EAP86
Excellent observations. Had the case proceeded on the quality of product charge, and if M-B had chosen to defend themselves, there would have been much commonality in the defence to both charges. One being that the seat was serviced to an illegal / rogue Routine Technical Instruction, devised and issued by MoD and in breach of every know regulation. The fact is, by its own admission MoD was well aware of the information it claims M-B did not provide, and did not incorporate it in the RTI or, it seems, training.