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).
Cost allocation for a faulty battery on chassis 139-AG for customer J.S. Spencer.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 46\3\ Scan139 | |
| Date | 16th March 1923 | |
| X607 To Wd.{Mr Wood/Mr Whitehead} from EFC. c. EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} c. Sh. c. D/BP. EFC1/T16.3.23. X.607 - CHASSIS 139-AG - J.S. SPENCER, ESQ. FAULTY BATTERY Answering D/BP/HF{H. W. Frost - Coachwork Inspector}9/B15.3.23, in the original communication received from Mr. Spencer's chauffeur with regard to this matter, he was quoted as having said that he was quite willing to agree by the decision of Messrs. Rolls-Royce Ltd. We are still of the opinion that the fair partition of the expense of this failure is, as already given, Customer 50% Rolls-Royce 25% Messrs.Barkers 25% It seems to us that in the first instance the Exide Company offered their renewal battery at a fair price of £5.5.0. (In passing we do not understand why the customer has been asked to pay £3.3.0, as one half of £5.5.0 is £2.12.6). We think the customer ought to be very well satisfied in obtaining a renewal battery in good condition at this expense to himself, taking into account the fact that we do not guarantee batteries in any case, and that after all he has had from his battery some amount of service. In view of his chauffeur's statement that acting for Mr. Spencer he was quite willing to agree by the decision of Rolls-Royce, I do not think any alteration should be made, but as stated, I do not understand why the customer should be asked to pay £3.3.0 in place of £2.12.6. EFC. | ||