will they stand behind the tools still

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>>Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>
>>would not have paid that for the name
>>which is all they did
>>
>>so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>>the craftsman name
>>
>>it used to mean something a long time ago
>>
>>
>>sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>>sell the tools and make more then they were making
>>
>>i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>>a brain cell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
>Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
>They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
>the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
>has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
>users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..

"Can" isn't the issue. Sears offered the tools they thought would
make them the most money. I don't see anything changing in that
regard.

IMO, the pre '80 (varied) hand tools were better than later tools.
The power tools were always the pits. The rebadged ones were, in most
cases, more expensive than their equivaents.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:22:48 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <h5lo7cl6aikmvmihqjfelrl61l30tj8orm@
>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:35:15 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/15/2017 8:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>> >>>> Leon wrote:
>> >>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>> >>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>> >>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>> >>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>> >>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>> >>>>>>> mediocrity
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>> >>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>> >>>>> legal obligations.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>> >>>> and reorganization?
>> >>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>> >>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>> >>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>> >>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>> >>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>> >>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>> >>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>> >>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>> >>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>> >>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>> >>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>> >>> the warranty.
>> >>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>> >>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>> >>> received.
>> >> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
>> >> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
>> >> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
>> >> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
>> >> changes
>> >>
>> >
>> >Exactly, that would be their out. But I have photo copied packaging
>> >showing the warranty in the even that this comes up. Much easier to do
>> >now than in the past.
>> Virtually impossible in 1968/69.
>
>What, photocopying packaging? Maybe you didn't
>work anywhere that there was a Xerox but a lot
>of people did.
>
We had Thermofax. The school in 1973 had a spitit duplicator. Try
copying the warranty off the label of a set of tools with that. You
could take a picture. Mabee even a polaroid, which will have faded to
un-readable by now.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:18:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>
>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>> mediocrity
>>
>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>
>What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor old
>guarantees/warranties or not.
>
>You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>
>You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has legal
>obligations.
>
Depends what they bought. In many cases a company buys the right to
use the name, and the designs, and possibly other assetts of the
company, but not the company itself. In the case of Craftsman, I'm
not sure a Craftsman "company" exists. I believe it is just a "brand"
owned up until the sale, by Sears.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:40:22 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>>>> the warranty.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it depends
>>> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
>>> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
>>> warranties but I don't remember the details.
>>
>> Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
>> new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
>> governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
>> not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
>> will/was decided before the sale.
>>
>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>> warranties up to that point.
>
>Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the bank
>saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's depositors? LOL!
>
>It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when a
>company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes, by
>law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty would be
>one such debt or liability.
>
Depends what the new company buys. If they buy the company, they buy
everything. If they buy just the name, or just named assets, they do
not.
They can also buy all assets and liabilities.

The computer manufacturer I formerly worked for went broke, and a
distributor bought all assetts and liabilities for $1, but technically
did NOT buy the corporation.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:58:14 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Electric Comet wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:14:51 -0500
>> "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> They never made them.
>> this deal just keeps getting better and better for sears
>>
>> but they sold more than the name
>>
>> they must be selling the designs and molds and any intellectual
>> properties

I doubt that Sears has any of the above.
>
>I'll bet if they knew how much interest there was, that they would post
>a copy of their contract here! ; ) Maybe the details are public
>(but Stanley, B&D is an closed foreign corp, right?)

Sears isn't but your point is right on.

On 1/15/2017 4:18 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>
>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>> mediocrity
>>
>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>
> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor old
> guarantees/warranties or not.
>
> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>
> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has legal
> obligations.
>

Maybe some legal eagle can weigh in on this.

If B&D bought the manufacturing arm (there isn't one, AFAIK) or the
sales arm, then I think the issue would be moot. The buyer of a
corporation assumes both the assets and liabilities of the corporation.

B&D under that scenario is required to honor the existing warranties but
is not compelled to continue issuing that warranty with new tools any
more than Sears is. Since there did not appear to be any requirement
such as proof of purchase, etc. with Craftsman tools, it might be real
hard for Sears or Black & Decker to back out now other than by coming
out with Craftsman II tools, so marked, but no lifetime warranty.

I would hope that B&D looked at this and said, "let's buy the Craftsman
line if Sears will sell it. It has a sterling reputation and is
profitable. Buying it separately from them will likely cost us more
than what it will go for if K-Mart puts the entire company on the
auction block; and if we're going to spend damn near a Billion dollars
for it, let's keep doing it the way Sears has sold the brand with added
value and not screw it up.

OTOH, if B&D, like Sears did many years before it, only purchased the
exclusive rights (eventually) to produce tools under the Craftsman brand
name, I'm not sure what liability they assume, if any, with regard to
warranties on the preexisting tools sold by Sears.

Calling Perry Mason, calling Perry Mason, please report to
rec.woodworking! ;)

On 1/15/2017 4:50 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 4:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:18:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:

[snip]

>>
>
>
> I'm pretty certain Craftsman is a company, Sears bought that company
> about 92 years ago. ;~)
>
> What all that company manufactures is probably limited. Lawnmowers,
> power tools etc is probably just the name like Ridgid ww tools.


Perhaps you missed this information which was shared early on in the
thread about this sale. Not sure just how accurate all the info is on
the current sale to Stanley B&D, but historically, I think the info on
how Sears came to use the brand name is solid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craftsman_(tools)

On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>>> the warranty.
>>
>> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it depends
>> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
>> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
>> warranties but I don't remember the details.
>
> Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
> new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
> governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
> not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
> will/was decided before the sale.
>
> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
> warranties up to that point.

Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the bank
saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's depositors? LOL!

It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when a
company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes, by
law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty would be
one such debt or liability.

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem here is that there's no "money back", there's just
>> replacement. What if the tool is no longer available or the new
>> owner drops it from the line?
>
> This happen all the time, products being discontinued. Typically
> something of equal value is substituted.
>

That's exactly what happened to my Craftsman tape measure. Last month, I
took it in for warranty replacement, and since Craftsman no longer brands
tape measures, the guy at Sears exchanged it for a 30' Stanley. He did
explain it was a one-time exchange, and the Stanely wasn't covered under
the Craftsman warranty.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

On 1/15/2017 9:55 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 9:40 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to
>>>>> uphold
>>>>> the warranty.
>>>>

[snip]
>>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>>> warranties up to that point.
>>
>> Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the bank
>> saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's depositors?
>> LOL!
>
> I suspect this did happen in the past, pre depression era time. But
> there are regulations that prevent this and in the case of default, FDIC.
>
>
>>
>> It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when a
>> company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes, by
>> law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty would be
>> one such debt or liability.
>
> Yes, but the new owner does not necessarily have to assume the liability
> on past sales, know as the warranty. But some one does, and that may be
> a required acquisition of a third party insurance to cover that detail.

I own a GM car. GM (Government Motors) is sold to Ford. I suffer
damages due to a crash determined to caused by something GM did in their
manufacturing process prior to selling to Ford. My claim and any
damages provided by the courts are the responsibility now of Ford. When
you buy a corporation you buy the corporation - the good, the bad and
the ugly. If that were not the case, don't you think Volkswagen would
have turned around and sold to a quickly formed shell corporation called
PeopleScooter to avoid paying the $1,000,000,000 fine?

Corporations can enter into all sorts of agreements in the sales process
but they cannot legally do something that affects certain contractual
rights of third parties who have done business with them to those
parties detriment.

Frankly, all of our discussion is much ado about nothing, IMO.
Stanley/B&D bought Craftsman because they want to continue to make money
off the brand loyalty. The last thing they want is a black eye because
you or I take a ratchet back for replacement under the Craftsman
Lifetime Warranty and we're told to pound sand.

On 1/15/2017 10:04 PM, Bill wrote:
> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to
>>>>> uphold
>>>>> the warranty.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it
>>>> depends
>>>> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
>>>> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
>>>> warranties but I don't remember the details.
>>>
>>> Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
>>> new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
>>> governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
>>> not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
>>> will/was decided before the sale.
>>>
>>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>>> warranties up to that point.
>>
>> Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the
>> bank saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's
>> depositors? LOL!
>
> That's why we have FDIC (insurance).

Guess again. FDIC covers the depositors if the bank FAILS. Do you
believe for a moment that if I own the bank and I have $100M on deposit,
that I can sell it to you for $25M, transfer only $50M of the assets to
you and walk away from the table with $75M in my pocket? Can't happen
legally.

>
>>
>> It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when
>> a company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes,
>> by law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty
>> would be one such debt or liability.
>>
>>
>

[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I suspect Craftsman will be one of Stanley's "premium" lines. -
> along with Proto and MAC

If they position it at the same level as Kobalt, I think they'll really
have something. Decent tools, decent price. All my screwdrivers are
Kobalt (except for the 4 that are Craftsman), and I guard them! Precision
Phillips aren't to be destroyed by guys who have been turning screws for
years, go beat up your own screwdrivers!

I hate the noise of a screwdriver bit slipping in a screw head. Shows the
operator is screwy in the head.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:26:31 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:03:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>>>>>Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>>
>>>>>would not have paid that for the name
>>>>>which is all they did
>>>>>
>>>>>so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>>>>>the craftsman name
>>>>>
>>>>>it used to mean something a long time ago
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>>>>>sell the tools and make more then they were making
>>>>>
>>>>>i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>>>>>a brain cell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>>>that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
>>>>Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
>>>>They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
>>>>the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
>>>>has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
>>>>users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..
>>>
>>>"Can" isn't the issue. Sears offered the tools they thought would
>>>make them the most money. I don't see anything changing in that
>>>regard.
>>>
>>>IMO, the pre '80 (varied) hand tools were better than later tools.
>>>The power tools were always the pits. The rebadged ones were, in most
>>>cases, more expensive than their equivaents.
>> The hand tools before 1995 were made BY STANLEY and they were better
>>than the later tools, so STANLEY made Craftsman tools will likely be
>>better quality tools than the latest Craftsman tools.
>
>I understood the logic but don't agree with it. To come to that
>conclusion you have to assume the quality is determned by who makes
>the tool and has nothing to do with specifications or the price points
>set by Sears.
Sears gave the same specs to Danaher as they gave to Stanley - and
Danaher undercut Stanley on price, getting the contract. The Danaher
manufactured tools likely MEET the spec, but don't excede - while
Stanley likely exceded the specs. Most of the Danaher production is
off-shore - as is a fair amount of Stanley's production.

On 1/15/2017 9:40 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to
>>>> uphold
>>>> the warranty.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it
>>> depends
>>> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
>>> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
>>> warranties but I don't remember the details.
>>
>> Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
>> new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
>> governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
>> not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
>> will/was decided before the sale.
>>
>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>> warranties up to that point.
>
> Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the bank
> saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's depositors? LOL!

I suspect this did happen in the past, pre depression era time. But
there are regulations that prevent this and in the case of default, FDIC.


>
> It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when a
> company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes, by
> law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty would be
> one such debt or liability.

Yes, but the new owner does not necessarily have to assume the liability
on past sales, know as the warranty. But some one does, and that may be
a required acquisition of a third party insurance to cover that detail.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:03:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>>>>Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>
>>>>would not have paid that for the name
>>>>which is all they did
>>>>
>>>>so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>>>>the craftsman name
>>>>
>>>>it used to mean something a long time ago
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>>>>sell the tools and make more then they were making
>>>>
>>>>i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>>>>a brain cell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>>that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
>>>Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
>>>They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
>>>the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
>>>has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
>>>users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..
>>
>>"Can" isn't the issue. Sears offered the tools they thought would
>>make them the most money. I don't see anything changing in that
>>regard.
>>
>>IMO, the pre '80 (varied) hand tools were better than later tools.
>>The power tools were always the pits. The rebadged ones were, in most
>>cases, more expensive than their equivaents.
> The hand tools before 1995 were made BY STANLEY and they were better
>than the later tools, so STANLEY made Craftsman tools will likely be
>better quality tools than the latest Craftsman tools.

I understood the logic but don't agree with it. To come to that
conclusion you have to assume the quality is determned by who makes
the tool and has nothing to do with specifications or the price points
set by Sears.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:51:40 -0800, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 14:13:38 -0500
>woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don't know if you realize it. But sears/craftsman has been selling
>> the evolve line which is HF stuff. But at a higher price. Sometimes
>> much higher.
>
>did not know that and did not know about evolve line of tools
>
>now i wonder if sears will continue to sell the tools
>
>i am guessing they will they just won't make them
>
>they will probably make more selling them now then when they made
>them
>
>
>
>
>
Sears NEVER made Craftsman tools. All they did is design (specify) and
sell them. Not a lot will change at Sears as far as Craftsman Tools
is concerned, at the store level.

Even Stanley /Black and Decker doesn't make all of their own tools.
Much of their production is "farmed out" to the far east.

Husky tools are made by Stanley. Stanley also owns MAC tools.
Until 1994 Stanley made much of the Craftsman tool line.
Proto is also made by Stanley and is actually the highest quality
line of tools Stanley makes.
Stanley owns production in Taiwan as well - so technically I guess you
COULD say Stanley produces virtually all of their own tools - but not
necessarily in North America.

They got raked over the coals real good recently for marking toold
"made in America" when they were really "assembled in America fron
Globally Supplied Parts"

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:45:44 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 8:59 PM, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>>>>>> mediocrity
>>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>>>>> legal obligations.
>>>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>>>>> and reorganization?
>>>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>>>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>>>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>>>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>>>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>>>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>>>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>>>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>>>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>>>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>>>> the warranty.
>>>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>>>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>>>> received.
>>> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
>>> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
>>> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
>>> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
>>> changes
>>
>> I think it is a fair argument that has already been made that the
>> company with whom the warranty was created no longer exists. If
>> someone owes you money, and they die, you can't go back to one of the
>> family members after probate and make a claim. I'm not a lawyer and
>> don't know the degree to which that analogy is appropriate.
>>
>
>That is totally different, going after family members is totally
>different unless they were all in business together.
>Further, if family members are to inherit from a will, that is very
>often subject to happening after the cure of all contractual debts up to
>totally liquidating the deceased assets.

I think Bill is right on with his analogy. The bankruptcy, some time
back, was exactly analogous to the probate of a will. The company
died and its assets were bought by another.
>
>For example if you are in your parents will to inherit their home after
>their death and there is an outstanding mortgage, you have to pay
>off/cure that mortgage before taking possession of that home. Nor are
>you obligated to cure that mortgage if you have no interest/desire in
>keeping the home. Typically you sell the home and pay off the mortgage
>if the home can be sold for more than the outstanding debt and fees.

But someone coming to court with a bill for the new furnace, after
probate, is out of luck. The person is dead and his assets
transferred to someone else. A bankruptcy is much the same.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>>>Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>
>>>would not have paid that for the name
>>>which is all they did
>>>
>>>so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>>>the craftsman name
>>>
>>>it used to mean something a long time ago
>>>
>>>
>>>sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>>>sell the tools and make more then they were making
>>>
>>>i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>>>a brain cell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
>>Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
>>They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
>>the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
>>has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
>>users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..
>
>"Can" isn't the issue. Sears offered the tools they thought would
>make them the most money. I don't see anything changing in that
>regard.
>
>IMO, the pre '80 (varied) hand tools were better than later tools.
>The power tools were always the pits. The rebadged ones were, in most
>cases, more expensive than their equivaents.
The hand tools before 1995 were made BY STANLEY and they were better
than the later tools, so STANLEY made Craftsman tools will likely be
better quality tools than the latest Craftsman tools.

On 1/16/2017 7:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:27:05 -0800, Electric Comet
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>
>> cannot agree
>>
>> it is not anymore and that is why sears sold it
>
> Wrong. Sears needed *cash*.

I would say there was plenty of value if all they had to sell was the
ability to use the name. And they can still sell the product so they
are not loosing sales with the sale of the name. It's simply that
Stanley now gets to make some profit on the sales of Craftsman tools.





>>
>>
>> they made quite a deal
>> a win win for sears
>>
>> 900 mil and they can still make money selling the tools
>
> Like most sales, it's probably a win for both sides.
>

This will be interesting to see. Stanly still has to manufacture or pay
some one to manufacture the tools, and they are out 900 mil.
On top of that Sears is probably the largest retailer of Craftsman
tools, if they go out of business there is a lot of slack that will need
to be taken up.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:20:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 10:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:55:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/2017 9:40 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to
>>>>>>> uphold
>>>>>>> the warranty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it
>>>>>> depends
>>>>>> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
>>>>>> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
>>>>>> warranties but I don't remember the details.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
>>>>> new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
>>>>> governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
>>>>> not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
>>>>> will/was decided before the sale.
>>>>>
>>>>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>>>>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>>>>> warranties up to that point.
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the bank
>>>> saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's depositors? LOL!
>>>
>>> I suspect this did happen in the past, pre depression era time. But
>>> there are regulations that prevent this and in the case of default, FDIC.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when a
>>>> company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes, by
>>>> law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty would be
>>>> one such debt or liability.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the new owner does not necessarily have to assume the liability
>>> on past sales, know as the warranty. But some one does, and that may be
>>> a required acquisition of a third party insurance to cover that detail.
>>
>> Not necessarily. In a banruptcy, the assets may be sold off without
>> selling the company itself and any liabilities killed with the
>> business. It's not only the debtors that get screwed.
>
>The conversation is about the sale of Craftsman and the liabilities that
>go with it, not bankruptcy.

Sure, if Sears continues to sell Craftsman tools, they'll have to
honor their warranty. It doesn't transfer to Stanley, even if they
use the "Craftsman" name (which one would suppose they will).

On 1/15/2017 10:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:45:44 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 8:59 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will
>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>>>>>>> mediocrity
>>>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>>>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>>>>>> legal obligations.
>>>>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>>>>>> and reorganization?
>>>>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>>>>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>>>>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>>>>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>>>>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>>>>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>>>>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>>>>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>>>>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>>>>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>>>>> the warranty.
>>>>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>>>>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>>>>> received.
>>>> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
>>>> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
>>>> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
>>>> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
>>>> changes
>>>
>>> I think it is a fair argument that has already been made that the
>>> company with whom the warranty was created no longer exists. If
>>> someone owes you money, and they die, you can't go back to one of the
>>> family members after probate and make a claim. I'm not a lawyer and
>>> don't know the degree to which that analogy is appropriate.
>>>
>>
>> That is totally different, going after family members is totally
>> different unless they were all in business together.
>> Further, if family members are to inherit from a will, that is very
>> often subject to happening after the cure of all contractual debts up to
>> totally liquidating the deceased assets.
>
> I think Bill is right on with his analogy. The bankruptcy, some time
> back, was exactly analogous to the probate of a will. The company
> died and its assets were bought by another.
>>
>> For example if you are in your parents will to inherit their home after
>> their death and there is an outstanding mortgage, you have to pay
>> off/cure that mortgage before taking possession of that home. Nor are
>> you obligated to cure that mortgage if you have no interest/desire in
>> keeping the home. Typically you sell the home and pay off the mortgage
>> if the home can be sold for more than the outstanding debt and fees.
>
> But someone coming to court with a bill for the new furnace, after
> probate, is out of luck. The person is dead and his assets
> transferred to someone else. A bankruptcy is much the same.
>

Lein holders have first shot at the assets in Texas. Probate takes time
most, lien holders will have filed before the probate is finalized.

On 1/15/2017 11:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:35:15 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 8:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>>>>>> mediocrity
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>>>>> legal obligations.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>>>>> and reorganization?
>>>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>>>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>>>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>>>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>>>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>>>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>>>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>>>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>>>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>>>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>>>> the warranty.
>>>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>>>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>>>> received.
>>> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
>>> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
>>> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
>>> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
>>> changes
>>>
>>
>> Exactly, that would be their out. But I have photo copied packaging
>> showing the warranty in the even that this comes up. Much easier to do
>> now than in the past.
> Virtually impossible in 1968/69.
>

No, Xerox was making photo copiers at least as bar back as 1962. My
dad went to work for Coastal States Gas then and they had "Xerox
Machines"/photo copiers. It was the first time my dad ever used one. I
recall him taking me to work with him on a weekend and showing me.

But I imagine they were few and far in between.

LOL

On 1/15/2017 7:40 PM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>
>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>> mediocrity
>>>
>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>
>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>
>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>
>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>> legal obligations.
>>
>
> I think this is a good issue to work on after you've protected our
> social security benefits from possible default.
>


I seriously doubt SS will ever default. The government has run out of
money on numerous occasions and elected to go further in debt to
continue business.

The government and or SS will never run out of money, so to speak, it
will simply borrow or circulate more money to pay off debt. This is how
the dollar has been loosing value for decades. Every one pays that debt
by loosing buying power.

In article <x4WdnUzZ77hWl-HFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 1/15/2017 5:13 PM, Bill wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> In many cases a company buys the right to
> >> use the name, and the designs, and possibly other assets of the
> >> company, but not the company itself. In the case of Craftsman, I'm
> >> not sure a Craftsman "company" exists. I believe it is just a "brand"
> >> owned up until the sale, by Sears.
> > Well put.
> > Thanks.
> >
>
>
> But, Craftsman did exist as a tool company before Sears bought. It may
> still exist.

According to wiki Sears bought the rights to the
name "Craftsman" from Marion-Craftsman Tool
Company in 1927 for 500 bucks. It's not clear
whether Marion-Craftsman ever actually produced
any tools that were sold by Sears.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Leon wrote:
> > On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
> >> Electric Comet wrote:
> >>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
> >>> decker will all become equally crappy
> >>>
> >>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
> >>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
> >>> mediocrity
> >>
> >> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
> >
> > What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
> > old guarantees/warranties or not.
> >
> > You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
> >
> > You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
> > legal obligations.
>
> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
> and reorganization?
> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...

If they bought the company, i.e. obtained a
majority of the shares of stock, then the
liability with regard to contracts and
guarantees would be unchanged I believe.

However it is common to buy the _assets_ from
the corporation, not the corporation itself,
leaving the corporation cash rich but with no
products, manufacturing facilities, staff or
anything else except cash and liabilities. In
that case the new owners would be under no
obligation to honor warranties, as those
warranties were issued by the corporation, which
still exists. You could sue the corporation but
the courts would tell you to get in line behind
the rest of the creditors.

In the case of Craftsman, it appears that
Craftsman was an asset of Sears, not a
corporation its own right, so any warranty
claims should be against Sears--as long as
there's a Sears store you should be able to walk
in and demand satisfaction, however if they no
longer sell tools there's precious little
satisfaction to be had--they might give you the
cash value of it or something. And if Sears
goes away it's unlikely that you're going to
have any recourse at all.

In article <h5lo7cl6aikmvmihqjfelrl61l30tj8orm@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:35:15 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
> >On 1/15/2017 8:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
> >>>> Leon wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
> >>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
> >>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
> >>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
> >>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
> >>>>>>> mediocrity
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
> >>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
> >>>>> legal obligations.
> >>>>
> >>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
> >>>> and reorganization?
> >>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
> >>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
> >>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
> >>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
> >>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
> >>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
> >>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
> >>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
> >>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
> >>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
> >>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
> >>> the warranty.
> >>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
> >>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
> >>> received.
> >> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
> >> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
> >> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
> >> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
> >> changes
> >>
> >
> >Exactly, that would be their out. But I have photo copied packaging
> >showing the warranty in the even that this comes up. Much easier to do
> >now than in the past.
> Virtually impossible in 1968/69.

What, photocopying packaging? Maybe you didn't
work anywhere that there was a Xerox but a lot
of people did.

GE buys competition all of the time, take who/what is good and Promise
to upgrade, then several months later - sell the building materials off
and scrap the building. They loose the purchase price, get some this
and that and write off the costs.

Martin

On 1/15/2017 4:18 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>
>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>> mediocrity
>>
>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>
> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor old
> guarantees/warranties or not.
>
> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>
> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has legal
> obligations.
>
>

On 1/16/2017 6:55 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/16/2017 7:47 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/16/2017 6:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>> We had Thermofax. The school in 1973 had a spitit duplicator. Try
>>>>> copying the warranty off the label of a set of tools with that. You
>>>>> could take a picture. Mabee even a polaroid, which will have faded to
>>>>> un-readable by now.
>>>> Make that spitit duplicater a SPIRIT duplicator.
>>>
>>> There's a difference?
>>>
>>
>> TIT and RIT ;!)
>
> But I never checked at a pair of RITS on a woman. Am I missing something?


Yeah! Rots of stuff. ;~)

On 1/15/2017 8:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>>>> mediocrity
>>>>>
>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>
>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>>
>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>>
>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>>> legal obligations.
>>>
>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>>> and reorganization?
>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>>
>>
>>
>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>> the warranty.
>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>> received.
> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
> changes
>

Exactly, that would be their out. But I have photo copied packaging
showing the warranty in the even that this comes up. Much easier to do
now than in the past.

On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>
>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>> the warranty.
>
> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it depends
> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
> warranties but I don't remember the details.

Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
will/was decided before the sale.

If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
warranties up to that point.

>
> The problem here is that there's no "money back", there's just
> replacement. What if the tool is no longer available or the new owner
> drops it from the line?

This happen all the time, products being discontinued. Typically
something of equal value is substituted.

On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
> Electric Comet wrote:
>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>
>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>> mediocrity
>
> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?

What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor old
guarantees/warranties or not.

You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.

You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has legal
obligations.

On 1/16/2017 7:47 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 1/16/2017 6:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>> We had Thermofax. The school in 1973 had a spitit duplicator. Try
>>>> copying the warranty off the label of a set of tools with that. You
>>>> could take a picture. Mabee even a polaroid, which will have faded to
>>>> un-readable by now.
>>> Make that spitit duplicater a SPIRIT duplicator.
>>
>> There's a difference?
>>
>
> TIT and RIT ;!)

But I never checked at a pair of RITS on a woman. Am I missing something?

On 1/16/2017 6:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:

>>> We had Thermofax. The school in 1973 had a spitit duplicator. Try
>>> copying the warranty off the label of a set of tools with that. You
>>> could take a picture. Mabee even a polaroid, which will have faded to
>>> un-readable by now.
>> Make that spitit duplicater a SPIRIT duplicator.
>
> There's a difference?
>

TIT and RIT ;!)

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:56:14 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:10:12 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:22:48 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <h5lo7cl6aikmvmihqjfelrl61l30tj8orm@
>>>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:35:15 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On 1/15/2017 8:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> >> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> >>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> >>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>> >>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>> >>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>> >>>>>>> mediocrity
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>>> >>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>>> >>>>> legal obligations.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>>>> >>>> and reorganization?
>>>> >>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>>>> >>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>>>> >>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>>>> >>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>>>> >>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>>>> >>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>>>> >>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>>>> >>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>>>> >>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>>>> >>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>> >>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>>>> >>> the warranty.
>>>> >>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>>>> >>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>>>> >>> received.
>>>> >> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
>>>> >> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
>>>> >> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
>>>> >> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
>>>> >> changes
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >Exactly, that would be their out. But I have photo copied packaging
>>>> >showing the warranty in the even that this comes up. Much easier to do
>>>> >now than in the past.
>>>> Virtually impossible in 1968/69.
>>>
>>>What, photocopying packaging? Maybe you didn't
>>>work anywhere that there was a Xerox but a lot
>>>of people did.
>>>
>>We had Thermofax. The school in 1973 had a spitit duplicator. Try
>>copying the warranty off the label of a set of tools with that. You
>>could take a picture. Mabee even a polaroid, which will have faded to
>>un-readable by now.
> Make that spitit duplicater a SPIRIT duplicator.

There's a difference?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:27:05 -0800, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>
>cannot agree
>
>it is not anymore and that is why sears sold it

Wrong. Sears needed *cash*.
>
>
>they made quite a deal
>a win win for sears
>
>900 mil and they can still make money selling the tools

Like most sales, it's probably a win for both sides.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:56:19 -0500, "John S" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:26:31 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:03:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>>>>>>Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>would not have paid that for the name
>>>>>>which is all they did
>>>>>>
>>>>>>so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>>>>>>the craftsman name
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it used to mean something a long time ago
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>>>>>>sell the tools and make more then they were making
>>>>>>
>>>>>>i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>>>>>>a brain cell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>>>>that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
>>>>>Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
>>>>>They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
>>>>>the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
>>>>>has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
>>>>>users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..
>>>>
>>>>"Can" isn't the issue. Sears offered the tools they thought would
>>>>make them the most money. I don't see anything changing in that
>>>>regard.
>>>>
>>>>IMO, the pre '80 (varied) hand tools were better than later tools.
>>>>The power tools were always the pits. The rebadged ones were, in most
>>>>cases, more expensive than their equivaents.
>>> The hand tools before 1995 were made BY STANLEY and they were better
>>>than the later tools, so STANLEY made Craftsman tools will likely be
>>>better quality tools than the latest Craftsman tools.
>>
>>I understood the logic but don't agree with it. To come to that
>>conclusion you have to assume the quality is determned by who makes
>>the tool and has nothing to do with specifications or the price points
>>set by Sears.
>>>>>> Sears gave the same specs to Danaher as they gave to Stanley - and
>>>>>>Stanley likely exceded the specs. Most of the Danaher production is
>>>>>>off-shore - as is a fair amount of Stanley's production.
>
>According to the news story in the paper about the purchase, Stanley plans
>to add manufacturing capacity in the US for the Craftsman tools.
I suspect Craftsman will be one of Stanley's "premium" lines. -
along with Proto and MAC

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:35:15 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 8:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>>>>> mediocrity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>>>> legal obligations.
>>>>
>>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>>>> and reorganization?
>>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>>> the warranty.
>>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>>> received.
>> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
>> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
>> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
>> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
>> changes
>>
>
>Exactly, that would be their out. But I have photo copied packaging
>showing the warranty in the even that this comes up. Much easier to do
>now than in the past.
Virtually impossible in 1968/69.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:15:08 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:03:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>>>>>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>>> would not have paid that for the name
>>>>>> which is all they did
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>>>>>> the craftsman name
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it used to mean something a long time ago
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>>>>>> sell the tools and make more then they were making
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>>>>>> a brain cell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>>>> that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
>>>>> Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
>>>>> They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
>>>>> the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
>>>>> has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
>>>>> users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..
>>>> "Can" isn't the issue. Sears offered the tools they thought would
>>>> make them the most money. I don't see anything changing in that
>>>> regard.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, the pre '80 (varied) hand tools were better than later tools.
>>>> The power tools were always the pits. The rebadged ones were, in most
>>>> cases, more expensive than their equivaents.
>>> The hand tools before 1995 were made BY STANLEY and they were better
>>> than the later tools, so STANLEY made Craftsman tools will likely be
>>> better quality tools than the latest Craftsman tools.
>> I understood the logic but don't agree with it. To come to that
>> conclusion you have to assume the quality is determned by who makes
>> the tool and has nothing to do with specifications or the price points
>> set by Sears.
>
>
>I think from the perspective of most folks, and myself, "quality" has to
>do with how well a tool lives up to doing what it is supposed to do,
>without falling apart or breaking along the way. We don't really give a
>dern what the specifications say and price has little to do with the
>matter either. The tool either satisfies or it doesn't. Admittedly,
>I've got a couple of Craftsman tools that were disappointing, out of the
>box.
Some tools are poorly designed - others are poorly built - and some
are both. The feel of a tool generally has to do with design - as
(generally) does the look. How long or well it performs is more oftem
how they are built, although design also comes into it.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Electric Comet wrote:
>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>
>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete mediocrity
>
>If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?

Try to make it back. The problem is that there is more than one way
to try.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:55:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 9:40 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to
>>>>> uphold
>>>>> the warranty.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it
>>>> depends
>>>> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
>>>> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
>>>> warranties but I don't remember the details.
>>>
>>> Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
>>> new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
>>> governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
>>> not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
>>> will/was decided before the sale.
>>>
>>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>>> warranties up to that point.
>>
>> Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the bank
>> saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's depositors? LOL!
>
>I suspect this did happen in the past, pre depression era time. But
>there are regulations that prevent this and in the case of default, FDIC.
>
>
>>
>> It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when a
>> company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes, by
>> law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty would be
>> one such debt or liability.
>
>Yes, but the new owner does not necessarily have to assume the liability
>on past sales, know as the warranty. But some one does, and that may be
>a required acquisition of a third party insurance to cover that detail.

Not necessarily. In a banruptcy, the assets may be sold off without
selling the company itself and any liabilities killed with the
business. It's not only the debtors that get screwed.

>
>

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:49:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 7:40 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>>
>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>>> mediocrity
>>>>
>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>
>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>
>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>
>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>> legal obligations.
>>>
>>
>> I think this is a good issue to work on after you've protected our
>> social security benefits from possible default.
>>
>
>
>I seriously doubt SS will ever default. The government has run out of
>money on numerous occasions and elected to go further in debt to
>continue business.

...and when people stop buying the debt, we just buy another tanker of
ink and do QE(N+1).

>The government and or SS will never run out of money, so to speak, it
>will simply borrow or circulate more money to pay off debt. This is how
>the dollar has been loosing value for decades. Every one pays that debt
>by loosing buying power.

On 1/17/2017 11:46 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I suspect Craftsman will be one of Stanley's "premium" lines. -
>> along with Proto and MAC
>
> If they position it at the same level as Kobalt, I think they'll really
> have something. Decent tools, decent price. All my screwdrivers are
> Kobalt (except for the 4 that are Craftsman), and I guard them! Precision
> Phillips aren't to be destroyed by guys who have been turning screws for
> years, go beat up your own screwdrivers!
>
> I hate the noise of a screwdriver bit slipping in a screw head. Shows the
> operator is screwy in the head.
>
> Puckdropper
>


From what I understand Lowe's handles two levels of tools. Kobalt is
the lower line and I forget the other brand. It is speculated they,
Lowe's, might take on Craftsman and it will be the middle grade brand.

I invested in Wera Screwdrivers, they have laser etched tips and really
grab tightly, even the straight drive ones.

I understand that the Craftsman diamond coated tips hold very well also.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:27:05 -0800, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>
>cannot agree
>
>it is not anymore and that is why sears sold it
>
>
>they made quite a deal
>a win win for sears
>
>900 mil and they can still make money selling the tools
>
>
>
>
>
>
What other brand would someone pay 900 million for??? The brand has
value, whether YOU think so or not. Stanley/ B&D will do very well
with the product line unless they REALLY screw things up (and knowing
B&D that is a very STRONG possibility)

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:49:29 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:39:48 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Of cost isn't your concern, I"m sure you have an all-green workshop,
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>> To my mind, the green brand is a boutique item. Snap-On too. Craftsman
>>> is not. YMMV.
>> So you're saying that cost does concern you.
>
>
>I certainly did not say that, but I concede I have been loyal to the
>brand--as far as hand tools goes.

Now I'm totally confused. First you indicate that it doesn't matter,
then it does, and now it doesn't again. Exactly what *are* you
saying?

>I avoid buying tools at a lower level than Craftsman, even if it costs
>me a few bucks. Whether they charge me $15 or $20 for a wrench, I
>probably won't notice the difference--I'll be in a bigger hurry to get
>back to the reason I bought the wrench in the first place. At least
>they have a very nice selection...and tools I would never have thought
>of (and mostly don't need for the time being). I bought some ratchet
>extensions which "turn corners" not to long ago, just in case I ever
>need them. 1/4, 3/8, and 1/2" for about $15. If I die before I use them
>it will have been a waste of money! ; ) Does it concern me? Not the
>cost...

I don't buy very many tools when I need them - too late, rather when I
see one that may be useful. I may buy specialized plumbing tools
when I have a job coming up but that's about it. Fasteners and such I
keep stock of whatever I may need in the next year. I don't want to
stop what I'm doing for the "lack of a nail".

I don't buy much of anything at Sears anymore (just parts for my
tractor), mainly because there are none around but also because HF
wrenches are just as good and a whole lot cheaper and I was never a
real big fan of any of their other tools (I do have some screwdrivers
and a couple of hammers from 30 and 40 years back). It didn't used to
be that way. For "expendibles" (I can't even count the number of
wrenches I've lost in my lifetime) HF is plenty good. The cost of han
tools matters some but a lot less with power tools. That may sound
backwards but I'm done being stuck with with what I don't really want.
Buying what I really want only hurts once and I can wait.

On 1/15/2017 4:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:18:39 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>
>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>> mediocrity
>>>
>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>
>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor old
>> guarantees/warranties or not.
>>
>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>
>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has legal
>> obligations.
>>
> Depends what they bought. In many cases a company buys the right to
> use the name, and the designs, and possibly other assetts of the
> company, but not the company itself. In the case of Craftsman, I'm
> not sure a Craftsman "company" exists. I believe it is just a "brand"
> owned up until the sale, by Sears.
>
>


I'm pretty certain Craftsman is a company, Sears bought that company
about 92 years ago. ;~)

What all that company manufactures is probably limited. Lawnmowers,
power tools etc is probably just the name like Ridgid ww tools.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>>
>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>>> mediocrity
>>>>
>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>
>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>
>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>
>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>> legal obligations.
>>
>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>> and reorganization?
>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>
>
>
>It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>the warranty.
>As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>received.
Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
changes

Electric Comet wrote:
> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
> decker will all become equally crappy
>
> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete mediocrity

If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?

>
>
> i think sears really made out well selling that for close to a billion
> dollars
>
>
> hf has been and will continue to bite hard into that market space
>
> the same model as ikea cheap and usable
>
> and crappy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Leon wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>
>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>> mediocrity
>>
>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>
> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>
> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>
> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
> legal obligations.

How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
and reorganization?
I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
"loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
have both treated them more charitably than I would have...

[email protected] wrote:
> In many cases a company buys the right to
> use the name, and the designs, and possibly other assets of the
> company, but not the company itself. In the case of Craftsman, I'm
> not sure a Craftsman "company" exists. I believe it is just a "brand"
> owned up until the sale, by Sears.
Well put.
Thanks.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:

> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
> the warranty.

I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it depends
on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
warranties but I don't remember the details.

The problem here is that there's no "money back", there's just
replacement. What if the tool is no longer available or the new owner
drops it from the line?


--
What if a much of a which of a wind gives the truth to summer's lie?

Leon wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>
>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>> mediocrity
>>
>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>
> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>
> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>
> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
> legal obligations.
>

I think this is a good issue to work on after you've protected our
social security benefits from possible default.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>>>> mediocrity
>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>>
>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>>
>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>>> legal obligations.
>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>>> and reorganization?
>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>>
>>
>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>> the warranty.
>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>> received.
> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
> changes

I think it is a fair argument that has already been made that the
company with whom the warranty was created no longer exists. If
someone owes you money, and they die, you can't go back to one of the
family members after probate and make a claim. I'm not a lawyer and
don't know the degree to which that analogy is appropriate.

Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to
>>>> uphold
>>>> the warranty.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it
>>> depends
>>> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
>>> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
>>> warranties but I don't remember the details.
>>
>> Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
>> new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
>> governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
>> not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
>> will/was decided before the sale.
>>
>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>> warranties up to that point.
>
> Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the
> bank saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's
> depositors? LOL!

That's why we have FDIC (insurance).

>
> It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when
> a company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes,
> by law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty
> would be one such debt or liability.
>
>

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 14:13:38 -0500
woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote:

> Don't know if you realize it. But sears/craftsman has been selling
> the evolve line which is HF stuff. But at a higher price. Sometimes
> much higher.

did not know that and did not know about evolve line of tools

now i wonder if sears will continue to sell the tools

i am guessing they will they just won't make them

they will probably make more selling them now then when they made
them

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?

would not have paid that for the name
which is all they did

so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
the craftsman name

it used to mean something a long time ago


sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
sell the tools and make more then they were making

i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
a brain cell

"Electric Comet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 14:13:38 -0500
> woodchucker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don't know if you realize it. But sears/craftsman has been selling
>> the evolve line which is HF stuff. But at a higher price. Sometimes
>> much higher.
>
> did not know that and did not know about evolve line of tools
>
> now i wonder if sears will continue to sell the tools
>
> i am guessing they will they just won't make them
>
> they will probably make more selling them now then when they made
> them

They never made them.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500
[email protected] wrote:

> The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America

cannot agree

it is not anymore and that is why sears sold it


they made quite a deal
a win win for sears

900 mil and they can still make money selling the tools

Electric Comet wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
> would not have paid that for the name
> which is all they did
>
> so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
> the craftsman name
>
> it used to mean something a long time ago

To my mind, it still means something, perhaps more than it should. And,
I suppose, that's what they paid for--a decent amount of "goodwill".




>
>
> sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
> sell the tools and make more then they were making
>
> i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
> a brain cell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:14:51 -0500
"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:

> They never made them.

this deal just keeps getting better and better for sears

but they sold more than the name

they must be selling the designs and molds and any intellectual
properties

Electric Comet wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:14:51 -0500
> "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> They never made them.
> this deal just keeps getting better and better for sears
>
> but they sold more than the name
>
> they must be selling the designs and molds and any intellectual
> properties
>

I'll bet if they knew how much interest there was, that they would post
a copy of their contract here! ; ) Maybe the details are public
(but Stanley, B&D is an closed foreign corp, right?)



>
>
>
>

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:03:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>>>>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>> would not have paid that for the name
>>>>> which is all they did
>>>>>
>>>>> so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>>>>> the craftsman name
>>>>>
>>>>> it used to mean something a long time ago
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>>>>> sell the tools and make more then they were making
>>>>>
>>>>> i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>>>>> a brain cell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>>> that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
>>>> Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
>>>> They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
>>>> the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
>>>> has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
>>>> users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..
>>> "Can" isn't the issue. Sears offered the tools they thought would
>>> make them the most money. I don't see anything changing in that
>>> regard.
>>>
>>> IMO, the pre '80 (varied) hand tools were better than later tools.
>>> The power tools were always the pits. The rebadged ones were, in most
>>> cases, more expensive than their equivaents.
>> The hand tools before 1995 were made BY STANLEY and they were better
>> than the later tools, so STANLEY made Craftsman tools will likely be
>> better quality tools than the latest Craftsman tools.
> I understood the logic but don't agree with it. To come to that
> conclusion you have to assume the quality is determned by who makes
> the tool and has nothing to do with specifications or the price points
> set by Sears.


I think from the perspective of most folks, and myself, "quality" has to
do with how well a tool lives up to doing what it is supposed to do,
without falling apart or breaking along the way. We don't really give a
dern what the specifications say and price has little to do with the
matter either. The tool either satisfies or it doesn't. Admittedly,
I've got a couple of Craftsman tools that were disappointing, out of the
box.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:58:14 -0500
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

> post a copy of their contract here! ; ) Maybe the details are
> public (but Stanley, B&D is an closed foreign corp, right?)

dunno anything about them

both are publically traded

swk and shld so the info is out there

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:07:05 -0500
[email protected] wrote:

> Sears NEVER made Craftsman tools. All they did is design (specify) and
> sell them. Not a lot will change at Sears as far as Craftsman Tools
> is concerned, at the store level.

semantics

sears does not do manufacturing

[email protected] wrote:
> Of cost isn't your concern, I"m sure you have an all-green workshop,
> right?
>

That's not a fair comparison, I have mostly-all-Craftsman tool boxes (I
keep English and metric separate).

[email protected] wrote:
> Of cost isn't your concern, I"m sure you have an all-green workshop,
> right?
>

To my mind, the green brand is a boutique item. Snap-On too. Craftsman
is not. YMMV.

wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:26:31 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:03:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>>>>>Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>>
>>>>>would not have paid that for the name
>>>>>which is all they did
>>>>>
>>>>>so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>>>>>the craftsman name
>>>>>
>>>>>it used to mean something a long time ago
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>>>>>sell the tools and make more then they were making
>>>>>
>>>>>i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>>>>>a brain cell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>>>that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
>>>>Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
>>>>They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
>>>>the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
>>>>has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
>>>>users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..
>>>
>>>"Can" isn't the issue. Sears offered the tools they thought would
>>>make them the most money. I don't see anything changing in that
>>>regard.
>>>
>>>IMO, the pre '80 (varied) hand tools were better than later tools.
>>>The power tools were always the pits. The rebadged ones were, in most
>>>cases, more expensive than their equivaents.
>> The hand tools before 1995 were made BY STANLEY and they were better
>>than the later tools, so STANLEY made Craftsman tools will likely be
>>better quality tools than the latest Craftsman tools.
>
>I understood the logic but don't agree with it. To come to that
>conclusion you have to assume the quality is determned by who makes
>the tool and has nothing to do with specifications or the price points
>set by Sears.
>>>>> Sears gave the same specs to Danaher as they gave to Stanley - and
>>>>>Stanley likely exceded the specs. Most of the Danaher production is
>>>>>off-shore - as is a fair amount of Stanley's production.

According to the news story in the paper about the purchase, Stanley plans
to add manufacturing capacity in the US for the Craftsman tools.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:39:48 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Of cost isn't your concern, I"m sure you have an all-green workshop,
>>> right?
>>>
>> To my mind, the green brand is a boutique item. Snap-On too. Craftsman
>> is not. YMMV.
> So you're saying that cost does concern you.


I certainly did not say that, but I concede I have been loyal to the
brand--as far as hand tools goes.
I avoid buying tools at a lower level than Craftsman, even if it costs
me a few bucks. Whether they charge me $15 or $20 for a wrench, I
probably won't notice the difference--I'll be in a bigger hurry to get
back to the reason I bought the wrench in the first place. At least
they have a very nice selection...and tools I would never have thought
of (and mostly don't need for the time being). I bought some ratchet
extensions which "turn corners" not to long ago, just in case I ever
need them. 1/4, 3/8, and 1/2" for about $15. If I die before I use them
it will have been a waste of money! ; ) Does it concern me? Not the
cost...

On 1/15/2017 8:59 PM, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>>>>> mediocrity
>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>>>> legal obligations.
>>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>>>> and reorganization?
>>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>>>
>>>
>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>>> the warranty.
>>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>>> received.
>> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
>> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
>> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
>> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
>> changes
>
> I think it is a fair argument that has already been made that the
> company with whom the warranty was created no longer exists. If
> someone owes you money, and they die, you can't go back to one of the
> family members after probate and make a claim. I'm not a lawyer and
> don't know the degree to which that analogy is appropriate.
>

That is totally different, going after family members is totally
different unless they were all in business together.
Further, if family members are to inherit from a will, that is very
often subject to happening after the cure of all contractual debts up to
totally liquidating the deceased assets.

For example if you are in your parents will to inherit their home after
their death and there is an outstanding mortgage, you have to pay
off/cure that mortgage before taking possession of that home. Nor are
you obligated to cure that mortgage if you have no interest/desire in
keeping the home. Typically you sell the home and pay off the mortgage
if the home can be sold for more than the outstanding debt and fees.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:10:12 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:22:48 -0500, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <h5lo7cl6aikmvmihqjfelrl61l30tj8orm@
>>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:35:15 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 1/15/2017 8:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> >>>> Leon wrote:
>>> >>>>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> >>>>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>> >>>>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>> >>>>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>> >>>>>>> mediocrity
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>>> >>>>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>>> >>>>> legal obligations.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
>>> >>>> and reorganization?
>>> >>>> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
>>> >>>> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
>>> >>>> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
>>> >>>> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
>>> >>>> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
>>> >>>> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
>>> >>>> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
>>> >>>> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
>>> >>>> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
>>> >>>> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>> >>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
>>> >>> the warranty.
>>> >>> As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
>>> >>> simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
>>> >>> received.
>>> >> Except they cannot unilaterally change the requirements for the
>>> >> warranty, and no "copy of the warranty" was recieved wit the tools at
>>> >> purchace, other than "lifetime warranty" on the packaging - which I,
>>> >> for one, have not kept for 48 years over numerous moves and life
>>> >> changes
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Exactly, that would be their out. But I have photo copied packaging
>>> >showing the warranty in the even that this comes up. Much easier to do
>>> >now than in the past.
>>> Virtually impossible in 1968/69.
>>
>>What, photocopying packaging? Maybe you didn't
>>work anywhere that there was a Xerox but a lot
>>of people did.
>>
>We had Thermofax. The school in 1973 had a spitit duplicator. Try
>copying the warranty off the label of a set of tools with that. You
>could take a picture. Mabee even a polaroid, which will have faded to
>un-readable by now.
Make that spitit duplicater a SPIRIT duplicator.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:15:08 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:03:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:01:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>>>>>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>>>>> would not have paid that for the name
>>>>>> which is all they did
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>>>>>> the craftsman name
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it used to mean something a long time ago
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>>>>>> sell the tools and make more then they were making
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>>>>>> a brain cell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>>>> that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
>>>>> Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
>>>>> They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
>>>>> the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
>>>>> has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
>>>>> users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..
>>>> "Can" isn't the issue. Sears offered the tools they thought would
>>>> make them the most money. I don't see anything changing in that
>>>> regard.
>>>>
>>>> IMO, the pre '80 (varied) hand tools were better than later tools.
>>>> The power tools were always the pits. The rebadged ones were, in most
>>>> cases, more expensive than their equivaents.
>>> The hand tools before 1995 were made BY STANLEY and they were better
>>> than the later tools, so STANLEY made Craftsman tools will likely be
>>> better quality tools than the latest Craftsman tools.
>> I understood the logic but don't agree with it. To come to that
>> conclusion you have to assume the quality is determned by who makes
>> the tool and has nothing to do with specifications or the price points
>> set by Sears.
>
>
>I think from the perspective of most folks, and myself, "quality" has to
>do with how well a tool lives up to doing what it is supposed to do,
>without falling apart or breaking along the way. We don't really give a
>dern what the specifications say and price has little to do with the
>matter either. The tool either satisfies or it doesn't. Admittedly,
>I've got a couple of Craftsman tools that were disappointing, out of the
>box.

There's a lot in that paragraph, but...

The specification is what directs the manufacturer how to make the
quality (or not so) tool. It has everything to do with its
performance and durability.

Of cost isn't your concern, I"m sure you have an all-green workshop,
right?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:44:45 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/16/2017 7:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:27:05 -0800, Electric Comet
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:12:10 -0500
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
>>>
>>> cannot agree
>>>
>>> it is not anymore and that is why sears sold it
>>
>> Wrong. Sears needed *cash*.
>
>I would say there was plenty of value if all they had to sell was the
>ability to use the name. And they can still sell the product so they
>are not loosing sales with the sale of the name. It's simply that
>Stanley now gets to make some profit on the sales of Craftsman tools.

Right, Sears gets $900M today for a hamburger Tuesday.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> they made quite a deal
>>> a win win for sears
>>>
>>> 900 mil and they can still make money selling the tools
>>
>> Like most sales, it's probably a win for both sides.
>>
>
>This will be interesting to see. Stanly still has to manufacture or pay
>some one to manufacture the tools, and they are out 900 mil.
>On top of that Sears is probably the largest retailer of Craftsman
>tools, if they go out of business there is a lot of slack that will need
>to be taken up.

Sure, but it's apparent that Stanley thinks the name will make that
money back, and more. Perhaps they think they can drive the cost of
tools back to where they once were?

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:40:07 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Leon wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>
>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>> mediocrity
>>>
>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>
>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>
>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>
>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>> legal obligations.
>>
>
>I think this is a good issue to work on after you've protected our
>social security benefits from possible default.

And out of left field comes a whistling fast ball.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:39:48 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Of cost isn't your concern, I"m sure you have an all-green workshop,
>> right?
>>
>
>To my mind, the green brand is a boutique item. Snap-On too. Craftsman
>is not. YMMV.

So you're saying that cost does concern you.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:32:57 -0800, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>they must be selling the designs and molds and any intellectual
>properties

The molds would be made of sand and binder, so nothing to sell there.
The patterns are limited in the number of molds you will make, not
likely to economic the ship them any where.

Nope all the Sears has to sell is the Craftsman name, they are already
selling the wrenchs, rachets sets through Ace hardware and others.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:55:55 -0800, Electric Comet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:20:58 -0500
>Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>
>would not have paid that for the name
>which is all they did
>
>so i cannot enter the mindset of an idiot that paid 900 mil for
>the craftsman name
>
>it used to mean something a long time ago
>
>
>sears must be laughing their butt off and now they will continue to
>sell the tools and make more then they were making
>
>i am surprised they pulled it off because i did not think sears had
>a brain cell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Craftsman name is one of the most valuable brands in North America
that Stanley did not already own. They didn't stand a chance of buing
Snap-On and they already own or produce most of the rest.
They produced Craftsman up untill at least the mid '90s so they know
the market - - - - They CAN make a better Craftsman tool than Danaher
has been making for the last roughly 20 years, as according to most
users the pre-'95 Craftsman tools were better than the later ones..

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:50:33 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 1/15/2017 5:13 PM, Bill wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> In many cases a company buys the right to
>>> use the name, and the designs, and possibly other assets of the
>>> company, but not the company itself. In the case of Craftsman, I'm
>>> not sure a Craftsman "company" exists. I believe it is just a "brand"
>>> owned up until the sale, by Sears.
>> Well put.
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>
>But, Craftsman did exist as a tool company before Sears bought. It may
>still exist.
The original company that sold Sears the rights to the name is LONG
gone.

On 1/15/2017 10:36 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 21:55:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2017 9:40 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to
>>>>>> uphold
>>>>>> the warranty.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it
>>>>> depends
>>>>> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
>>>>> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
>>>>> warranties but I don't remember the details.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
>>>> new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
>>>> governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
>>>> not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
>>>> will/was decided before the sale.
>>>>
>>>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>>>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>>>> warranties up to that point.
>>>
>>> Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the bank
>>> saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's depositors? LOL!
>>
>> I suspect this did happen in the past, pre depression era time. But
>> there are regulations that prevent this and in the case of default, FDIC.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It's one thing when a company goes under, another thing entirely when a
>>> company sells it's interests. The purchasing company also assumes, by
>>> law, the liabilities and debts of that company and the warranty would be
>>> one such debt or liability.
>>
>> Yes, but the new owner does not necessarily have to assume the liability
>> on past sales, know as the warranty. But some one does, and that may be
>> a required acquisition of a third party insurance to cover that detail.
>
> Not necessarily. In a banruptcy, the assets may be sold off without
> selling the company itself and any liabilities killed with the
> business. It's not only the debtors that get screwed.

The conversation is about the sale of Craftsman and the liabilities that
go with it, not bankruptcy.

On 1/15/2017 5:12 PM, Bill wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 3:20 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Electric Comet wrote:
>>>> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
>>>> decker will all become equally crappy
>>>>
>>>> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
>>>> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete
>>>> mediocrity
>>>
>>> If you just spent 900 million on the company, what would you do?
>>
>> What you paid for a company has nothing to do with whether you honor
>> old guarantees/warranties or not.
>>
>> You may or may not be obligated to honor those warranties.
>>
>> You are simply the new owner of the company, the company still has
>> legal obligations.
>
> How do you think that the shareholders of S felt after the bankruptcy
> and reorganization?
> I would suppose that any legal liability for old tools would have ended
> there. The new owner may feel it is in there best interest to maintain
> the warranties, but they may also not. My point was that as the new
> owner, I think you get to "call the tune", especially on a tools sold
> before the reorganization--which represents almost "pure liability" to
> you (I am not a lawyer). How about those folks who collect old tools
> and turn them in for new ones? They are angle shooters, and, IMO,
> everyone deserves protection from people who would seek to profit from
> "loopholes" (that are "out of the spirit" of the warranty). S and SHLD
> have both treated them more charitably than I would have...
>


It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to uphold
the warranty.
As far as people taking advantage of the warranty, Craftsman could
simply ask for proof of purchase or a copy of the warranty that they
received.

On 1/15/2017 5:13 PM, Bill wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> In many cases a company buys the right to
>> use the name, and the designs, and possibly other assets of the
>> company, but not the company itself. In the case of Craftsman, I'm
>> not sure a Craftsman "company" exists. I believe it is just a "brand"
>> owned up until the sale, by Sears.
> Well put.
> Thanks.
>


But, Craftsman did exist as a tool company before Sears bought. It may
still exist.

On 1/15/2017 10:04 PM, Bill wrote:
> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> On 1/15/2017 9:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 1/15/2017 7:16 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:48:10 -0600, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It all has to do with the details of what they buy but unless the
>>>>> company simply disappears some one is still going to be liable to
>>>>> uphold
>>>>> the warranty.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that's necessarily true, Leon. As someone said, it
>>>> depends
>>>> on the terms of the sale. I do remember reading about one or two
>>>> corporate sales where the seller kept the responsibility for old
>>>> warranties but I don't remember the details.
>>>
>>> Absolutely and I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. Arbitrarily the
>>> new owner cannot just decide to stop honoring the warranty, it will be
>>> governed by the terms of the agreement/sale. The new owner may or may
>>> not have to honor the new warranty depending on the agreement. That
>>> will/was decided before the sale.
>>>
>>> If their, the new owners, acquisition does not require them to honor the
>>> warranty, I suspect that Sears will have to continue to honor the
>>> warranties up to that point.
>>
>> Sort of like a bank being sold and the banking company selling the
>> bank saying the new owners don't have to pay the former bank's
>> depositors? LOL!
>
> That's why we have FDIC (insurance).

No, FDIC does not cover that. FDIC covers depositors in the event that
the bank defaults. Bank regulations prevent a bank from buying another
and refusing give the depositors their money.

On 1/15/2017 1:34 PM, Electric Comet wrote:
>
> birds of a feather flock together so now craftsman stanley and black
> decker will all become equally crappy
>
> but i wonder if the craftsman tools with lifetime guarantee will still
> be honored or will they just throw that out and go for complete mediocrity
>
>
> i think sears really made out well selling that for close to a billion
> dollars
>
>
> hf has been and will continue to bite hard into that market space
>
> the same model as ikea cheap and usable
>
> and crappy
>
>

Don't know if you realize it. But sears/craftsman has been selling the
evolve line which is HF stuff. But at a higher price. Sometimes much higher.


--
Jeff

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus