Swedish Craftsmanship / Quality on Hallberg Rassy

[KillerBoo]

OK, verdict and explanations to it etc is online now. Since I can´t really believe what I´m reading I´ll have a hard time translating it hehe. I´ll take a deep breath and read it once again.. and again. Hopefully I´ll eventually understand the whole thing, instead of just the obvious: That HR won.
Until then here´s a link to the verdict, in a PDF-file. Maybe translation programs will work?

frodeen.nu/wordpress/?p=71

[barnakiel]

NOW is the time to cut in with some conspiracy theories!

Anybody?

Maybe HR abducted the jurors' dogs and held them at (spray)gun point?

Or maybe HR technicians sprayed (with a spray gun, not by hand!) the jury with unthickened epoxy so that they were slow to react?

Or maybe the world famous quality of Swedish courts is no longer there?

I am sure if they were Bavaria, they would have lost!

;-)))
barnie

[KillerBoo]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Or maybe the world famous quality of Swedish courts is no longer there?

barnie

The court went solely on the word of HR witnesses.. The plaintiff(?) had several trustworthy witnesses, in the form of, amongst others, one of the most experienced surveyors in Sweden, one person from a company that deals with ultrasound surveys, one person who had made a tensile strength test and so on. HR on their hand had their own expertise. Now, it´s not that I doubt they are skilled and experts at what they do but in this case I find it strange that the court actually sets the defendants word before unpartial experts.
A drilling core was taken from the hull and the core fell apart, showing obv indication of lack of fibres to bond it together. HR countered by showing a drill core that they claim to have taken from a location near where the new core was taken (this being done during the building process). This showed no proof of delamination. However, the core HR showed was a lot thicker than the new one.. Did it really origin from the same boat? Furthermore, HR says that it´s if not completely common at least not unusual for the cores to fall apart.. Hmm.. I´ve made a few holes in boats in my days and never ever seen the core fall apart. Makes me wonder, if they have seen this before, do the owners of those boats know they are sailing a boat that COULD be un-seaworty. HR declines all responsibility, saying that all the potential faults on this boat isn´t a result of their mistakes and that it´s impossible to prove that is the case..

[mintyspilot]

Hmmm.... I guess the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does NOT have prove his innocence.

Still, to be safe, I'll strike HR from my boat list.

[mintyspilot]

OK - I converted it from Swedish into Swenglish via Google. In the midst of the drivel it was converted to was this fragment (page 17) which seems to concentrate on standards of proof. Perhaps someone can read p17 of the judgement and give a more informed verison


"(U Page 17
UDDEVALLA TIN GSRATT in (r (rrr-r-. ...,.. T 5201-09
2010-10-29
FDR at least one consumer. It can, sdsom framgdtt of the evidence in this mdl, krdvas comprehensive investigation FDR to show such that there is a lack of vidhdftning between laminates of a bdtskrov. What with sdrskild strength argues against a sdnkning of proof requirement, however, that Dr Dr who has goods in his possession which has the stdrsta mdjligheten to investigate if there fumnts wrong. Sdljaren of the goods in the
situation, as opposed to kdparen, only begrdnsade mdjligheter that the former presented their own study in this area. A sdnkt standard of proof would be ddrfdr medfdra svdrigheter FDR a sdlj ARE to bemdta pdstdenden of error. Tingsrdtten believe that there is tillrdckliga skdl to tilldmpa a sdnkt standard of proof at prdvningen of the dverhuvudtaget was wrong pd bdten. 0

F dr to show that bdten have errors that Dr. relevant under konsumentkdplagens bestdmmelser mdste Mrs North ddrfdr nd up to the standard of proof in tvistemdl. This standard of proof, Dr. alltsd hdgt. It rdcker not think it gdrs clearly more likely the error is that dn sd no dr case."

[KillerBoo]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

Hmmm.... I guess the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does NOT have prove his innocence.

Still, to be safe, I'll strike HR from my boat list.

Correct, in this case burden of proof is thrown at the buyers. Still cant understand how you could -in effect- be forced to drill the boat into pieces. Should this be standard procedure when buying a HR?

[KillerBoo]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

OK - I converted it from Swedish into Swenglish via Google. In the midst of the drivel it was converted to was this fragment (page 17) which seems to concentrate on standards of proof. Perhaps someone can read p17 of the judgement and give a more informed verison


"(U Page 17
UDDEVALLA TIN GSRATT in (r (rrr-r-. ...,.. T 5201-09
2010-10-29
FDR at least one consumer. It can, sdsom framgdtt of the evidence in this mdl, krdvas comprehensive investigation FDR to show such that there is a lack of vidhdftning between laminates of a bdtskrov. What with sdrskild strength argues against a sdnkning of proof requirement, however, that Dr Dr who has goods in his possession which has the stdrsta mdjligheten to investigate if there fumnts wrong. Sdljaren of the goods in the
situation, as opposed to kdparen, only begrdnsade mdjligheter that the former presented their own study in this area. A sdnkt standard of proof would be ddrfdr medfdra svdrigheter FDR a sdlj ARE to bemdta pdstdenden of error. Tingsrdtten believe that there is tillrdckliga skdl to tilldmpa a sdnkt standard of proof at prdvningen of the dverhuvudtaget was wrong pd bdten. 0

F dr to show that bdten have errors that Dr. relevant under konsumentkdplagens bestdmmelser mdste Mrs North ddrfdr nd up to the standard of proof in tvistemdl. This standard of proof, Dr. alltsd hdgt. It rdcker not think it gdrs clearly more likely the error is that dn sd no dr case."

I´ll have a go after my pancakes are finished

[David_Old_Jersey]

"built like a Hallberg Rassey"

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

"built like a Hallberg Rassey"

Let's hope it does not become an official slogan for them or they'll be nudging Hunter's out of the bottom spot in the "blue water boat league".

I like Hunters - they are on my "Buy" list. HR's are not.

[hummingway]

Since no-one is giving the requested conspiracy theory I will. Laws that lean towards protecting business at the expense of the consumer seem fairly common in most countries. A successful economy is an elected governments best friend so if the burden of proof is somewhat overwhelming it isn't surprising. In Alberta any claims of environmental malfeasance by a corporate entity are actually investigated by the company themselves which saves the tax payer a great deal and, strangely enough, doesn't slow the economic engine one iota. It sucks to have poison in your well, or a poorly built boat, etc., but that is a small price to pay for a stable, elected parliament of drooling idiots.

[hummingway]

Of course, as with any conspiracy theory, this may or may not have any bearing on reality.

[Rou-Coo]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

Hmmm.... I guess the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused does NOT have prove his innocence.

Not sure about Sweden, but civil courts in the common law world only require proof of responsibility "on a balance of probabilities". That means: 'more likely than not'. It is a much lower burden than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That standard only applies to criminal cases on the basis that "it is preferable to allow ten guilty men to go free than to incarcerate one innocent".

So, in this case, I assume the claimant failed to show that it was more likely than not that HR breached its contract or otherwise failed to meet industry standards.

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by Rou-Coo

So, in this case, I assume the claimant failed to show that it was more likely than not that HR breached its contract or otherwise failed to meet industry standards.

Surely that makes this even worse - to have experts testifying and failing to reach a low standard rather than a high standard?

[KillerBoo]

Pancakes finished, washed down with the ever present condensed milk.. (Yuck, can you really get used to that taste?)

Here goes the translation of p17 as minty asked for. I apologize for the words not being exact, but I´m not so familiar with legal phrases even in swedish, much less so in english. I hope it´s understandable tho.

On P 16 they state the formalities regarding the extent of the proof presented in general cases of this kind, how precise they need to be etc and making the judgment that this case has no valid grounds for making any exceptions from those general demands. They are also making a point that this particular case is about wether or not the swedish consumer purchase law is applicable, and if the faults presented were in fact present or not at the time of delivery.

Then, on p17, they again stress the fact that it may in cases like this require extensive surveys to show evidence of, for example, lack of bonding between the different layers in a boat hull and then pointing to the owner/possessor being the part in the case that has the best possibilities to do this, as where the seller has very limitied possibilities to do the same. Lowered standards of evidence would therefore make it more difficult for the seller to adress accusations/faults. All this leading up to what already established: The requirements for the strength of the proof can not be lowered in this case.
To show the court that the boat has substantial faults the owners therefore must meet regular standard level of proof, which are set very high. It is not enough that it is more likely than not to have been there from the beginning,

Have the Nordé couple been able to show that there is a lack of bonding/delamination in the hull?

Every person interviewed in this case has been most credible and many of them possess vast expertise on the subject. There is no reason to believe that any of them has given false information, neither knowingly or unknowingly. The court must therefore weigh the parts credibility against eachother, if meanings differ.

As noted above, under the "EVIDENCE" part, the means and methods to examine the hull has cinsisted of: Tapping on the hull, care samples both from drilling and sawing, ultrasound tests and tensile strength tests.
William Bekking (swe surveyor my note) has -referring to long experience in this field- tapped the hull with a hammer thus getting convinced there are hollows within the hull.
While Cristoph Rassy and Benny Martinsson (from HR, my note) has done the same, and says this is not the case, the hull is solid. The court finds this method unreliable since several person with great experience can come to so differnet conclusions

And then a lot of bla bla bal leading to the drill core:

The drill core, made by the owner, has been carefully examined by Anders Sjögren who concluded that the surface structure of the parts indicates bad bonding/poor lamination. Also others WB, RO, EK, KAO and BS (the names of the experts) that have visually examined the core sample supports this conclusion.M Rassy and K Sjöberg claims the opposite. In this context its also worth mentioning that HRs´ B Magnusson and I Spindel claims that they have made thousands of core sample drillings and that it happens that a core spilts in 2 even without delamination/poor bonding.

Aaaah, this gives me a headache... Anyway, you wanted P17.. this is it, plus some of p16 and 18 as well

[KillerBoo]

Originally Posted by hummingway

Since no-one is giving the requested conspiracy theory I will. Laws that lean towards protecting business at the expense of the consumer seem fairly common in most countries. A successful economy is an elected governments best friend so if the burden of proof is somewhat overwhelming it isn't surprising. In Alberta any claims of environmental malfeasance by a corporate entity are actually investigated by the company themselves which saves the tax payer a great deal and, strangely enough, doesn't slow the economic engine one iota. It sucks to have poison in your well, or a poorly built boat, etc., but that is a small price to pay for a stable, elected parliament of drooling idiots.

Amen, +1, I agree and all that