Where the
world gathers for metal finishing
Q&As since 1989


-----

Liability issues for platers regarding customers' parts

I would like to hear from others in the Metal Finishing Industry regarding liability for customers parts. I have been in the Plating/metal Finishing field for over 20 years and it is my understanding that most finishers have some type of policy regarding what they are responsible for. If a finished part fails in assembly, should we be charged for the whole assembly and labor of the customer? It seems to me that assuming this type of liability could lead to financial difficulty to say the least. Shouldn't we only be responsible for the processing costs or the value we add to the part? I would appreciate any input from my fellow finishers on this topic.

Peter Cox
- Seabrook, New Hampshire
2002

---

2002

I hope you get some good feedback here because it's a good question and one which is not, to my knowledge, covered by any spec.

But for my part, no matter how generous you wish to be with your very best customers, paying for their failure to inspect and for their failure to adequately train their assemblers is to be an enabler, a co-dependent; I wouldn't dream of honoring that backcharge.

Ted Mooney, P.E.
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey

My firm's "Standard Terms and Conditions" are found at our website as are many other platers from around the world. We refer all customers back to our "Standard Terms" on all quotations, packing slips, certifications, etc.

We took the "terms" written by NAMF and modified them ever so slightly.

We only pay for something over the plating price when it's a good customer or when we feel we actually did something blatantly wrong. Our terms explicitly state, you do assembly to the plated part, it becomes your problem. The problem should have turned up at customer's incoming inspection.

Milt Stevenson, Jr.
Syracuse, New York
2002

---

2002

Hi Milt,

I am a bit confused by the wording of the NAMF conditions listed at your website.

I don't know what it means when it says that "parts will be furnished without charge". Does that mean "refinished without charge"?

Also, it seems to me that your terms state that your customer is on his own if he attempts to assemble parts with reject plating, not that he is on his own if he tries to assemble parts that have a plating on them.

Of course, many parts are plated with the condition that they can be formed or otherwise assembled without failure of the coating. This should be stated in the terms for that part, so there is no confusion about what the coating should be capable of withstanding.

Thank you for the information, I was wondering where the 5% shrinkage term came from which I heard about in my travels. That certainly is a generous portion to lose. Actually, it means that a plater could have a 5% reject rate in plating, could sort the 5% out, then ship the 95% left and claim 0% rejects.

I also wondered about the mountain of parts that would accumulate around a plating shop if 5% of all the work would not make it back out of the shop!

Sincerely,

  
Tom Pullizzi
Falls Township, Pennsylvania