Re: [Leica] More on my dealer: this is important to me

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

If I understand correctly, you bought a used (although described as mint)
camera from a dealer you knew was not an official Leica dealer. There was no
warranty of any kind agreed upon as part of the transaction. The camera
worked fine when you purchased it and only thereafter developed what at
first was an intermittent problem.You didn't notify the dealer right away
that there was a problem, but waited about five weeks to do so.

While it might be good business on the dealer's part to offer to help you
out, I don't think you have any legal recourse. It doesn't sound like the
dealer misrepresented his product or made any assurances to you that he
hasn't fulfilled. Mechanical things can break down. You chose to purchase a
camera without a warranty. If the camera was defective when you bought it,
things might be different, but your original post made it sound as though
the camera worked perfectly when you took it out of the store. If you expect
the dealer to pay for the repair, I think you also have some obligation to
notify him as soon as you have a problem.

"Outing" this dealer here as being dishonest or disreputable might make you
feel better, but strikes me as smearing him for not agreeing to do something
he never agreed to do in the first place.

Whether it seems that way or not, a warranty (especially on a used item) is
reflected in the price you pay for the item. There are dealers who warranty
their used equipment, but they usually charge more than those who don't. If
you don't pay for a warranty, you don't get it.

Just my .02

Bryan




- ----- Original Message -----
From: "gregor samsa" <gregor...samsa@usa.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 2:49 PM
Subject: [Leica] More on my dealer: this is important to me


> Okay, to recap (last few paragraphs are certified fresh material):
>
> Nathan believes that the dealer should fix or refund the purchase price
even
> if he's not legally obligated to do so, and he thinks that "mint" implies
> mechanical perfection. Obviously I'm sympathetic to his opinion.
Additionally,
> he would like me to name names - this I'm conflicted about. More about
this
> later.
>
> brougham3@yahoo.com, like Nathan, thinks that there's at least an ethical
> imperative for the dealer to make right. He, too, would like names named.
>
> Andrew's situation sounds similar to mine, and his solution to just walk
away
> from the problem is always tempting for someone like me who hates
conflict.
>
> John has solid advice for everyone, if perhaps irrelevant to my situation.
He
> then makes the observation that this is a (type of) problem which even a
> conscientious dealer could not have spotted, and that it must have come as
a
> surprise to him, too. Absolutely my thoughts, indeed, and I had said as
much
> to the dealer already. (A good place to interject a side note: our
> conversation was of the one-sided variety wherein I worked to find some
middle
> ground - because it's in my best interests - and he maintained, first,
that I
> hadn't bought the camera from him, and then when that tack failed, that
I've
> damaged the camera somehow. In other words he went after my integrity full
> bore; more on THAT later, also. I left these and a couple of other details
out
> of the original post because I don't want sympathy - sympathy won't help
find
> a resolution - I want your collective experience.)
>
> John thinks splitting the repair cost would be equitable. Less
advantageous to
> me but it doesn't sound unreasonable. However, one small quibble on an
> irrelevant detail: even if he picks up the full cost of the repair, he'll
> still make a profit (I know what he paid for the camera on eBay). John's
> following post intones, "Good service costs money to provide. If we insist
on
> the lowest price we should not be surprised with poor service." Again,
alas,
> an irrelevant assumption. I didn't, unfortunately, insist on the lowest
price.
> (And since when is it the buyer's responsibility to price the dealer's
goods
> for him?) Had it been a bargain too good to be true, I'd go ahead and get
it
> repaired and figure it's just the Karmic wheel in motion.
>
> John also makes the excellent point (and Andrew seconds it and throws in
some
> cash to sweeten the deal) that a relationship takes goodwill and work (and
I'd
> add time) to develop; precisely my approach here. In fact, I think I might
be
> soliciting advice from complete strangers (the LUG) because I'm absolutely
> stumped about how to proceed with a dealer who has no interest at all in
> developing a relationship.
>
> Steve wants the dealer outed (is it PC for me to say it that way?) .
>
> Lea's response (which is qualitatively different in that it makes me feel
> understood) was that the dealer should pay one-half if not all of the
repair
> cost. At this point, I could go either way.  She also points out that
credit
> cards offer legal protections. Unfortunately, and here's yet another
mistake
> for all to learn from, I used PayPal because I had  a balance looking for
a
> home.
>
> Emanuel, well. . . . Why do I get the feeling that Emanuel's a dealer? I
> apologize if I'm jumping (or leaning) to a conclusion.  It's just that,
well,
> the ad hominem attack as a response to a sincere solicitation for advice
on a
> difficult situation reminds me of . . . the dealer in question.  If you
are a
> dealer, why don't you give me the dealer's perspective? That could be a
big
> help.  If you're not a dealer, big public apologies.
>
> Emanuel wrote, "Perhaps this 'Gregor Samsa' could reveal his own real name
> first, before telling us who the offending dealer is?" Does that mean you
want
> me to name the dealer (as long as the proper sequence is followed)?  I'll
just
> say, Emanuel, you know not whereof you speak, and leave it at that. (Guy's
> post went over my head).
>
> Which brings me to those two related issues, naming names and buyer's and
> seller's integrity. In the heat of the moment it is a tempting tool, given
the
> reach of the Internet, to use smear tactics as a form of revenge for an
> unresolved transaction gone wrong. However, as anyone who's used eBay's
> feedback system has quickly come to understand, any harsh words can be
> reciprocated in kind, if not worse. And the truth is impossible to
ascertain
> with certainty given nothing more substantial than words on a screen.
While I
> naturally have considerable faith in my version of the events, nothing can
> stop the dealer (or anyone, even an unsympathetic fellow LUGnut) from
posting
> scurrilous lies about me, my integrity, my parents' sense of humor, or my
> ex-wife's net worth (rare attempt at levity). Let's all just see how this
> works out. I'd love to be able to report a happy ending.
>
> In the meantime, I'd welcome more advice. Let me sweeten the pot. As I was
> reviewing the sequence of exchanged emails with the dealer I came across
this:
> "Buying Leica from a non-knowledgeable person can be very risky. About 1/2
of
> the Leica items we buy on E-Bay are not as advertised and are a
disappointment
> (sic). We know what we are doing and Guarantee that you will receive a
camera
> that is perfect in function, has not been dropped/repaired and will
provide
> many happy years of service." Does that sound like a binding
> guaranty/warranty?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Gregor
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>
>