• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Tethrd One Sticks Gen 2

raisins said:
a lot of people (stupidly) climb without any safety gear

i don't care what the fine print says, if one of their sticks break (they can somewhat prove a catastrophic failure that no one should expect from a product like this) and sends someone to the ground, then the lawyers will have a field day
Click to expand...
In the end the lawyers are the only winner. And you’re correct you shouldn’t spend that type of money on anything and not be confident about the safety and performance of the product you purchased…
 
raisins said:
a lot of people (stupidly) climb without any safety gear

i don't care what the fine print says, if one of their sticks break (they can somewhat prove a catastrophic failure that no one should expect from a product like this) and sends someone to the ground, then the lawyers will have a field day
Click to expand...

Fine print says....



BA855E7C-B3D3-4264-B9BF-22A5D30001BA.jpeg
 
I requested a refund. I didn't keep the box, nor do I feel like being a circus monkey to get them back to them.
 
Plebe said:
Fine print says....



View attachment 68502
Click to expand...
Any lawyers in the house? Are faulty design, materials, manufacturing considered negligence if they got government approval? Serious question. I can see negligence if they did not TEST the product, but if they did passed the test by the minimal standard of government regulation, can it be consider negligence?
 
I’m no lawyer but my understanding is if you know a problem exists that poses a threat to safety, and someone can prove you knew and did nothing to correct it then it’s negligence. Testing won’t save you from that. By issuing a recall, they are trying to correct the issue, if you use the stick without testing or having it repaired/inspected by them, you are now accepting full liability.

HuumanCreed said:
Any lawyers in the house? Are faulty design, materials, manufacturing considered negligence if they got government approval? Serious question. I can see negligence if they did not TEST the product, but if they did passed the test by the minimal standard of government regulation, can it be consider negligence?
Click to expand...
 
HuumanCreed said:
Any lawyers in the house? Are faulty design, materials, manufacturing considered negligence if they got government approval? Serious question. I can see negligence if they did not TEST the product, but if they did passed the test by the minimal standard of government regulation, can it be consider negligence?
Click to expand...

no lawyer....but there has to be a limit on the fine print

let's say you buy a vehicle and there is fine print that tries to protect the maker.....but as you drive off the lot the vehicle explodes

i don't think the fine print is a defense
 
raisins said:
no lawyer....but there has to be a limit on the fine print

let's say you buy a vehicle and there is fine print that tries to protect the maker.....but as you drive off the lot the vehicle explodes

i don't think the fine print is a defense
Click to expand...

Logically I would agree with you that you can't just add in a 'not responsible in anyway' clause and escape responsibility, but I've seen shadier things in the world. But isn't it a fact that EVERYONE is using the Safeguard outside of it's intended use? If the Safeguard failed during saddle hunting, is that considered negligence? Not saying its an exact example because sticks are MEANT to be used to climb.

But I don't know how you can prove negligence if they are issuing a recall and got government approval for the product.
 
HuumanCreed said:
Logically I would agree with you that you can't just add in a 'not responsible in anyway' clause and escape responsibility, but I've seen shadier things in the world. But isn't it a fact that EVERYONE is using the Safeguard outside of it's intended use? If the Safeguard failed during saddle hunting, is that considered negligence? Not saying its an exact example because sticks are MEANT to be used to climb.

But I don't know how you can prove negligence if they are issuing a recall and got government approval for the product.
Click to expand...
The difference is intended use for the safeguard. If I repel with it on my 8 mm rope that's my choice and I accept liability and cannot sue for using it out of spec, whereas using a stick strapped onto the tree is using it within spec
 
Well maybe a call to the CPSC is in order to get what the regulations are regarding this. I am not okay with sending these turds out to get beat on and sent back if they don’t break. That’s absurd…

That fine print is warranty. They issued a recall. Different ball game…
 
enkriss said:
Well maybe a call to the CPSC is in order to get what the regulations are regarding this. I am not okay with sending these turds out to get beat on and sent back if they don’t break. That’s absurd…

That fine print is warranty. They issued a recall. Different ball game…
Click to expand...

I agree. This is one point of the whole situation that I think feel shady. I understand it's likely a huge business gut punch if you offer full refund. Not only are you losing the profit, the shipping cost both ways, the cost in manpower to test each stick, and you are losing the investment cost in making the sticks. But in offering refund, you are keeping some of the good will that you built up in the community. That you shown you do care about the customer's safety first. Haters will be haters, but the one that stay loyal to you are worth the financial hit in the long run. But again, I understand 'testing and returning' is the logical business decision, which kind of made me sad that its how they see it and how I will see them from now on.
 
At least the recall notice is showing up on the for sale page... Though in my opinion they should probably stop selling them if they care about customer safety more than money...


But I also find myself wondering why I care, as I didn't buy them and don't plan to. Perhaps my energy is best placed elsewhere ..
 
thedutchtouch said:
They are still for sale with no mention of the voluntary recall or testing. Definitely a bit shady.
Click to expand...
Should one assume that they are testing all of the new orders before they are shipped out. You know what assuming does!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top