The glass-lined equipment was delivered without undergoing inspection; after installation, the enamel on its internal surfaces was damaged
Thread Content
The glass-lined equipment was delivered without any inspection being carried out. After installation, the enamel on its internal surfaces was damaged. Whose responsibility is this? It’s unclear whether the damage was caused by installation or if the equipment was already defective upon leaving the factory. In situations like this, how should the owner supervise things? What are some effective methods and procedures?
Conduct a thorough inspection. In your situation, the only way is to communicate with the manufacturer calmly in order to resolve the issue with minimal losses. I’ll take it as a lesson for next time.
This post was last edited by lovelife1997 on 2019-4-29 at 11:42. The equipment arrived; without any inspection, the receipt was signed right in front of the equipment supplier. Then lifting and installation begin. Only after damage occurred did you turn to the equipment manufacturer, and they can refuse to provide compensation or to replace the equipment free of charge, since you cannot explain how the damage came about. Unless you consult a quality inspection agency to confirm that it is indeed a quality issue. If it’s not a quality issue, then the situation gets exaggerated, and it’s awkward for the recipient. As a result, the equipment manufacturers will confidently reject any reasonable requests. After all, this current awkward and passive situation is caused by the carelessness of your team members, and you can’t explain it clearly. So, have a calm and rational conversation; if the other party also values the quality, reputation, and credibility of their company, then it’s possible to resolve the issue through polite discussions, at the lowest possible cost or even without any cost at all.
Here’s a suggestion: The next time such glass-lined equipment is purchased, the contract should specify that upon delivery, Party A, the transporter, and Party B should all be present. Party A should use an electric spark leak detector to inspect the glass lining on site, and only after confirming that it is in good condition should the equipment be accepted for use in the facility.
We are also purchasing such equipment.
The contract wasn’t signed properly. Inspection was inadequate.
The equipment is inspected by the factory’s quality control team before being loaded onto the vehicle for shipment; upon delivery to the customer, it is handed over only after tests such as spark testing and other inspections confirm that everything is in order. Transportation during the equipment’s production process, the tools used for transportation, lifting, and installation are all potential risk factors. Since you did not carry out the appropriate inspections, it is possible to roughly determine the cause based on the nature and location of the damage. Based on the characteristics of the damage, some possibilities can be ruled out, but since it has already been delivered and you failed to conduct a proper inspection, you are in a passive position
Generally, only fine chemical industries have such equipment, right?
This is your manufacturer’s own problem. If the goods are accepted without being inspected, any issues that arise are definitely your responsibility. Either there is no person in charge of inspection at your factory, or no one responsible for accepting the equipment; under normal circumstances, it falls to you to carry out the repairs