You may change your opinion of Livernois...
11-04-2009, 03:57 PM
#12
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Brandon, Florida
Posts: 2,616
Don't take it sitting down!! The cam manufacture is responsible/liable for the damage to your heads. I'm pretty sure you did not sign a waver releasing them so they are indeed liable for the damage. Take them to small claims court or get a lawyer and get your money back
Product liability law, also called "products liability", governs the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors for damages caused by dangerous or defective products. The goal of product liability laws is to help protect consumers from dangerous products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the marketplace products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective. Depending upon the jurisdiction, the liability of the various parties involved as the product passes from the manufacturer to the consumer will vary.
Product liability frequently involves retail items, but can extend to pretty much anything that can be sold. It is possible, for example, for a product liability action to arise from a defect in real estate such as a leaky wall or poorly installed vapor barrierthat causes mold to grow inside a wall, or from a product used in real estate, such as defective siding.
Product liability claims can be brought under a number of theories, depending upon local law.
Design Defects: Liability arises from a mistake or oversight in the design of a product, which makes it dangerous when used as intended, or when used for another reasonably foreseeable purpose.
Manufacturing Defects: Liability arises from a defect that results from the manufacturing process.
Marketing Defects: A marketing defect involves such issues as inadequate warning labels or instructions, which, for example, prevent a user from recognizing a defect in the product, or from being aware of how to safely use or apply the product.
The elements of what a plaintiff must prove to prevail in a product liability action will also vary with the jurisdiction. It may be possible for a plaintiff to pursue more than one theory of liability.
Negligence: In a negligence action, the plaintiff must typically demonstrate that the parties responsible for placing the product into commerce had a duty to provide goods fit for their foreseeable uses, would have detected the defect with the exercise of reasonable care in the design, manufacture, or inspection process, failed to meet its obligations, and that the plaintiff was injured by the product as a result of the defect while engaged in a foreseeable use of the product.
Strict Liability: Under a strict liability standard, once the plaintiff establishes that a product is defective, liability results from that fact alone no matter how much care was applied during design, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale.
Breach of Warranty: A warranty is essentially a contract of fitness between a manufacturer or vendor and its customer. Under a breach of express warranty theory, the plaintiff alleges the violation of the actual written warranty associated with a product. Under a breach of implied warranty theory, the plaintiff alleges that although there is no express warranty or the defect alleged is not covered by the express warranty, a defect in the goods renders them unfit for the purpose intended.
Many jurisdictions have created comprehensive product liability statutes, to govern litigation over injuries caused by defective products. Some states adhere more closely to a strict liability model, while some have very narrow product liability standards and place a significant burden of proof on a plaintiff. Some may defer to the safety determination made by a federal agency, such as the FDA's review of pharmaceutical products, and shield manufacturers from defects unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that they misled the reviewing agency. They may also immunize parties beyond the point of manufacture, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that they had actual knowledge of a product defect.
Product liability law, also called "products liability", governs the liability of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and vendors for damages caused by dangerous or defective products. The goal of product liability laws is to help protect consumers from dangerous products, while holding manufacturers, distributors, and retailers responsible for putting into the marketplace products that they knew or should have known were dangerous or defective. Depending upon the jurisdiction, the liability of the various parties involved as the product passes from the manufacturer to the consumer will vary.
Product liability frequently involves retail items, but can extend to pretty much anything that can be sold. It is possible, for example, for a product liability action to arise from a defect in real estate such as a leaky wall or poorly installed vapor barrierthat causes mold to grow inside a wall, or from a product used in real estate, such as defective siding.
Product liability claims can be brought under a number of theories, depending upon local law.
Design Defects: Liability arises from a mistake or oversight in the design of a product, which makes it dangerous when used as intended, or when used for another reasonably foreseeable purpose.
Manufacturing Defects: Liability arises from a defect that results from the manufacturing process.
Marketing Defects: A marketing defect involves such issues as inadequate warning labels or instructions, which, for example, prevent a user from recognizing a defect in the product, or from being aware of how to safely use or apply the product.
The elements of what a plaintiff must prove to prevail in a product liability action will also vary with the jurisdiction. It may be possible for a plaintiff to pursue more than one theory of liability.
Negligence: In a negligence action, the plaintiff must typically demonstrate that the parties responsible for placing the product into commerce had a duty to provide goods fit for their foreseeable uses, would have detected the defect with the exercise of reasonable care in the design, manufacture, or inspection process, failed to meet its obligations, and that the plaintiff was injured by the product as a result of the defect while engaged in a foreseeable use of the product.
Strict Liability: Under a strict liability standard, once the plaintiff establishes that a product is defective, liability results from that fact alone no matter how much care was applied during design, manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale.
Breach of Warranty: A warranty is essentially a contract of fitness between a manufacturer or vendor and its customer. Under a breach of express warranty theory, the plaintiff alleges the violation of the actual written warranty associated with a product. Under a breach of implied warranty theory, the plaintiff alleges that although there is no express warranty or the defect alleged is not covered by the express warranty, a defect in the goods renders them unfit for the purpose intended.
Many jurisdictions have created comprehensive product liability statutes, to govern litigation over injuries caused by defective products. Some states adhere more closely to a strict liability model, while some have very narrow product liability standards and place a significant burden of proof on a plaintiff. Some may defer to the safety determination made by a federal agency, such as the FDA's review of pharmaceutical products, and shield manufacturers from defects unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that they misled the reviewing agency. They may also immunize parties beyond the point of manufacture, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that they had actual knowledge of a product defect.
Last edited by CutterWolf; 11-04-2009 at 04:19 PM.
11-04-2009, 04:06 PM
#13
Gentleman's Relish
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 13,090
didn't say anything about the fuss. I'd be livid at 12K. Hell I'd be livid at a few hundred but I just dont' see where Livernois is refusing anything and to take what he has to court will result in a waste of more time and more money. Just bein the voice of reality here.
Where does it say they are refusing to pay for the replacement heads? All I see is an initial response that "yes the cam caused the damage" Where's the follow up?
But whatever, what do I know? Don't cover your **** first, don't even attempt to get their offical response in writing (if they are really refusing) before taking it to a judge. All livernois would have to do is say "We were never given the opportunity to resolve it as the customer never responded to our question."
Where does it say they are refusing to pay for the replacement heads? All I see is an initial response that "yes the cam caused the damage" Where's the follow up?
But whatever, what do I know? Don't cover your **** first, don't even attempt to get their offical response in writing (if they are really refusing) before taking it to a judge. All livernois would have to do is say "We were never given the opportunity to resolve it as the customer never responded to our question."
11-04-2009, 05:50 PM
#14
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 962
Sorry to hear about your engine. I hope it all works out. But given the current info, I'm with Derf00. They didn't refuse to replace/refund anything. It just seems you didnt ask. It doesnt seem that they're denying anything and are being civil. Unless you have some email of them telling you to get bent then I dont think you can fault them at this point. Your beef should probably be with Comp Cams, or make Livernois do the dirty work with them.
11-04-2009, 06:59 PM
#17
S197 Section Modder-ator
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 13,373
It's sad........................................can't even get good heads anymore. 
Or should I say cams?
+1 on the small claims.
Not too costly and you can win this.
I think the way to go is sue Livernois because they should have check those cams regardless.
Let them sue Comp if they want to...
Or should I say cams?
+1 on the small claims.
Not too costly and you can win this.
I think the way to go is sue Livernois because they should have check those cams regardless.
Let them sue Comp if they want to...
11-04-2009, 07:17 PM
#20
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 1,278
damn sorry to hear that. But like you said it seems to be more comp cams fault rather than livernois. They just seem to be stuck in between but they should be the ones helping you fight comp for your money back. comp cams is definitely a larger operation than livernois anyways. I agree though that email livernois sent you was a joke.