"This Is Going To Be Fun!! " got me thinking

[Brett]

The "This Is Going To Be Fun!! " thread stimulated me to start this thread.
I hope there is a Lawyer or someone who has experienced the scenario who can respond.
I am only interested in the legal stand point.
Morally there is always an answer for the individual but different individuals have different morals.
What are the legal ramifications of doing work under instruction for a client?
I am self employed in the area of Glass Balustrading with my qualifications and experience I have confidence that in the majority of cases my work is slightly over engineered. Now if a client was to come to me in balustrading he would have the expectation of me doing a job structurally adequate for the application. In that case I would expect to have legal responsibility and I know that in Australia at least you cannot knowingly go outside of Standards even if instructed to.
But I do a bit of welding.
A client comes up and has a drawing says “Can you make that; it’s for a brewing plant”. I’m not a brewer; I weld it up and poison 1,000 people. Where do I stand? Legally?
What If I were to express a concern and still go ahead?
What If I get an employee of mine to weld it up?

Remember this is a fabbed part, the client is not going to a brewing supplier.
Does anyone one know the legal side of this.

Please remember this is purely a legal Q. not a moral one.

Brett

[MAC702]

It's a good question. I hope you get a good answer.

[browny]

Brett, I would suspect it might go a little like the way workcover works, in that everyone involved is guilty and the fight is more about arguing the amount of liability of each party.

eg was it a design error, fabrication error, lack of quality control, use of the equipment in service and who was responsible for each.

I would expect you would be in a much better position if you fabricated something exactly to a spec provided by the customer as opposed to designing and building a solution to meet a functional requirement.

Note the above are just thoughts and I have no legal experience

[Weldordie]

But I do a bit of welding.
A client comes up and has a drawing says “Can you make that; it’s for a brewing plant”. I’m not a brewer; I weld it up and poison 1,000 people. Where do I stand? Legally?
What If I were to express a concern and still go ahead?
What If I get an employee of mine to weld it up?

Remember this is a fabbed part, the client is not going to a brewing supplier.
Does anyone one know the legal side of this.
Brett

First of all, a little background... I am not a lawyer... I realized too late that I should have gone to law school. In college I once scored at the 99+ percentile (meaning: no one scored higher) on a test given to thousands of students that evaluated critical thinking skills (no brag, just the fact... well, okay, a little brag :p). I have been involved in a few civil court cases, up against lawyers on a pro se basis (representing myself), and have not lost a case.

So, you, "...weld it up and poison 1,000 people." My interpretation is that you (or an employee) would be liable, if it could be proven that your welding had any link to the poisoning (meaning: it was the weld – not the brewing process – that produced the poison). The mere fact that you provided the welding has no relevancy. However, you can bet a lawyer would argue that, if you had not welded the item, it would not have been in use, and available for being able to produce poison. (This is an absurd argument, like a lawyer suing a tire dealership because, if they had not put new tires on the car, it would not have been driven into the telephone pole, causing it to topple onto and killing the old lady, sitting on the park bench. Another example of absurdity would be someone suing a gunsmith that repaired a pistol that was later used to murder someone. Liability would not pass from the victim or the shooter to the gunsmith.)

>>>>What If I were to express a concern and still go ahead?<<<<

What would you express concern about? Possible poisoning? If you could foresee possible poisoning, resulting from the work that you did, expressed concern, then went ahead and welded the part... BINGO... get the best lawyer you can find to defend you.

Hope this helps.

p.s.: Was this a theoretical or real event?

[MAC702]

Well, there is a similarity in the IBEW electrical union. By being a journeyman electrician, even though you work for a contractor, you can be held liable for miswiring something.

The lawyers will add every name possible (assuming they have assets) to the defendant's list.

[David R]

There are 2 sides to the coin. If you have the customer sign off on the job before you do it because you know its wrong, You now have in writing you know its wrong even though the customer signed off on it.

Make sense?

Legal stuff............

David

[Bob at WeldingMag]

There is a concept in American law of "joint and several liability." In essence, it means that anyone and everyone who touches a defective part can -- and likely will -- be sued for whatever damage it does.

That doesn't mean, however, that everyone who is sued will ultimately be held responsible. Part of the litigation process in such cases involves each party making the case why it doesn't belong in the litigation. I would imagine that, in such an instance, your high-priced lawyer would stand a good chance of getting you out of the case.

Unfortunately, you'll still have to pay the lawyer.

The problem you have is this doesn't just apply to the brewery. It applies to every part you make no matter what the application.

I would consider talking with a lower-priced lawyer and figuring out what kind of legal remedies you might make in advance, such as waivers of responsibility for how the part is used after you make it. Such actions might not prevent you from getting sued, but they will make it easier to extricate yourself if it happens.

[dabar39]

There are 2 sides to the coin. If you have the customer sign off on the job before you do it because you know its wrong, You now have in writing you know its wrong even though the customer signed off on it.

Make sense?

Legal stuff............

David

Any half baked lawyer would eat that up and drag you through the cleaners and then some. If you do something and document it that you know it may fail or cause harm to another, but do it anyways, that would make you liable whether the customer signs off on it or not.

If even one person out of a thousand says it won't work and some where down the road it fails you can be held liable. All that has to be proven in civil liability cases is reasonable doubt.

If you take the thread that was just locked as an example, Zap builds the part, the boss sells it to the customer, the customer has it installed, the ships engineer approves it etc... etc... and the part ultimately fails somewhere down the road and the boat sinks, catches fire, or asphyxiates someone each and every person that has touched or knew about that particular part in question can be held accountable for it's failure and resulting injuries and property damage because of the reliability issues that have been raised.. It's up to the judge and jury to decide exactly what part or percentage you can be held liable for.

Now that info came from a close friend and client of mine who is a civil attorney. Zaps welding abilities are not at question here, but his knowledge of a possible failure of that part is what the jury would have to weigh into consideration in the result of failure.

Hopefully none of this scenario plays out but if it does there would be no defense. Unfortunately we have so many people trying to make an easy buck by suing any and every one, all one can do is make a judgment call and take your chances.

[aczeller]

where i live, there is a similar debate/discussion going on, specifically with the younger "tuner" crowd of kids with souped-up cars... Window Tint. i'm not going to get back into my past history with it, but long story short, some kids want it to be darker than the legal limit for one reason or another. let's say that your windows can not have less than 35% light transmittance thru them. if you are caught, you can then turn around and sue the company that tinted your windows for you. they can get into even bigger trouble for doing it in the first place... UNLESS... they have the vehicle owner sign a waiver of liability.

in your situation, i would have a serious sit-down with the client. tell them that you do not feel that it is sensible, ethical, sanitary, nor legal to weld a brewery pie system with mild steel. if they still continue to insist that you do it, you have two options, either decline the job all together and walk away from the situation, or you can have them sign a waiver. this waiver should say something to the effect of "my company told them that it would not be safe, sanitary, or legal, but they still wanted me to do it". if you choose the waiver, i would suggest sitting down with a lawyer first and having someone read over it, making sure that it is bullet-proof. i would work that fee of a lawyer consultation into the quote, but that's just me. some guys would just use it as a business expense and not charge the customer. it would depend on the situation i guess.

anyway, i take no responsibility for your actions with this information, as i am not a lawyer, but that is my experience with it... if it's not done "under the table", they can track who did the work, and come after you.

Later,
Andy

[denrep]

Despite having ample reason, I've never been a plaintiff. Yet, I've been a defendant a dozen times without reason, -other than looking like an easy mark-. So I take it as a particular insult when I'm named as a defendant.

I don't have many credentials to cite, other than never having a judgement stand when I was a defendant, and being adjudicated by the good and honorable court as having "more balls" (Whatever that legal mumbo jumbo means, it's a quote from the bench.) than anyone else ever before the court.

"...Part of the litigation process in such cases involves each party making the case why it doesn't belong in the litigation..."
Or the plaintiff's attorney looking at all the bared teeth and raised fur, then deciding to tuck tail in, because they don't have enough fight to take on even one really determined dog, -no matter how small- let alone several.

"...Any half baked lawyer would eat that up and drag you through the cleaners and then some..." .
Yah, but if the dog has ever had a taste of a little frog meat, he's not so anxious to start "eating up" or dragging anything, no matter how easy it looks at first!

Sorry about taking this thread to the dogs, but all I have to base my legal defenses on is from the kennel. That's where I learned most of the legal, ethical and fight basics; by studying the dogs. To me, a lawsuit is a provoked dog-eat-dog fight. If you don't like that stance, please don't sue me, we'll get along fine.

When I was studying law at the kennel, I used to have a dog who just by his nature, couldn't stand any little critters. -A little like a lawsuit that names everyone in sight, as a defendant- Yet a frog could hop around him without worry, and any turtle was welcome to snack from his dish. I don't know what happened to the frog that laid the dog out sick for a week, but I'm the one who pried the "snacking" turtle off the dog's blood pumping nose.

Attorneys have learned similar lessons, they know that trying to get a little "meat" out of the tightly clutched mouth of a minimal defendant, just aint worth it.

Some of the best legal defenses aren't in the books, such as: no summons, no need for defense. Smart lawyers know that a particularly unwilling guest had better be un-invited rather than to trash a whole fine legal banquet.

I ran hard for my little rabbit, if you weren't there to help with the chase, be ready to trade your flesh pound for pound trying to take it.

[Oldtimer]

Actually ony one can be sued. I know of a case where two truck drivers hauling produce water in the oil field were working together on a haul. There was a problen with the sump at the dump site. One driver went down in the sump to to clear the problem. Hydrogen sulfide gas was present and he went down. The other driver went down to rescue him and went down. Both died. The wife of the second driver sued the wife and the estate of the first driver for wrongful death. I'm sure some ambulance chasing lawer talked her into it. How low can you get?

[Shadill]

What happend to the old days, you keep to your self, deal with your own problems, if some one steals cattle they got hung! Now some one can drive by your place and sue you for something that has nothing to do with them, when is this sue happy world gonna change? Making money working for yourself is getting harder and harder:(

[Mondo]

...If you have the customer sign off on the job before you do it because you know its wrong, You now have in writing you know its wrong even though the customer signed off on it...

I successfully completed an AS Paralegal degree program last June at a local college. I have an Associates of Science degree, but did not continue to take the certification test. I should emphasize this does not make me a lawyer. In fact, my offering anyone legal advice is a violation of law; it is called "Unauthorized Practice of Law". The only legal advice I can provide without compromising the UPL statutes is "You need to discuss this with a lawyer who is licensed to practice in the appropriate jurisdiction."

That said, what we were taught in paralegal class is that disclaimers such as the one suggested by David R above carry very little influence in court, and may in fact be declared invalid during trial. The problem is if you know or suspect the design, the process, the procedure, or the action requested is inappropriate or defective or has the potential of harming someone because it is in some manner flawed, but do it anyway, then you certainly can be held liable.

The reason is to prevent unscrupulous parties from creating written disclaimers deliberately to avoid responsibility for doing something they know has great potential to harm someone. Oh sure, it doesn't really prevent them from doing this, but it certainly yanks the carpet out from under them when they get into a nasty situation and are served a writ of complaint.

So.... My LEGAL ADVICE is that you consult with an appropriate attorney who is licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction, preferably one who is experienced in product liability tort litigation.

-Mondo

[denrep]

...My LEGAL ADVICE is that you consult with an appropriate attorney who is licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction, preferably one who is experienced in product liability tort litigation.

Oh, and could you bring about 10 grand along.

You know, just a little retainer to get the ball rolling. :waving:

[Weldordie]

denrep,

Love your dog kennel analogy.

[mark8310]

A couple comments here:

1) Being an employee of a corporation, whether you own it or not, is not a complete defense. Negligence is always a liability.

2) Criminal courts use "reasonable doubt" as a criteria, Civil courts use "preponderance of the evidence" as the criteria. In other words, the bar is set much lower in civil courts for liability or judgements in favor of the plaintiff.

3) "Release of Liability" forms might as well be printed on toilet paper.

4) "Ignorance" is not considered a valid defense under the law, especially in criminal courts, and to a large extent in civil courts. In civil courts, it might possibly reduce the percentage of liability, but not the judgement of liability itself.

5) Whether you prevail or not in court, you (or your insurance company), still has to pay court costs, lawyers, expert witnesses, etc. And also don't forget time, your own time, one hour of court time can require many hours of prep time in the lawyer's office (somebody's paying for that). This can all add up to many thousands of dollars, whether you win or loose you can expect your insurance rates to jump in the next year or two.
And don't expect the judge to award you, as the defendant, court costs, or any other reimbursement, from the plaintiff ... this normally only happens (at our level, anyway), if a determination is made that the original lawsuit was considered "frivolous" ... rational being, it might discourage people from filing for legitimate claims.

6) The previous advice to consult a lawyer was good .... but remember, not all lawyers are created equal. DO THE RESEARCH before you consult ....!!!!!!

Now as I mentioned before, I'm self-employed, have been for 20-odd years; as the owner, primary employee, and engineer, yeah, the buck very definitely stops here; hehehehe, I'm liable no matter what. The case of an employee, however, can be much more complicated; say the boss handed him two pieces of metal, "weld these", no further explanations or instructions, ZERO liability, heck, the lawyers wouldn't even bother, he doesn't have enough money or assets to make it worth it, and what's the case??? Were they welded??? YES!!!!!, Even a monkey could do that. "Weld this, it's gotta be certified", yeah, a little liability here, just be sure you make good welds. Or, still as an employee,,,, Boss comes up, "This is Mike, talk with him, find out what he wants and what he's doing, and take care of him" ..... NOW we're talking risk,,,, and from the OP of the thread this thread is referring to, that's exactly what happened. Once you know the reason and the purpose behind your specific job, as the "expert", it's your responsibility to educate yourself as much as possible everything concerning that particular job, how and why to do certain things to make it fully successful. My customers depend on me to do the correct process, and the correct and proper work for the application, those that tell me, "do it this way, don't worry about it", are the "fools" ..... I can, and do, do very well without those types ...... and I have no problem telling them so, and again, to their face, one thing nobody's ever accused me of is being shy.

Now, understand, I probably do every "difficult" and "risky" job out there, and more than a few "huge" possible liabilities, up to and including my own personal safety, but you can believe me here, anytime I do something "new", or outside of my own personal knowledge or expertise, I do all the possible research I can; depending on who I get the info from, and how it ties into my own personal science and engineering knowledge, I may or may not actually do the job. If I do the job, it's done my way. AND THE RESEARCH ISN'T DONE ON THE INTERWEB!!!!! .... I prefer face-to-face interaction, with people I personally know and trust, or otherwise people who's credentials I can personally check out.

BUT,,,, the internet is valuable, for allowing me information or dangers I wouldn't have otherwise known about, and can then be looked into further in real life ..... and if I had a warning, from somebody I've observed in the past to only make truthful statements, you can bet I'd be asking around, and hard questions, before proceeding.

My big question here is, the guy everybody is worshipping here, is he just so arrogant that everything he does, even when he doesn't know what he's doing, he thinks is "gold"????? Or is he just so ethically deficient that he just don't care what happens, once the job leaves his welding table?????

Myself, I call fools for what they are, and I sleep well at night.

I also realize I'm not following the "party line" here, but I live, work, and make a living in "real life", not the "make-believe" world many here live in, and the decisions I make, the work I do, have a very real influence on my living ..... I can't falsely hide behind the "skirts" of an employer.......

[mark8310]

And BTW, there is only one lawyer I can think of that frequents any of these boards, Rvannatta, maybe somebody should PM or email him, about this thread. Gotta warn you, though, he's not really a "feel-good" type ...... :cool:;) and can really cut thru the BS quick ....

[59halfstep]

Well I hope he knows enough not to "slap the dog"!
Chalrie

[mark8310]

And in many, if not most states here in the US, Civil law follows the "deep pockets" philosophy .... that is, even if you are held only 1% liable for whatever dastardly deed or event that happened, maybe you just did the paperwork, you could very well be held responsible for all of the resulting damages, if you have more assets or more easily available assets or better insurance than the remaining defendants, who were responsible for 99% of the actual liability. Not theory here, actual fact.

[MrRodeoCC]

Unfortunately, its the BS such as this that is driving jobs away and stifling creativity and invention. Without someone willing to try something new we would still be sleeping on dirt floors in a cave and eating with our fingers. There is never a 100% safe venture except to not do it. So do nothing and be passed by the rest of the world or get busy and do something. The legalities need to be simplified and BS court cases thrown out and the lawyers penalized for bringing BS cases to court wasting tax payers money and time. Just like the hot coffee incident, regardless if the coffee was hotter than other makers, you ordered hot coffee, here's your sign. How about we get rid of all vehicles so you can't get in a wreck, shut off all electrical power, so you can't shock yourself, oh and you can't live in a house, it may come apart in a storm. People try and duck their personal responsibility and pass it along to someone else and our legal system has allowed it, such a sad situation we have created. We need to rectify the situation before we nullify ourselves from existence.

[MarkBall2]

The real problem is there are too damn many over paid, under worked lawyers trying to interpret ideas into a law that was written to protect someone from "intentional" harm.

Need to get a short rope & tall ladder for some, maybe make the rest think twice?

[wello]

like browny said the way workcover is now there wouldn't be much left for
the lawyers to get
workcover start's with who ever did the job then just adds zeros to the fine all the way to the top of the company
I know at my shop if one of fellas fu&ksup bad and workcover gets in on the act they get $2500 I get $25000 and so one till the top of the company chain or a million plus is reached

[Jolly Roger]

I'm not a lawyer but if you build it you are liable. Here in the US objects such as you are describing fall under government regulations which covers the material that can be used and the joining process that can be used. Restaurant equipment is restaurant grade stainless steel and tig is the only process you can use (sterilization and contamination). I can't say on brewing equipment but you can bet it is regulated.

Move down here to New Orleans and you will see why there are so many lawsuits with all the shysters on tv saying let me sue someone for you and I'll get ya lots of money.

[mark8310]

[QUOTE=Brett;183693Please remember this is purely a legal Q. not a moral one.

Brett[/QUOTE]

Uhhhhhhh,,,,, why are we separating ethics from legalities?????? Starting to sound like you think it's ok to hurt or kill somebody, as long as you can get away with it????? Legally that's possible, ethically it's not, and not anything I'd ever consider .....

[Brett]

Uhhhhhhh,,,,, why are we separating ethics from legalities?????? Starting to sound like you think it's ok to hurt or kill somebody, as long as you can get away with it????? Legally that's possible, ethically it's not, and not anything I'd ever consider .....



What a ridiculous thing to imply.
Are you posts calculated just to get rises out of people by trying to offend others? It seems so.

I was not interested in discussing morals , I simply wanted to know if anyone knew the Legal aspect of the scenario.

Everyone else seemed to get it.
Stop trying to trash the thread.

[Brett]

like browny said the way workcover is now there wouldn't be much left for
the lawyers to get
workcover start's with who ever did the job then just adds zeros to the fine all the way to the top of the company
I know at my shop if one of fellas fu&ksup bad and workcover gets in on the act they get $2500 I get $25000 and so one till the top of the company chain or a million plus is reached

We get Work Cover coming past regularly , say once every 4 months , they have not come in but they take photos. We have never been contacted though.
They have a good plan where you can invite them in and they will very reasonably go through what they don't like and help you with a plan, advice and a schedule to get up to speed. (I've not done it but a friend has)
All without being hard nosed or bullying like they normally are,

[MAC702]

Since lawyers care nothing for ethics (in the pure sense of their profession, not in their personal sense), why shouldn't we be able to talk about legalities separately? No problem. If the two were inseparable, there'd be no need for laws or lawyers, we'd all act ethically.

[Brett]

p.s.: Was this a theoretical or real event?

Simply hypothetical , it was more ,in the case where you fabricated something outside of your area of expertise and the client would have no expectation of you having expertise. Like a weldor (welder over here) knowing what metal to use in a brewery .

[Bob at WeldingMag]

Actually ony one can be sued. I know of a case where two truck drivers hauling produce water in the oil field were working together on a haul. There was a problen with the sump at the dump site. One driver went down in the sump to to clear the problem. Hydrogen sulfide gas was present and he went down. The other driver went down to rescue him and went down. Both died. The wife of the second driver sued the wife and the estate of the first driver for wrongful death. I'm sure some ambulance chasing lawer talked her into it. How low can you get?

The wife of the second driver was probably told she NEEDED to sue the estate of the first. At the same time, she probably was suing the company that employed both drivers, as well as the company where the sump was located. That's what the "joint and several liability" clause does. It forces you to sue EVERYONE you can think of, and then puts the burden on the court and the defendants to get themselves out of the suit.

[Oldtimer]

Bob, you are right and I probably stated the case poorly. Both women suffered a tragedy. The law that allows suing someone for something that is not their fault and the lawyers that take advantage of it are wrong in my book. The first driver that died did not force the second driver to come to his aid and his wife who became the receiver of his estate certainly did not. The law that allows this was written to benefit lawyers and not the people involved in the situation. I have been involved in a couple of problems that involved lawyers and my opinion of lawyers isn't very high because of it. I realise there are honest and ethical lawyers practicing. I just haven't been party to their aquaintance. The particular ones I watched in action lied and distorted facts anyway they could to benefit their client. It was strictly for how much money the lawyer could make in fees, not for what was right or ethical. Maybe I'm wrong to still believe in ethical and moral deeds.

[SundownIII]

Oldtimer,

Overall, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of lawyers.

Unfortunately, many unethical and/or immoral parties, through their actions, have allowed the profession to flourish.

Just my .02

[denrep]

...That's what the "joint and several liability" clause does. It forces you to sue EVERYONE you can think of, and then puts the burden on the court and the defendants to get themselves out of the suit.

So basically as defendant, you're in same boat with whoever else Captain Plaintiff feels like herding aboard; and unless you are very proactive, can end up being sacrificed.

Fortunately parties (some party huh?!) can consent to stipulate the dismissal of any or all defendants.

Now... this is the time to use your "stinking axe". Once the captain realizes that below deck, there is a rabid axe wielding mongrel defendant, chopping a hole in the bottom of the dream boat, he can become very anxious to stipulate that the defendant disembark!

[MAC702]

...The law that allows this was written to benefit lawyers and not the people involved in the situation. ...

Can't anybody sue anybody for any reason (The old 'Kill them all; let God sort them out' philosophy)? While it does make a mockery of our legal system (which understandably is the joke of the world) it seems admittingly difficult to write a law that clarifies who can be sued under what circumstances. So the lawyers do what they do, protect themselves and make money first; and if their client wins, too, then cool.

[denrep]

Can't anybody sue anybody for any reason...?


No.

There are organizations and individuals who carry immunity.
Coincidentally, some of them are closely involved with courts and lawmaking.

[daddy]

. That's what the "joint and several liability" clause does. It forces you to sue EVERYONE you can think of, and then puts the burden on the court and the defendants to get themselves out of the suit.

Guilty until proven innocent.

[MAC702]

That's true. Civil law has so many differences from criminal law. You might not ever go to jail for something, and still lose. It is judged by a preponderance of evidence, and a majority of the jury, not having to convince all 12 people beyond a doubt that you did something illegal.

Self-defense shootings often fall under this catagory.

Sometimes it works, though. Like OJ losing the civil suit.

[zapster]

OK now..
Lets do this..

19453

This whole fiasco started with the whatchamacallits that certian individuals had a problem with.

People will die..
Boats will sink..

Yeah Yeah..

I've heard it all...

Now take into concideration that they are still "sitting there" not doing any harm to anyone...
And if and when they pass muster then what?

But years ago when I welded defence stuff for the Military..
That stuff was designed for one thing..

To kill people.
Plain and simple..

No problem then right??
I made stuff to sink boats no problem..
I made stuff to kill no problem..

Who is to say what is what anymore..
All depends on what you are doing and for who right?

This can go on forever..
Give it a rest and we will see what happens now won't we..


...zap!

[denrep]

This whole fiasco started with the whatchamacallits that certian individuals had a problem with...

Zap,
I think you're reading something into this, that is not here.
Post #1 gave a hypothetical completely unrelated to your project.

I don't believe that any poster in this thread had your particular project in mind (I know I didn't); just a general discussion about law, from which we can all learn.

[Brett]

Zap,
I think you're reading something into this, that is not here.
Post #1 gave a hypothetical completely unrelated to your project.

I don't believe that any poster in this thread had your particular project in mind (I know I didn't); just a general discussion about law, from which we can all learn.


May I echo Denreps statement Zap.
Whilst your thingamybobs ,they are not whatchamacallits (geddit roight) got me thinking about it , it was in no way directed towards you .

[MAC702]

I agree. I was hoping it WOULDN'T get tied to your project, Zap, because this is a good question for fabricators in general to discuss.

[Mandau]

Please remember this is purely a legal Q. not a moral one.

Brett

Well,... I dont think the company will be sue... they have a safety issue with the dead driver... WHY they venture into area without proper safety, unless the company forget to tell them then the company will be properly cooked...:gunsfirin