Drawings as legal documents

[edmario4]

I'm doing research on the use of drawings as evidence in court. I would appreciate any information about such use in any engineering specialty. I'm especially interested in situations in which drawing errors or substandard drawings were an important factor in a legal decision.

Thank you very much fo your help.

 

[KENAT]

There was a thread on here a year or two ago that had details of an example where a datum dia was incorrectly specified and a place had to buy a bunch of parts or something like that. I think maybe an fcsuper post.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[fsincox]

Please help me with this, The word "legal" gets used here when I believe, technically in many cases, the correct term is really more "recomended" or "prefered". I believe there must be a contract stating such, meaning (to me) it is the contract with an entity that makes ASME a legal issue and not just the existance of the standard itself. Is this incorrect?
Frank

 

[TheTick]

All documents are legal documents, in terms of their ability to haunt you in a lawsuit.

 

[MechNorth]

Once ASME Y14.5-whatever-release is noted/invoked on the drawing, it becomes a legal compliance issue that will stand up in court. Any deviation from the standard must be noted somehow, whether on the drawing or in some supporting documentation also invoked on the drawing, such as a corporate addendum.

I periodically get a student who says "OK, that's what the standard says, but we do it this way." To which I reply, "That's fine. You have now been taught the proper way per the standard. Your participation has been documented. If you violate the standard knowingly, you may be held individually responsible for your actions, either within your professional organization or the courts. If you personally are comfortable with owning that responsibility, by all means do as you wish." That usually ends "the great debate". I've had managers come to me after they hear back from their employees, to tell me "Thanks. We've been trying to get that across for a while."

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services

http://www.profileservices.ca

TecEase, Inc.

http://www.tec-ease.com

 

[fcsuper]

A drawing is a visual representation of a contract whether a standard is mentioned on the print or not because of P.O. and contract law. However, if a standard is mentioned (as it should be), there is a common language established by that standard, which makes reading the drawing much easier and less prone to debatability. I've heard it once said that engineers and drafters are way under paid, as we have the same legal responsibility as a lawyer who (presumably) gets paid much more.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[MintJulep]

Kansas City Hyatt walkway collapse:

Original drawings called for an unbuildable configuration.

Contractor proposed an alternative configuration in a sketch.

Designer of record failed to note significant change in loading resulting from proposed change.

 

[fcsuper]

There was a similar issue...I think it was with the Citibank building or something, where design was significantly changed during construction (welded joints instead of rivets, I think). Building would've collapsed under tropic storm winds.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[drawoh]

Once ASME Y14.5-whatever-release is noted/invoked on the drawing, it becomes a legal compliance issue that will stand up in court.

Is a purchase order a contract?

Billy Bob and Cousin Elmo's machine shop agrees to manufacture parts as per fabrication drawings. You agree to pay Billy Bob and Cousin Elmo. Your drawings state that the dimensions and tolerances are as per ASME Y14.5M-1982.

ASME Y14.5M-1982 effectively is a clause in a contract, is it not?

If the drawings are shoddily done and Billy Bob and Cousin Elmo know what is good for them, they will not agree to fabricate as per the drawings. They will promise to make a "best effort" at fabrication. I assume that this provides you no protection in court.

I believe we have had a couple of ISO9000 certified vendors refuse to fabricate to our drawings because of unreasonable tolerances. The purchase orders wound up being very carefully written, to justify the vendor not meeting all the tolerances.

JHG

 

[drawoh]

edmario4,

What is the context of your question?

If the aforementioned Billy Bob and Cousin Elmo want their money, they will have to prove they fabricated the parts you ordered. If your drawings are prepared correctly to the specified standard, then you can prove that the delivered parts did not meet specification.

If your drawings are crap, your day in court is going to be messy. You must do proper drawings.

If the drawings are the work of some third party, and the court is required to make sense of them, then you have an interesting problem. It is more interesting (in the Chinese curse sense) if the drawings are badly produced. At some level of badness, you will have to recognize that even an expert witness is unable to interpret your drawings to the level of certainty required by the court.

It is too bad that (probably) there are no lawyers on this forum. I am under the impression that civil courts have a much more lenient standard for evidence than criminal courts.

JHG

 

[fcsuper]

Abandon all logic now, drawoh!

Yup, some people (even purchasing dept) seem to forget that the PO is a contract.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[fsincox]

I believe that anything can be introduced in court as evidence, that is not the point, the goal is to win. I also realize that the standard acts as law where it is stated on the drawing or required by contract of some type. Really, I guess my question is if it is not stated on the drawing is it really the law?
Frank.

 

[fsincox]

For example, If my drawings say ASME Y14.5M-1982 and I do not want to accept the 1994 definision of feature of size do I have too?
Frank

 

[ewh]

Are there any signatures on the drawing?

"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]

 

[fsincox]

Yes,

 

[KENAT]

fsincox, simplisticaly I'd think if you explicitly reference 82 then you get to use their definition and are not forced to use 94 definitions where they differ.

However, the law aint always simple.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[fcsuper]

fsincox,
If you have a PO, your drawing is still part of the contract, whether it lists a standard or not. The problem if the drawing doesn't list any standard is that there is no agreeable upon interpretation for the drawing. That means any specification on the drawing can be brought into question.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[MechNorth]

I'm still not clear what the ACTUAL situation is, but here's what I've seen;

If the drawing says '82, then it is bound to the interpretation of the '82 standard; '94 & '09 have nothing to do with its interpretation as it is a definition frozen in time. Think of it like reading Shakespeare ... you can't apply today's English linguistic rules to his original manuscripts because the words sometimes mean something entirely different now, and the phrasing is per that snapshot in time.

If the drawing says '82 and the PO says '94, then I think you're floating down a river of sewage without any means of propulsion. Unlikely that the supplier will override the '82 on the drawing with another '94 note "per PO", so it would likely never be seen.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services

http://www.profileservices.ca

TecEase, Inc.

http://www.tec-ease.com

 

[fsincox]

Jim,
Thank you, and where no standard is referenced? I suspect it is clear as mud. Can a 1994 definition of parallelism, position, etc, be applied to a drawing with a date of 1996 but looks like it was drawn to the 73 standard and no statements are on the drawing or PO?
Frank

 

[drawoh]

fsincox,

Please note that the OP did not mention ASME Y14.5M-1982, I did. I quoted the 1982 version out of sheer perversity.

If I agree to ship you parts as per your drawings, and you agree to pay me, then the drawings are part of a contract, and they must be unambiguous. Drafting standards like ASME Y14.5 are a resource for achieving this.

There is a reason for the very complex and inclusive language used by lawyers on contracts.

JHG