Substution is almost never done except by prior arrangement or explicit communication. While there's always exceptions, I'm going to say every purchase order released has manufacturer and part number listed on each line.
There's one exception that I know of that happened all the time to me, and I could never get around it. Ball bearings.
I hold the opinion that SKF bearings are superior, and ordered them for my projects. I routinely received instead a Japanese or Chinese equivalent instead. That substitution happened with almost every bearing ordered, without permission.
I agree that the distributor should be held liable, but it is a problem of pocket depth. Many distributors have nothing but a cell phone and a rolodex. We could have taken everything this distributor owned and probably not covered the lost production cost for even one motor failure. (These motors were on yogurt packaging machines that produced 24 cups of yogurt per second 20 hours a day.) Hell, we could probably have put him in jail, but who does that benefit? It doesn't get anyone's money back and just ends up costing society to house and feed the miscreant.
On the other hand, I as the purchaser have a right to expect that a person who presents themself as a representative of a company is either going to be backed up by the company when he speaks officially for them (i.e. by accepting and delivering an order), or is going to be removed from the scene by the company they claim to represent. It was well known and accepted by all parties for years that this guy was in fact a distributor representative of the genuine manufacturer, and that is where the motor manufacturer's liability in this case arises - for failing to exercise due diligence over the conduct of their official representative. (In my opinion) And the manufacturer, to whom this whole problem is a small part of their total business, is much more able to make the damaged parties whole.
It could even be argued that I as the designer had ultimate responsibility for the suitability of the product for a particular purpose. (That arguement would certainly hold up if all of the parts had come from the proper source and had failed in a similar way.) The ultimate extension of this premise is that only the end user is responsible for any kind of failure arising out of a design feature and not an obvious manufacturing flaw. Many lawyers have gotten rich over just such cases.
1) Being from a reputable manufacturer, I 'm confident the motors were actually tested by the manufacturer for IP69. I'm also confident it was tested with proper cables and not the bogus ones. In fact the need for that particular design feature probably came to light as a result of the testing.
2) I left the company before the lawyers got done with it, and don't want to rub salt in someone's wounds by calling around to see what the outcome was.
3) Motor, drive, and cables are not conveniently sold as a set because:
a) different applications call for different cable lengths or even styles (standard or extra flexible)
b) warranty and replacement parts orders would necessitate breaking up the sets, and it would then require an extra level of scrutiny to determine whether a user was 'permitted' to buy a component separately. If someone at the manufacturer looked at the distributor's orders as a group the situation then came to light when it was noticed that they were ordering a lot of motors and drives but few if any cables. But it is doubtful anyone would have noticed just by looking at the orders on an individual basis.
4) Yes, I would call it fraud, but the perpetrator would probably point to:
a) the fact that his cables, though nicely labelled with the genuine manufacturer's same part number, (probably) did not have the genuine or brother in law manufacturer's actual name on it anywhere.
b) the fact that the distributor sold parts from a number of manufacturers and probably did not have a contract that required him to give all parts of the order to the genuine manufacturer . "Oh, we assumed they wanted to save a little money by buying these 'third party' cables, like many of our other customers..."
c) had we asked the right question the distributor (probably) would have disclosed that the cables were made by others.
d) And, if they were smart in addition to being dishonest, the distributor would have arranged the invoice in such a way that sourcing the cables from another manufacturer could not be ruled out by the language of the invoice.
e) the fact that we did not say "... and we want genuine cables with this order, not any third party stuff that may be available."
By and large the cables were pretty good or the whole operation would have come to light sooner. For instance if we had had an electrical failure in any cable it would have been returned to the (supposed) manufacturer who would immediately identified it as bogus. Or if we had received any cable that was not as ordered, or if any shipment was delayed significantly we would have been directly back to the genuine manufacturer to follow up and the problem would have come to light. The fact that they got away with this for years and presumably with other customers as well is testimony to the fact that the cables were probably perfectly adequate for many users.
Frankly the term 'piracy' never came to my mind in this case, nor was I particularly upset or feeling personally cheated when the circumstances came to light. I took it as just an amusing look at the relations between a manufacturer and their distributor, but then none of the costs came out of my pocket, and those costs were surely significant to everyone involved. But in fact piracy is exactly what it was, and as usual with piracy the consequential costs just to the end user alone for lost production exceeded the value of the (quite expensive) cables by several orders of magnitude.
It looks like the problem went beyond the manufacturers in-house Q.C. process. I am wondering why the motor, drive, and cable weren't sold as one unit to the distributor - that would have eliminated inadequate part swapping...
I've got to wonder if the unit passed IP69 with the brother-in-law's cable or if the unit went to testing with the good cable and then when the unit went into production somebody started purchasing the cheaper cable.
Beth, I guess it would also depend on the agreements between the distributor and the manufacturer and the distributor and the customer. It is really incumbent upon the manufacturer to vet the distributor and to train them. That is probably why the manufacturer only deals direct now.
I agree, the distributor should be liable for the failures. This reminds me of when I was working at a Mitsubishi dealership... There was an emissions recall for the automatic transmissions on some vehicles. Apparently the spring used in one of the check balls was too stiff delaying actuation of the lock-up torque converter. The factory authorized recall involved tearing down the transmission and replacing the torque converter and the valve body, but the dealer had other plans. They purchased a case of retractable ball point pens which had a spring in them which was similar to the spring in the factory replacement valve body so they used those springs in the original valve body instead! This allowed them to bypass transmission removal and repair by simply dropping the trans pan and R&R'ing one bolt (the spring cap). I refused to perform any of the "factory recall repairs" in that manner. It was the Parts Manager's brother who came up with the idea and provided the pen springs.
Transfers the control of a large number of motion axes from one numerical control kernel to another within a CNC system, using multiple NCKs, and enables implement control schemes for virtually any type of machine tool.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.