110.3(B) LOL

[renosteinke]

UL places absolutely no restrictions or conditions on 'classified' breakers that it does not place on OEM breakers. Period. Full Stop. Without Exception. There is absolutely no difference, as far as UL is concerned, between a 'classified' and a 'listed' breaker.

So, why the different wording. Simply put, a deliberate distinction without a difference. Square D got upset, so UL decided to be nice and use a different word. Much to UL's horror, Square D promptly sent out its' sales force to tell all manner of lies about the 'differences' between a 'listed' and a 'classified' breaker. Square D went on to misrepresent the code as allowing only 'listed' products. UL sincerely regrets the move, and was reminded that no good deed goes unpunished. UL also found it necessary to send out their reps to counter the Square D propaganda.

As for the car analogy I used: Sorry, guys, but I have the owners' manual from my first car (1962 Cadillac Fleetwood), andit specifies to ONLY use Delco oil, and to have it changed by your dealer. There's a history of litigation in the 60's and early 70's of car companies using this exact example to deny warranty claims- which is what led to the changes in the UCC.

Which leads up to the exact principle I was referring: Any requirements by manufacturers that you only use their parts, etc., are deemed to be unenforceable. That is, you're not required to follow those instructions, and the courts will not let such a claim be used to deny a warranty. Hence, the changes in owners' manuals since the mid-70's.

Which, of course, puts the inspector who attempts to enforce such requirements in an interesting position. Much like the County Clerk who attempts to enforce the "No sale to Negros" restriction that is common on many property titles, such an inspector could be accused of malfeasance, as he is acting against public policy, as defined by the UCC and other laws.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I'm incorrect. The classified breakers have the same electrical specs.

 

[ramsy]

renosteinke, as we discussed before, the UCC in my State says any manufacture limit on its warranty must be plainly stated.

 

[renosteinke]

"UCC" ... the key is "Uniform," and it's a Federal Statute.

Dig deeper and you'll discover all sorts of things manufacturers say that they're not allowed to actually practice. That's part of the reason why the paperwork often has fine-print references to specific states.

 

[ramsy]

"UCC" ... the key is "Uniform," and it's a Federal Statute.

Is that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act?

OK, States have jurisdiction to all MMWA cases below $5 million, and require over 100 class-action members.
Federal jurisdiction applies to fewer class members, only when damages exceed $5 million.

This does not prevent all OEM's from voiding a warranty; especially with proper notice of violating conditions.

How can OEM's be made liable after someone installs a counterfeit or specifically-prohibited product?

 

[renosteinke]

It's really very simple .... you, as the owner, use appropriate parts. Later, you have a warranty claim. A dishonest manufacturer sees perfectly acceptable 'Brand X' stuff in there - or asks for documentation that can't possible exist - and denies your claim on specious grounds. You sue, the judge looks at the game being played, finds for you. How much you collect depends on how much the crook pissed off the judge.

Aha! Weasel words! What is 'apprpriate' or 'acceptable?" What is the meaning of the word 'is?' Some folks will see this as the 'lawsuit lottery,' while others will use the courts as a way to play 'chicken.' That's why darn few lawyers ever go broke.

What does matter is that the UCC .... and that's an entire section of Federal Law, accepted by all states, and has been modified by many different acts of Congress over time .... made a lot of the basic decisions for us. One of them is that manufacturers can't simply say 'use our stuff.' With that sort of language, a court will not be amused should a manufacturer try to finess the system, and will be generous towards the customer.

That's where Square D has been playing games. They've made sure not to ever have their 'use only our stuff' attitude make it into court; instead, they try to buffalo you beforehand. They are also careful to not reveal that they routinely agree, in writing, that their stuff is perfectly comapatble with Brand X (and vice-versa), every time they sell to the Federal government. Uncle Sam wants to simplfy the parts problem. Square D's own paperwork asserts that it's perfectly OK to put Brand X in the Square D panel at the courthouse down the street, but a travesty if you do it at home.

It HAS to be this way; that is, stuff HAS to be interchangable. Otherwise, you'd have T&B insisting that you use only their fittings with their boxes and their pipe- and pull in only their wires and use only their devices- and require the customer to but insurance from them as well. You'd have Allen-Bradley insist that only their switches and buttons be used with their PLC's.

That's not so far-fetched. Indeed, this is exactly what ITT (now Tyco) attempted, in a series of actions that led to the US Supreme Court case "Hydrolevel vs. ASME." That case is actually fun reading .... ITT got caught red-handed, and paid out very nicely before going in to see the judge.