From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Log of correspondence and internal discussion regarding a customer dispute over a faulty battery.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 46\3\ Scan113 | |
| Date | 13th December 1922 | |
| -2- Contd. 2.12.22. We inform customer that we have received the Chloride Co's report on the faulty battery, and instead of making a charge for the new battery supplied, they propose making a nominal charge for re-conditioning the old battery. This cost we proposed charging to customer in the usual way. 6.12.22. Customer replies that he cannot agree to pay for re-conditioning a battery which had been condemned by The Chloride Co's Brighton Agents, whose letter he sent to us for perusal. 13.12.22. Customer's remarks placed before E.F.C. who states that he thinks the circumstances are such that the customer should not be expected to pay. The Chloride Co's Agents were in error in informing the customer that the battery was being overcharged, and in the absence of this error the customer might be expected to pay half the cost of repairs. E.F.C. is still of his previous opinion that technically the failure of the battery can only be considered 50% our own responsibility, but he thought it may not, however; be considered worth while from a policy point of view, approaching the Chloride Co. for the small amount, but the decision at this point must be left in other hands. NOTE The full amount charged by The Chloride Co. for repairing the battery is £5. 7. 5d. ---------- | ||