From when I used to do shipping and receiving; I'll stress factors in the signing the proof of delivery even more. Most drivers are OK, but some will not want to wait while you inspect your stuff. You don't need to open the boxes, as if it broke because it wasn't well packed, that's the shipper's fault, and in this case you are the shipper also. But you do need to inspect each pallet to ensure there are no holes in boxes nor crushed boxes. Watch out for boxes in the center of pallets; if one pallet was up on a forklift and it hit another pallet square on, the outer boxes might not show damage but center boxes might have been crushed. The entire pallet would have a lean to it, but that might be corrected later when it is pushed against another pallet or wall, and all that will remain is crushed boxes in what looks like an undisturbed pallet.

When you sign, you are agreeing that the entire load was delivered in good order. If the driver refuses to wait while you inspect, tell him you'll just write "Not inspected" on the bill of lading before signing (you get a copy, so an alterations he makes will show). When he says you can't do that, tell him that you'll need to complete your inspection before you will sign that you have inspected and approved the load. If there is even just a corner crushed on a box, note it on the proof of delivery before signing so that you will have recourse later if you find broken items when unpacking the box. Some drivers will gladly wait while you open any damaged boxes to inspect the contents; if you find the contents are fine, then do the right thing and just sign with no notation.

Sudonum,

Read the definition of defective - it means not working. My speaker is therefore defective. However, yes, warranties do exclude normal wear and tear. That is the reason why I also mentioned that I barely use it, because has never received enough use to wear out. In contrast, according to the story, these dashes are exposed to 150 degree heat in that area; and so they get much much wear and tear than my speakers.

Don't get me wrong, people are quite justified to feel that a dash should withstand the glaring sun for more than 7 years. And due to that, there will probably be a lot less Dodges selling in the future.

However, we really don't know enough to know if this is a problem. Dodges might not have any worse of an issue than any other brand. Using my own industry as an example again, I have customers that tell me our computers are obviously junk because their hard drive failed 1 year after the 3 year waranty. But we do not have any higher failure rate than our competitors; some peoples' hard drives will fail at the four year mark, some will fail in the first week of ownership, and some will never fail. If it fails in the first three years due to a defect, we have contracted with the customer that we will replace it at no charge. We offer upgrades in the warranties for more years, and it's ultimately the customer's choice whether they want to make that purchase. With the massive numbers of units we sell, my customers that claim 4 years is unacceptable could easily find 2 other people in their area that had the same issue and say "See, that's proof that it's an issue." If three customers came to us at the 7 year mark and said "There's more than one of us, so this must be a mass defect, you therefore need to do a recall", I would politely decline their request and explain much the same as I have here. (And I have had to do so often, there are a lot of people that don't understand what long out of warranty and recall mean, they just feel entitled.)

I personally do have a feeling that, in this case, there is a higher failure rate than competitors, but we don't know for sure. If there is, Dodge could choose to fix them for PR purposes; but even if there is a huge failure rate, it is almost 4 years past the warranty expiration and these customers are entitled to nothing. And that's all several of us are trying to say; we'll probably never buy Dodges ourselves because we hear their dashes suck, but we are offended by the sense of entitlement going on. Dodge can choose to fix them for PR, but these people "deserve" nothing at all, and shame on the reporter for doing zero factual reporting and instead creating an sob story which has nothing to do with news reporting. My local consumer advocate reporter goes and collects statistics to back up claims, focuses on stories where the customer is wronged of something to which he is actually entitled, and leaves the dramatic shots and music out of the newscast.

I just did some searching of the wonderful interweb, and found the 2001 started production on Jan. 1, 2000; and ended before the end of the year (typical of how car years are determined); and the bumper to bumper warranty was 3 years (5 year powertrain). So these people have approximately 7 year old vehicles. In other words, we aren't talking a year or so out of warranty like some are implying, but rather that they are older than double the the warranty.

The comparison of the speaker and the dash is fair from the point of view that both vehicles are both out of warranty, and it is consumers' choice as to whether they wish to pay extra for the peace of mind of a warranty, or run the risk of having issues and therefore out of pocket expenses. Yes, my vehicle is older, but due to that I run a higher risk. I used the example of the speaker because that is the current issue with my car; but I just completed a $450 repair on my car two weeks ago, and had a $600 repair last year. I expect that due to the age of the vehicle. All consumers have to balance the risks, and can't complain much if they take a chance by not having a warrantied vehicle. It is a shame it happened, but there is no entitlement here; there risk was lower than mine that they would have issues, but that was still no guarantee that they wouldn't have issues.

In the end, Dodge loses due to not only the fact that these three will never purchase again; but also by the fact that, even without this TV coverage, their experiences will affect the purchasing decisions of many people that they know/encounter. That is good, that is how capitalism works.

As for everything being made disposable, that is not true; however there now tends to be a much wider range of quality available in most products, and the lower quality ones sell in much higher volumes due to the price. You can't blame the manufacturers for the majority of their products being lower quality if they offer several levels of quality and the consuming public chooses to by the cheap crap. As an example, I work with notebook computers. You can get ones that are extremely tough and reliable with North American call centers when you call for support, but they cost several thousand dollars. When I started this job, that is all we sold. Even though the notebooks we sell now are extremely more powerful than those of 5 years ago, now 90% of our customer base demands a product that is $1000 or less. However, they are the first to complain (quite loudly!) if they don't last for years and that much of the support is in India or Costa Rica. My point being, "most" things are "disposable" in quality because that is what most of the consuming public purchases. They do so because of the price point, and they need to accept the risks involved when they do so.

Without getting into the American vs Foreign debate, I would have to agree that Dodge has no obligation here. While I am in a completely different industry, I spend a lot of my time talking to customers who state "I don't care if I'm out of warranty, this is a defect!" My response, with the niceties removed, is "And what do you think you were covered for when under warranty?"

Unless it is a special warranty, such as accidental damage protection (which really isn't a warranty so much as insurance), a warranty normally only covers defects in the first place. The company states in their warranty "We will fix defects for ___ years." The warranty is part of the overall package being offered, and by purchasing the consumer has stated "I agree that this package is worth the amount of money I being charged." Yes, it might be that these dashes are defective; but the period that defects are covered has expired, and it was the customers' responsibility to either arrange an extended warranty, decide to pay for repairs as needed, or sell the vehicle before any issues occurred.

My stereo speaker on my 16 year old car is loudly buzzing. By definition, it is defective, but it's my responsibility to pay for any replacement.

As for the continuous mentions in the video of recalls; after-warranty recalls are for serious safety defects affecting multiple units. One person having electrical problems that may or may not be related to this issue does not constitute a need for a recall. Did anyone else notice that this person seems to not even have had the issue diagnosed, but rather just made the supposition that it might or might not be from the dash caving in, and if not that then it might or might not be from the wires being exposed to the hot sun (add dramatic shot of the sun with a star filter)? For all we know, the truck as a bad alternator, a loose fuse, a driver that turned a knob the wrong way (she only mentions it happening once). She herself states "It's a safety issue now." Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your vehicle has a safety defect and you do not fix it, you will be responsible for any traffic tickets you receive and you will be at fault if it causes an accident.

I am a consumer advocate, and in my customer relations job I do provide the benefit of the doubt to the customer whenever possible; however, I have little sympathy for cries later of "I shouldn't have to pay for repairs after the warranty" and "They should stand behind their product." They did stand behind their product by offering a warranty. It's now an older vehicle, and issues will need to be fixed by the owners as they occur.

Yikes, don't know what just happened with the above comment... it was a comment I made in a different story being reposted. I think a GreaseMonkey script I added will need to be removed.

My comment on this story is from my prospective as a case manager for a Dell competitor. Considering my position, I obviously have no reason to support Dell on this one, but to be honest I must come to their defense after seeing a number of posts supporting Microsoft send this customer to Dell. In fact, I should probably support Microsoft, as on the other side of my building we are Microsoft support; but I can't.

When we (as in the OEM I represent) sell a package of a computer we make plus an OS from Microsoft, we do agree to be the support for that OS. But all we agree to support is that OS in the form it is sold. If you add software from manufacturer XYZ and it causes issues, then you must contact manufacturer XYZ. Windows updates fall in that category also.

Look at it from this point of view... how can we know what's wrong with the update? If we were the support for updates, then Microsoft would need to come to us and say "We're thinking of releasing these updates, do they meet with your approval since you are the support?" This does not happen, they release what they want, and they are therefore the support for it when it causes issues.

This is not to say we try and pass the buck, we do try to help the customer as much as possible, but there is only so much we can do since we have no control over the updates. Right now, we are dealing with an issue where the updates that came out two days ago are causing issues on certain machines. Our engineers quickly assessed the situation, and going forward will be working directly with Microsoft engineers on it if necessary; but all we can provide for support for the customers right now is assisting them to remove the offending update. If, for a particular cusotmer, it cannot be removed and you do not want to wipe your computer and start over, then you would need to deal directly with Microsoft on alternative solutions as we had no notice of the update before Tuesday, we have no idea of the updates inner workings and therefore no idea why it is a problem, and we have no training on it.

In the linked article, I clicked on their link to the Health Department's inspection report, and the restaurant actually passed with 10 points (28 or more is a fail). Remembering that I first heard of this story on Letterman's show, I then searched for the Hello Deli, the deli outside the studio which is involved in the show at least weekly. They failed their inspection a couple of weeks ago with a score of 45.

In the linked article, I clicked on their link to the Health Department's inspection report, and the restaurant actually passed with 10 points (28 or more is a fail). Remembering that I first heard of this story on Letterman's show, I then searched for the Hello Deli, the deli outside the studio which is involved in the show at least weekly. They failed their inspection a couple of weeks ago with a score of 45.