I am certain this is the case . . . I should have made explicit this was sarcasm.
1 Like
Huh? meaning I was unable to parse your post. Your second post helped clarify.
I recall past discussions where it was stated a PowerPlant is not going to harm a downstream component even if the PowerPlant fails.
1 Like
I confused upstream/downstream, sorry, itâs corrected now.
Thinking about it, that might not be so easy, to safeguard a unit that is itself responsible for providing the power. It can certainly be programmed, but this control program itself again can be prone to bugs or malfunctions. Then remains an independent safeguard on a different level,of integration (something like an additional fuse). But I think this isnât favorable sound quality wise. Would really be interesting how itâs solved.