quality product dispute situation:
After the supplier and the buyer signed the purchase contract, it was agreed that the supplier would provide the buyer with products with the product name/specification of XXX. The supplier delivered the "ball screw" involved in the case to the demander. After receiving the goods, the demander discovered that the ball screws supplied by the supplier continued to have various quality problems and the repair rate was extremely high. Therefore, the demander determined that the "ball screw" involved in the case had quality problems and suspected that it was not a product provided by Company A. The supplier of
believed that the "ball screw" involved in the case was processed and produced according to the drawings provided by the buyer. The two ends of the screw components were cut, the two ends of the screw were turned off, and the other parts did not need to be added after milling, grinding and other processes. The balls in the corresponding nuts needed to be replaced and reassembled. Therefore, the balls were not a product of Company A, and the buyer also confirmed receipt after the delivery of the "ball screw" involved. In order to clarify whether the "ball screw" involved in the case meets the agreed acceptance standards, the purchaser proposed to conduct quality appraisal of the "ball screw" involved in the case.
B The court entrusted our company to identify whether the "ball screw" involved in the case is a genuine product of a certain brand produced by Company A; whether the material of the "ball screw" involved in the case meets the material requirements in the production and processing drawings; whether the Rockwell hardness value of the "ball screw" involved in the case after heat treatment complies with the Rockwell hardness value range required in the production and processing drawings.
quality analysis results: The
quality analysis expert group conducted a discussion and comprehensive quality technical analysis on the on-site inspection and random sampling inspection of the "ball screws" involved in the case, and made the following suggestions and conclusions:
1 and the nut parts of the three "ball screws" involved in the case are genuine products produced by Company A, and the thread shape of the screw parts is consistent with the original factory. There are significant differences, none of which are genuine products produced by the company;
2, the nut parts of the three "ball screws" involved in the case basically meet the material requirements in the production and processing drawings, but the screw parts do not meet the material requirements in the production and processing drawings;
3, the Rockwell hardness values after heat treatment of the three "ball screws" involved in the case comply with the Rockwell hardness value range required in the production and processing drawings.
