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).
Faulty Exide batteries, repairs, and liability for three different vehicle chassis.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 46\3\ Scan098 | |
| Date | 14th November 1922 | |
| X607 A.T. c. to EFC. EP{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer}/CEP9/EC14.11.22. X607. RE. FAULTY EXIDE BATTERIES. Replying to your memo reference WK6/NJ13.11.22 and letters from the Chloride Co., ECM/GGW and WD{Mr Wood/Mr Whitehead}/NS{Norman Scott} dated the 10 th. inst. Taking the cases in the same rotation as the Chloride Co. Chassis 10-RE We note that the Chloride Co., propose sending us a renewal battery complete. This is more than we anticipated, but at the same time their assumption that the remaining cells may be in a like faulty condition is no more than we realised. In fact, we have already suggested to D/BP. that a renewal battery should be sent to this client. Chassis 17-RE Referring to the Chloride's letter ref. WD{Mr Wood/Mr Whitehead}/NS{Norman Scott} dated 10th November, we do not appear to have received Chloride's letter of the 19th ult. quoting £2.5.0d. for the repairs to five cells. Presumably this matter has been dealt with by BP. We note that the Chloride now quote £2.14.0d for repairing the complete battery. We have not had the opportunity of inspecting the remaining five cells but presume that in this instance the Chloride Co., are charging their lowest price for repairs and that the failure of the battery is our client's responsibility, we therefore agree to the Chloride Co's. figure and that this charge should be debited against our client. Chassis 20-TW The remarks contained in our memo' EP{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer}/CEP4/EC4.11.22, we now agree, do not convey the correct ruling with respect to this particular battery. This error has occured through a misunderstanding. We have to-day talked the matter over with EFC who definitely states that he agrees that the cost of repairs to this battery should be divided equally between ourselves and our client, and that the Chloride Co., accept no responsibility. Incidentally we believe this is the first occasion upon which we have ourselves agreed to accept any responsibility for a customer's battery, and under the circumstances we shall be pleased to know on what grounds R.R. are responsible for accepting 50% of the charge for repairs. Furthermore, | ||