On Sat, 27 May 2017 13:58:57 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 5/27/2017 1:28 PM, dpb wrote:
On 05/27/2017 11:48 AM, wrote:
...

And that makes perfect sense. Gass may have created an agreement that
required such "hold harmless" language that it was unpalatable to all. I
would if I were him. I wouldn't want to have responsibility for the
installation of my product in a Chinese factory that is cost/production
conscious over QC. Regardless of quality of his product, he can't be
there in China to work the production lines inspecting every saw after
the product goes to full production.

Then again, the Toyota can't know that product _they're_ being supplied
actually meets the spec, either...I'd suspect in this case the worry was
on the other foot about accepting the liability, not in their QC in
using the technology but relying on the technology itself to be faultless.

FWIW Tanaka makes air bags for a lot of major manufacturers, and that
is part of the problem in getting all the suspect bags replaced in a
timely manner. Toyota is in good company and probably could not be
singled out for being negligent for using Tanaka.

Yep. My wife's Mustang has been in the shop twice getting airbags
replaced and they said she'd have to come back at least one more time.
Evidently they can't get them right.