Anyone had a set up from J White Guitars in Ash Vale?

EduardoFalicioni

WezV said:

I do see the issue, but also understand how it happens.  Not defending, just giving a balanced view based on the pictures you supplied.  The full body pic shows less of an issue than the zoomed in pic of one insert.

The alignment and bad installation of the neck inserts is a much bigger issue in my eyes.  It's massively wrong and you have a case based on that.  The other issue is the body inserts being in the wrong place for your chosen plate.  These alone are significant.

I never would have put any type of screw insert in the body.  Push fit would work fine for the low load application.

That  example pic you show is never gonna happen on a brittle nitro finish with  screw in insert.  This is what you should have been told from the start. 

@WezV - I’m struggling to understand why you don’t think erroneously installing neck inserts, that come in a pack with 1 1/2 inch screws, in a body, not telling the customer, and doing a shocking reinstatement isn’t so big of a deal?

you’re the only one in this thread whom doesn’t find that mistake and the ‘remedial work’ that followed behind all comprehension.

id consider 8 neck insert sizes holes in my body, with a pronounced countersink around them, instead of 8 relatively neat and weeny little pickguard insert in my body a serous f up

WezV

You're missing my point in your anger against the guy who did it.  

My point is that it as never a simple job.l and you should have been told that from the start.  You were never going to get the example pic you have posted on the body you have shown.

I'm not saying you don't have a case.  I am saying your case should focus on misaligned screws, not misaligned expectations.

EduardoFalicioni

When J white Jr, pointed out J White Snrs error, of installing the neck inserts for three guitars, in the body of one guitar, they then proceeded to use the correct little pickguard inserts for the control panel:

so for the pickguard we had this:

And for the control panel, once the error was realised we have this:

It’s a pronounced difference 

EduardoFalicioni

WezV said:

You're missing my point in your anger against the guy who did it.  

My point is that it as never a simple job.l and you should have been told that from the start.  You were never going to get the example pic you have posted on the body you have shown.

I'm not saying you don't have a case.  I am saying your case should focus on misaligned screws, not misaligned expectations.




why don’t you understand about neck inserts being erroneously installed in the body, which everyone here has said is ludicrous.

its got nothing to do with expectations?

other than i dont expect anyone to be so stupid as to install neck inserts in a body

WezV

You have a pointwhich i totally agree with.   Don't let your anger get in the way of it.

My only role here is to point out the pitfalls of this sort of job when others have said its easy. Which I have done.

That's me out.  

EduardoFalicioni

@WezV - pitfall: noun

1. 1. 

   a hidden or unsuspected danger or difficulty.
   
   so an insert installing wonky is a pitfall ie a risk that could occur during installation. 
   
   
   
   
   
   Making a total error by mixing up hardware and the correct location of installation is not a pitfall… that’s just a massive error.

Filling the holes with epoxy, and then putting the correct pickguard inserts into that material off centre, and roughly painting over the filler is …a joke

These are all entirely different concepts. 

EduardoFalicioni

If I take my car to VW for a service, and they accidentally dent and scratch the body work, is that a ‘pitfall’ of having an engine service? No… it’s a negligent f up

EduardoFalicioni

sev112

Sporky said:

A contract has to be fair to be valid. Lots of online vendors have terms and conditions that don't stand up when challenged. Lots of employment contracts have terms that are unenforceable. 

I have no idea where you get that concept from. They have to be legal to be valid, but they certainly do not have to be fair.  And if you were taking that argument,  and you imagine how much legal fees that would cost to have that argument with people of a different view.  Even if you feel that some terms are unenforceable, when one chooses to engage with a party when there are many other parities out there, one has demonstrated choice.  It is an extremely difficult legal argument, extremely costly, and quite possibly/probably a losing argument.  Not at all helpful to the poor OP in this case,

EduardoFalicioni

‘Thinking out loud’ - Legal action is always daunting, even if you feel you have a clear case, because of the upfront cost. 

I’m certainly feeling very daunted by it and the outlay; having never been in a situation like this before. 

the solicitor doesn’t do lump sums, and it’s all by the hour. So I worry about ending up paying a fortune that could have just bought two new guitars. 

EduardoFalicioni

All; thank you for your time / thoughts / opinions / advices etc.

i feel utterly drained / exhausted by the situation and the sadness and regret that accompanies it.

So I’m  going to extricate myself from this chat etc simply because I already spend too much time dwelling on, and trying to process, my two most prized possessions ending up like this.

i wish you all many hopefully care free years of playing

Kurtis

EduardoFalicioni said:

All; thank you for your time / thoughts / opinions / advices etc.

i feel utterly drained / exhausted by the situation and the sadness and regret for taking them for work, that accompanies it.

So I’m  going to extricate myself from this chat etc simply because I already spend too much time dwelling on, and trying to process, my two most prized possessions ending up like this.

i wish you all many hopefully care free years of playing

Hopefully you can get the job done properly and just let it become a story to tell and part of the guitar's character.
Shouldn't effect the way they play or sound. 

Boromedic

EduardoFalicioni said:

All; thank you for your time / thoughts / opinions / advices etc.

i feel utterly drained / exhausted by the situation and the sadness and regret for taking them for work, that accompanies it.

So I’m  going to extricate myself from this chat etc simply because I already spend too much time dwelling on, and trying to process, my two most prized possessions ending up like this.

i wish you all many hopefully care free years of playing

Whatever ends up happening, wish you the best mate, hope you get a resolution that you can live with in the end.

I would love to hear what outcome you get to, but would understand if you decide not to let us know. 

andy_k

EduardoFalicioni said:

Current state, with 7 of the 8 pickguard inserts removed, and a fair bit of the filler they used (after removing the neck inserts that they’d erroneously installed in body) coming with it - so left with large holes with a pronounced countersunk rim and residual filler to deal with

I realise the OP has decided to quit this chat, but this pic appears to show the remedial work is already being carried out?
Maybe I missed something, and the 'luthier' has been given the opportunity to try and remedy this work?
I also think the OP has missed the point re- small claims, which can be brought himself, without the need for a £325 per hr lawyer.
I hope this ends well, for his sake, but it looks like it is going to get messy.

guitarjack66

I will say that the OP needs to stop posting photos and spend more time speaking with legal people. It seems you have a good case but are stressing yourself out more on here by getting very defensive against one or two people giving you advice. Walk away and start sorting it out.

victorludorum

andy_k said:

EduardoFalicioni said:

Current state, with 7 of the 8 pickguard inserts removed, and a fair bit of the filler they used (after removing the neck inserts that they’d erroneously installed in body) coming with it - so left with large holes with a pronounced countersunk rim and residual filler to deal with

I realise the OP has decided to quit this chat, but this pic appears to show the remedial work is already being carried out?
Maybe I missed something, and the 'luthier' has been given the opportunity to try and remedy this work?
I also think the OP has missed the point re- small claims, which can be brought himself, without the need for a £325 per hr lawyer.
I hope this ends well, for his sake, but it looks like it is going to get messy.

That's the impression i got too. Hopefully they don't still have it.

Brio

Oi! I'm the OP and I got the answers I needed halfway down page 1. 
Sounds like I dodged a bullet.

Neil

guitarjack66 said:

I will say that the OP needs to stop posting photos and spend more time speaking with legal people. It seems you have a good case but are stressing yourself out more on here by getting very defensive against one or two people giving you advice. Walk away and start sorting it out.

I would agree with you with the caveat that from personal experience once you get lawyers involved the bills soon add up to thousands.  

BillDL

EduardoFalicioni said:

...... i dont expect anyone to be so stupid as to install neck inserts in a body

EduardoFalicioni said:

...... Making a total error by mixing up hardware and the correct location of installation is not a pitfall… that’s just a massive error.

How many neck inserts and bolts, and how many body inserts and bolts, did you supply to the luthier?

Were they separately bagged and did you mark them up as "neck" and "body" along with a written explanation of which ones were to be inserted in the respective places, or did the luthier make a note of your requests and give you a written quote that detailed this?

THESE are the aspects of a legal wrangle over contractual obligations with the luthier, and your requirement for them to make good the error, that are extremely important to your case.

EduardoFalicioni said:

If I take my car to VW for a service, and they accidentally dent and scratch the body work, is that a ‘pitfall’ of having an engine service? No… it’s a negligent f up

Your example / analogy isn't quite the same, and wouldn't serve as a good example for legal purposes.  A negligent or accidental dent and scratch to a car's bodywork while a routine service was being done would be something that you would claim back from the authorised dealership's liability insurance that would be freely available and published somewhere when you had booked the car in for its service.  It is for this reason that Autoglass make a full walk around video in pretty good resolution of your car before they replace or repair your window.  It mitigates against spurious claims of damage and protects you as a customer, and if you were to read their lengthy terms and conditions you would be aware that in some instances small scratches or chip-outs of surrounding paintwork may be inevitable depending on the condition of the surrounding paintwork.

You asked for modifications to be done to the guitar by what amounts to an "independent dealer", if we are still using the car analogy, and one that presumably only has word of mouth terms and conditions as well as being bound to the terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 1, Chapter 4 (services), Section 49 and 55 specifically.  A better analogy for legal purposes would be if you took your car to an independent small garage and asked for a fancy fuel filler surround to be fitted using chrome M3 cap screws and extended wheel arches to be fitted using black M4 countersunk machine screws, and you supplying the parts in separate bags with no written instructions.  If the mechanic drills for and fits the fuel filler surround with the black countersunk screws and the wheel arches using the chrome cap screws, and in so doing cracks the holes in the surround or wheel arches that weren't designed for that type of fastener, that is more or less what has happened with your guitar.  The holes on one part of your bodywork are now too big or too small and there's no easy way to remedy it without doing some kind of filling or re-drilling.  I know this sounds like an unusual scenario, but it's not far away from your example.

The accompanying "interpretation" notes for the Consumer Rights Act 2015 with regard to your right to require remedial work to fix unsatisfactory workmanship to conform with the contract (referred to in the act as "repeat performance") does make it clear that you have other remedies in situations where "rework" can not be done to a satisfactory standard, and quotes the example of a bad haircut where you can't stick the hair back on and cut it all again.  In these cases you have the right to ask for a price reduction It also makes it clear that you can only have one bite at the cherry.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 1, Chapter 4 (services), Section 54 (6):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/4/crossheading/what-remedies-are-there-if-statutory-rights-under-a-services-contract-are-not-met

states the following:

"This section and sections 55 and 56 do not prevent the consumer seeking other remedies for a breach of a term to which any of subsections (3) to (5) applies, instead of or in addition to a remedy referred to there (but not so as to recover twice for the same loss).

(7) Those other remedies include any of the following that is open to the consumer in the circumstances—
    (a) claiming damages;
    (b) seeking to recover money paid where the consideration for payment of the money has failed;
    (c) seeking specific performance;
    (d) seeking an order for specific implement;
    (e) relying on the breach against a claim by the trader under the contract;
    (f) exercising a right to treat the contract as at an end".

andy_k said:

 ...... this pic appears to show the remedial work is already being carried out?
Maybe I missed something, and the 'luthier' has been given the opportunity to try and remedy this work?

If so, then the part in bold quoting the act would be applicable.

Clearly due to the complexities of the statutory law and the apparent lack of proof over verbal vs written instructions to the luthier means that this is best handled by a lawyer.

Sporky

sev112 said:

Sporky said:

A contract has to be fair to be valid. Lots of online vendors have terms and conditions that don't stand up when challenged. Lots of employment contracts have terms that are unenforceable. 

I have no idea where you get that concept from. They have to be legal to be valid, but they certainly do not have to be fair.  And if you were taking that argument,  and you imagine how much legal fees that would cost to have that argument with people of a different view.  Even if you feel that some terms are unenforceable, when one chooses to engage with a party when there are many other parities out there, one has demonstrated choice.  It is an extremely difficult legal argument, extremely costly, and quite possibly/probably a losing argument.  Not at all helpful to the poor OP in this case,

Your post said that whatever their contract said is enforceable. That's not inherently true, which is why so many contracts also say something along the lines of "if one bit of this is deemed unenforceable that doesn't affect the rest".

"Fair" might have been too simplistic a word; contracts need to benefit both parties. "Balanced" might be better. They also cannot, for example, sign away your statutory rights - no matter what they say.

I do agree that proper qualified legal advice is necessary, I just disagree with the notion that the contract (if there is a written one) is the be all and end all.

That said, the government has a page about unfair contracts, which strongly suggests that contracts should be legally "fair". 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-contract-terms-cma37