idiotwithasaw
another row to hoe
get em Bob! I would say you have probably been on daves side of the deal a few times.This is the key point here. Not so much what caused the failure, but the fact that there is a repeat failure.
Failure #2 looks just like failure #1, doesn't it? So, whatever took out the original cylinder can reasonably be assumed to have taken out the second. So as has been said, this is really on the customer. One failure, you could question the parts. Two failures you have to look at something else. And this guy failed to do that, and he, not Dave, should have to pay for his own mistake.
Good for business? Yes, it is IMO. Why should Dave eat the guys mistake? Think a Husky or Stihl dealer can get a free top end without being able to identify why the first one failed? Think I could get a second one from Husky still not knowing why they are failing? And this guy wants to stick a THIRD one on there?