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

[gregor samsa <gregor...samsa@usa.net>]

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