Course I would though it would depend what I was selling. If it endangered life because of a lie, then no … on the other hand if it was a condom I knew was full of pin pricks …
I wish you could write in plain english Todgy?
The semi legalese you use is unintelligable nto me !!
Surely what you just wrote doesnt imply that the purchaser of the
product is responsible for specifying the materials used to make
the product does it??
If so, then no wonder we have disasters
Donkeyman!
The purchaser of the product is responsible for purchasing a product that complies with his requirements. The salesperson has to sell the product that the purchaser has specified.
In the case of Greenfell time is a factor because of state of the art, along with limitations on how the product is used.
The bottom line remains that if the material originally specified a very different outcome might have resulted.
IF I was a sales rep, which I could never be, no I wouldn’t sell, endorse or promote something I didn’t believe in.
I can’t play games like that or act a part. My feet are on the ground and I’m too honest, it’s beyond my capabilities, so I’d be homeless and destitute.
I’m incapable of selling myself to myself 
Did you read the Guardian article Todgy ???
Donkeyman!
Yes. It was interesting BUT what is missing is the timeline. In particular when and where and by whom decisions were made which brings us back to “state of the art”.
There’s a huge amount of information lacking and because of that it’s still too early to put the manufacturer’s neck on the block.
My own opinion remains that the root cause is systemic failure and that requires analysis of responsibilities spread around the council, their contractors, and what checks and balances were in place between council and their contractors.
Of greater concern than Grenfell are other residential buildings in which the same or very similar insulation material has been used and nothing has been done even though people are still living. Councils must be continually be kept with their feet to the fire to get this matter resolved as an absolutely top priority.
In other words then Todgy, that distributors and manufacturers
need their feet kept to the fire by the municipalities ,to ensure that
they only offer products that are fit for purpose, for sale??
Sounds a convoluted way to achieve a safe outcome to me?
Far simpler to have the manufacturers put their products up for
examination by qualified experts in fire safety (ie. The fire brigade!)
To obtain a safety certificate allowing them to sell their shyte??
The poor sods living in blocks of flats now have a real problem to
convince the landlords of the blocks that it is the landlords
responsibility to remove the shyte from their blocks and not the
tenants? Imo the landlords should remove it and then seek recourse
from the manufacturer !!
But, when capitalism runs rife, injustice prevails ??
Donkeyman!
Certainly not - I value my integrity.
I agree. I, and my colleague, started our electrical engineering business in the early seventies. We did have have a few sales guys but always integrity was our just what we did.
Fit for purpose within the expressed limitations of the spec or application notes. If the buyer uses the product outside of the spec then that’s down to them.
If in this case the product was used within the specs valid at the time then “state of the art” defence applies. In the case of buildings that are now potential fire hazards because of what has been learned then the onus to do something about it is on the leaseholder or possibly the building management business.
Surely that requires that the purveyor of the faulty goods can prove
that he UNKNOWINGLY sold a dangerous product?
In the case of Grenfell it is obvious from evidence presented
at the inquiry that the purveyor was all too aware of the shortcomings
of their product! The inquiry has the E mails to prove it !!
The case of the poor sods living in high rise accomodation clad
with what is now accepted to be a life threatening product is more
complicated and needs government intervention via new laws to
control the sale and leasing of multi tenancy accomodation and who
is liable for what etc!
At the moment it seems landlords have the whip hand and the
relationship needs rebalancing imo??
Donkeyman!
But were any shortcomings of the product known by the manufacturer at the time of sale that were not addressed in the limitations of use contained within the specification? There is still no evidence that such was the case.
As for folk living in accommodation that is unsafe based on what is known today but was not known when the cladding was installed it’s a realcan of worms and all sorts of variables become involved such as warranties given in contract by who and to whom.
Does Claudia Winkleman really use Head & Shoulders?
Does Stacey Dooley really die her own hair with ‘Nice & Easy’?
Does Parky only drink Yorkshire tea?
I doubt it. Personally I couldn’t sell anything I didn’t believe in.
As the owner and operator of a Hoover Heat Pump tumble dryer, I decided to browse several sellers for a replacement foam bottom filter. The existing filter has reached the point where cleaning under running water is no longer viable, so it has to be replaced. Previously, I have bought the filters in pairs for around £7-8 delivered from an Amazon Storefront seller, but not this time. I have ordered a pack of 6 aftermarket filters from Germany for the excellent price of £5.93 to my front door👍
What’s my point here? It really does pay to shop around and consider aftermarket alternatives to branded.
For me it would depend on the product and what circumstances I find myself in if I was put in that position. It would also depend on any money involved.
If it was a well paid job then yes i would - short answer!
That depends on the circumstances.
1 Like
No.that would be dishonest.
1 Like