Bad day at the office so you are likely right.... Truth be known, every time
I approach a vehicle I am leaving myself open for "inclusion by
association".

I'm a big boy and I can look after myself.... Joe Consumer, on the other
hand, will continue to try his best to become a statistic...... with or
without my help.....

Hack job? We'll leave that for anyone that fails to consider the outcome of
their actions..... In spite of the connotation, I continue to do well and,
strange as it may sound, I owe much of that success to being a practicing
dinque.

"Bruce L. Bergman" <blnospambergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:idpde4perq0b9h28oeqf7c046lape8jsgc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 02:20:04 GMT, <mechanic@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure what you're getting at, Ted.... Where does this "hack job"
>>crap
>>come from? Given the simple task bestowed upon the caliper, I see no
>>reason
>>to replace a caliper that isn't defective...
>>
>>Jim, Warman
>>mechanic@telusplanet.net
>
> I don't think he was accusing you of anything wrong with your logic,
> but he's coming up with the perfectly logical (if dead wrong) argument
> that the plaintiff's lawyer would use in court. "Your honor, this
> mechanic did an incomplete and improper brake job and the next day my
> client was gravely injured (or killed) in an accident..."
>
> Doesn't matter that the accident had nothing to do with bad brakes,
> but the lawyer doesn't have to admit that - he can simply say there's
> no way of knowing, but he found "A Smoking Gun" and is following the
> available evidence. (There is actually no law saying that the
> plaintiff's lawyer has to tell the truth - if he can fabricate a good
> enough story that (s)he can fool a Judge or Jury into thinking is true
> and complete, he's golden in more ways than one.)
>
> The lawyer is fishing for dollars, and (s)he gets 33% to 50% of
> anything he dredges up, so there is plenty of incentive to "do
> whatever it takes" to win. Sometimes your insurance company will
> acquiesce and admit to a small percentage of liability and pay him a
> little money just to get the plaintiff and his mouthpiece to shut up
> and go away without a long trial - but it still counts against you as
> a loss.
>
> You normally do everything with brakes or other bilateral systems
> both sides at the same time to save time and money in the long run -
> both sets of brake pads wear out at the same rate, both calipers go
> cruddy inside or have seals fail at roughly the same rate. And
> repeat brake failures is one of those things you do not want.
>
> You wouldn't take the entire dash cluster out to replace a single
> illumination lamp, because there are six to ten in there and they all
> have the same hours on them - you would be back in there every few
> months changing them one at a time till you did them all. So the
> smart person changes them all at once when one goes bad. Same thing
> with headlamps, tail and marker lamps, shock absorbers, belts and
> hoses, motor mounts, etc. The labor is usually a lot more than the
> cost of the parts.
>
> Feel free to change one caliper on your own car, but when you run a
> shop and professional liability is on the line you can't be that way.
>
> If the customer pleads poverty, write a small disclaimer on the
> ticket and get it signed that you strongly suggested to do both
> calipers as a pair but the customer insisted he only wanted one. It
> might save your ass later.
>
> --<< Bruce >>--
>