Short term history

[JPG]

AGAIN!!! No recognition of anything that happened prior to 1972!

Could they not have simply said those with 1 7/8" od bench tubes require replacing bench tubes?

And I wonder if 'they' are aware that changes the bench tube spacing thus requiring different brackets???

near sighted history.jpg (30.07 KiB) Viewed 8249 times

[DLB]

In addition to all that... I've read in some reviews of folks changing their 500 and pre-500 tables. And it's not that important to change the table posts, it is no hardship to reverse the table and carriage together if you have the DT base parts and want to use the under-table capabilities. I've done this several times due to the problems I had with my table posts, and the smaller/lighter table and carriage would just be that much easier.

Also, I'd remind folks that this is one of the kits that is also sold through other retailers. Lowe's offers pretty attractive pricing and discounts to many. (Veterans, store credit card holders, etc.) If you look, note that their prices include shipping. I believe the current Lowe's price is comparable to what you would get at a demo. Amazon, in my market, was somewhat higher.

- David

[chapmanruss]

Although they are now RLF Brands LLC and was for a short time RLF Shop LLC they are the reorganization of Shopsmith Inc. out of bankruptcy. Unfortunately Shopsmith Inc. had to defend itself from product liability claims for the Shopsmith tools made prior to 1972. They are well aware of the existence of the Shopsmith tools prior to them acquiring the Shopsmith line but I believe they want to distance themselves from the liabilities associated to the early Shopsmiths. Although aware of their existence they still do not have their history right, but that's another discussion. It is the product liability which causes them to claim that their parts and upgrades are for Shopsmiths made after 1972. Of course we know the Shopsmith line, probably better than most current employees do, and know what upgrades will work on the older tools including other changes needed to make them work.

[JPG]

Although they are now RLF Brands LLC and was for a short time RLF Shop LLC they are the reorganization of Shopsmith Inc. out of bankruptcy. Unfortunately Shopsmith Inc. had to defend itself from product liability claims for the Shopsmith tools made prior to 1972. They are well aware of the existence of the Shopsmith tools prior to them acquiring the Shopsmith line but I believe they want to distance themselves from the liabilities associated to the early Shopsmiths. Although aware of their existence they still do not have their history right, but that's another discussion. It is the product liability which causes them to claim that their parts and upgrades are for Shopsmiths made after 1972. Of course we know the Shopsmith line, probably better than most current employees do, and know what upgrades will work on the older tools including other changes needed to make them work.

Which is one of my pet peeves. Due to the 'litigacousness' of the current 'society' we dwell in, the interests (avoidance of) lawyers takes precedence over customers. Sit down Al! It is those ambulance chasers I am referring to.

[rogersk]

Which is one of my pet peeves. Due to the 'litigacousness' of the current 'society' we dwell in, the interests (avoidance of) lawyers takes precedence over customers. Sit down Al! It is those ambulance chasers I am referring to.

Did you mean litigiousness?

[JPG]

Which is one of my pet peeves. Due to the 'litigacousness' of the current 'society' we dwell in, the interests (avoidance of) lawyers takes precedence over customers. Sit down Al! It is those ambulance chasers I am referring to.

Did you mean litigiousness?

Likely! I thought I was making up the word.

[DLB]

They are well aware of the existence of the Shopsmith tools prior to them acquiring the Shopsmith line but I believe they want to distance themselves from the liabilities associated to the early Shopsmiths.

If that's the case I don't think they are doing a good job of distancing themselves. This ad attempts to explain those machines that can and cannot be upgraded to DT, and what additional components might be necessary for the oldest M5s. It might be full of errors, but we're all included. And the PP upgrade does the same, the instructional video uses a Goldie for demo. Specific aspects of A, B, and C casting headstocks are all discussed in some detail. Similarly, IIRC, there are additional parts needed for the A, and they tell you what they are and what to order. (Maybe the wedge locks were not removable on the A? I'm not sure.) My perception is that they would love to upgrade every one of those old machines, preferably to M7, and gladly take on the liability associated with it. And errors are just errors.

- David

[JPG]

They are well aware of the existence of the Shopsmith tools prior to them acquiring the Shopsmith line but I believe they want to distance themselves from the liabilities associated to the early Shopsmiths.

If that's the case I don't think they are doing a good job of distancing themselves. This ad attempts to explain those machines that can and cannot be upgraded to DT, and what additional components might be necessary for the oldest M5s. It might be full of errors, but we're all included. And the PP upgrade does the same, the instructional video uses a Goldie for demo. Specific aspects of A, B, and C casting headstocks are all discussed in some detail. Similarly, IIRC, there are additional parts needed for the A, and they tell you what they are and what to order. (Maybe the wedge locks were not removable on the A? I'm not sure.) My perception is that they would love to upgrade every one of those old machines, preferably to M7, and gladly take on the liability associated with it. And errors are just errors.

- David

IF an omission/misdirection is intentional, then it is no longer an 'error'.

I remain convinced that SS has not thought out this 'set' of circumstances fully. If they had, there would be two versions of the DT base casting rather than the misfit situation that that appears to exist. That misfit situation includes the need to purchase replacements for 'pre 1972' bench tubes.

[everettdavis]

The Huff v. Shopsmith case drew such attention in the day to product liabilities transferring to subsequent owners of a company that I dare say no law student in the country was not exposed to the arguments in Law Schools across America.

The absolute lunacy and malpractice in my mind is absent from the instructions in law derived from studying the case.

Shopsmith Inc. a company who bought the assets of a company who stopped manufacturing the machine, previously had acquired another company who equally had acquired the rights from original OEM of the Mark 5 was stated to have never manufactured a lower saw guard for the machine that injured a lady who walked by an operating machine running as a table saw. Her loose a billowing clothing was pulled into the blade and she was injured.

Subsequently she sued her fiancé at the time who was operating the saw, and Shopsmith Inc.

The challenge in court was the issue if the present owner Shopsmith Inc. was liable for defects in manufacturing a machine sold by Montgomery Ward, to a third party from whom, the Huff’s acquired the machine made by the original OEM years before they owned the company, and subsequently inheriting potential safety design liabilities from a product they never made.

Notwithstanding that the Huff’s bought the Mark 5 in an Estate Sale, not directly from Montgomery Ward.

Notwithstanding that the Doctor who bought it new had done so some forty (40) years before they bought it, after he passed away and the company may or may not have collected all the parts to transfer to the buyer.

The case progressed and cost Shopsmith massive sums of money to defend all the way to Supreme Court.

Shopsmith ultimately won the case, but not before severely being financially damaged by the legal cost.

Here is the malpractice: The allegation was that the OEM failed to manufacture a lower saw guard 40 years prior, and that a product liability existed that survived each successive sale of the product line through those forty (40) transferring to the new owners;

The entire case is faulty in that Magna did indeed manufacture a lower saw guard for the machine 40 years earlier. I know. I own one myself. It was listed in the Montgomery Ward catalog of the period.

The entire premise of the case was that the OEM’s failure to manufacture a lower saw guard translated into survivable product liability is a moot point and the case should never have been brought on that basis.

The over eager lawyers were so interested in proving the survivability and transfer of product liabilities in design existed (which it did not) they overlooked the fundamental fact that there was No Liability in the first place as what they alleged was materially false and could be proven, had anyone taken the time to look.

For a design liability to exist, the lower saw guard could not exist, but it did.

There was no way to determine if the Doctor’s Estate Manager delivered the saw guard with the machine to the Huff’s, or whether it had been misplaced, even that he ever used it as a saw, opposed to a lathe, drill press, horizontal boring machine, disc sander etc.

It seems unconscionable they could have been so blind they never considered the original allegation was anything but valid, and argued the wrong point, all the way to the Supreme Court.

Tragically, none of that exists even today in Law Schools and they still present it in a product design liability framework.

Everett

[JPG]

Regardless if a lower saw guard was or was not designed by the original designer, How on earth can an argument be made that subsequent owners of the original product be liable for the original designer's 'shortfall'.

Must be some weird logic taught in law school that I am not privy to. I do know that twisted conclusions is practiced by 'them'. I have observed it too many times. i.e. "How often do you beat your wife?"

Methinks Huff vs Shopsmith Inc. is an excellent example to reveal that twisted logic - too bad the improper emphasis is 'taught'.

Beside all that, it just ain't 'fair' for a design created in an environment decades ago be judged by current day's environment.

Why do we think someone else is responsible for MY actions and therefore culpable and liable for any damage incurred as a result of MY deciding the take that action??? More twisted logic? Yes 'twisted logic' IS an oxymoron

End Rant.