Drivetrain The customer is always (?) right
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
From: Mission Hills, California
The customer is always (?) right
Originally Posted by Tuls
the customer is alwasy right!
Not in todays world.
This is why the disclaimer was invented.
Dave
EDIT BY DiD: This thread was split off of another discussion. It was not started by this poster, that's just the post I picked to start the split from. I also titled this thread at the time of the split.
Last edited by dave; Dec 3, 2004 at 06:53 AM.
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
Originally Posted by D1JL
Now that's a laugh.
Not in todays world.
This is why the disclaimer was invented.
Dave
Not in todays world.
This is why the disclaimer was invented.
Dave
Temporarily Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,382
Likes: 2
From: Denver
This is the truth from my experience:
I have always been of the mentality that the customer is always right. I tried running my business that way, and I've found that some folks will take advantage of that - trying multiple products and returning things that are OK, not paying for things they received with bad checks or cards, etc. The sad story is that there are some bad guys out there, and their motives aren't always out in the open to start with. That makes it tough to follow the philosophy of "the customer is always right". What I try to employ is more of a "the customer is presumed right unless it is completely unreasonable". I am the most leanient guy when it comes to the definition of what is reasonable too!
I hope that illustrates the point clearly.
Randy
I have always been of the mentality that the customer is always right. I tried running my business that way, and I've found that some folks will take advantage of that - trying multiple products and returning things that are OK, not paying for things they received with bad checks or cards, etc. The sad story is that there are some bad guys out there, and their motives aren't always out in the open to start with. That makes it tough to follow the philosophy of "the customer is always right". What I try to employ is more of a "the customer is presumed right unless it is completely unreasonable". I am the most leanient guy when it comes to the definition of what is reasonable too!
I hope that illustrates the point clearly.
Randy
6th Gear
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 2
From: a canyon, south Bay Area
The philosphy that "the customer is always right" worked beautifully for many years, with virtually no exceptions. Many now believe that it no longer applies, at least to the same degree. As Randy says above very nicely, it must now be qualified, at least if one wants to avoid abusive treatment...
Having worked in customer service for 10+ years, including the set-up of a customer service dept, and now serving as a relationship mgr for several major clients, I can safely say that this philosophy or approach forever changed when this once well-kept "secret" became common knowledge to all, namely the customers...
As an analogy, I'm visualizing a gal verbally and even physically abusing a guy... She is doing so simply because she learned that the "bozo" won't retaliate; he's been taught not to, and she knows it. When some folks learn what they can get away with, they will try, and then some. I'm not saying to drop the bitsh, but stand-up! Vendors need to also...
We (my employer) has to say "no" to multi-million dollar customers daily (unfortunately), and while it's a last resort, it's a business decision, and one that some customers have admitted saying they respect. They hinted that they were pushing us to our limits because it was contract renewal time (thinking we would be more lenient to get their signature). It's a game... be kind, play by the rules, but play hard baby
.
Having worked in customer service for 10+ years, including the set-up of a customer service dept, and now serving as a relationship mgr for several major clients, I can safely say that this philosophy or approach forever changed when this once well-kept "secret" became common knowledge to all, namely the customers...
As an analogy, I'm visualizing a gal verbally and even physically abusing a guy... She is doing so simply because she learned that the "bozo" won't retaliate; he's been taught not to, and she knows it. When some folks learn what they can get away with, they will try, and then some. I'm not saying to drop the bitsh, but stand-up! Vendors need to also...
We (my employer) has to say "no" to multi-million dollar customers daily (unfortunately), and while it's a last resort, it's a business decision, and one that some customers have admitted saying they respect. They hinted that they were pushing us to our limits because it was contract renewal time (thinking we would be more lenient to get their signature). It's a game... be kind, play by the rules, but play hard baby
.
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
Originally Posted by RandyBMC
This is the truth from my experience:
I have always been of the mentality that the customer is always right. I tried running my business that way, and I've found that some folks will take advantage of that - trying multiple products and returning things that are OK, not paying for things they received with bad checks or cards, etc. The sad story is that there are some bad guys out there, and their motives aren't always out in the open to start with. That makes it tough to follow the philosophy of "the customer is always right". What I try to employ is more of a "the customer is presumed right unless it is completely unreasonable". I am the most leanient guy when it comes to the definition of what is reasonable too!
I hope that illustrates the point clearly.
Randy
I have always been of the mentality that the customer is always right. I tried running my business that way, and I've found that some folks will take advantage of that - trying multiple products and returning things that are OK, not paying for things they received with bad checks or cards, etc. The sad story is that there are some bad guys out there, and their motives aren't always out in the open to start with. That makes it tough to follow the philosophy of "the customer is always right". What I try to employ is more of a "the customer is presumed right unless it is completely unreasonable". I am the most leanient guy when it comes to the definition of what is reasonable too!
I hope that illustrates the point clearly.
Randy
Temporarily Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,382
Likes: 2
From: Denver
Actually it does - Peter and the customer came to an agreement for a refund, yet the customer was still disgruntled. It seems to me Peter did everything the customer wanted, but was still shafted after giving opportunity for the customer to voice his requests. How far should Peter have gone? That's the question I have - what could he have possibly done to make it right, and is that a reasonable request?
Randy
Randy
6th Gear
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,253
Likes: 0
From: NY NY
this instance does raise some important questions about product liability, vendor and OEM responsibility.
i think the issue for CP is that he feels he was put out much more than simply the cost of the kit. Install and de-install costs, time and trouble, etc.
So the question is, how far does the vendor responsibility go? a couple of examples:
you buy an installed 15% pulley at a pulley party. through some quirk of fate, the pulley is defective, but no-one spots it, resulting in the car throwing a belt on the highway while you're on a vacation. You need to get towed and a belt replaced at the nearest dealer and it costs you $750 out of pocket. What happens then? Should you just get your $400 pulley and install $ back, or does the vendor responsibility extend more?
Same thing, but higher stakes: you have a lightweight flywheel put in and it fails, now the out of pocket can get up considerably more.
Same thing, but now the big brake kit pops a hose, the car gets into a fender bender trying to come to a safe stop...maybe there are injuries, etc. Vendor, OEM, installer all get into finger pointing.
you get the idea. some parts, even though relatively inexpensive could potentially involve much greater risk of damage costs. Contol arms, for example. how would you like to snap one of those at 75mph?
In my business, I pay $20,000 per year for $2Mil liability insurance specifically to cover these sorts of issues. If I make a product and it fails, everyone in the chain can get sued for any losses. The insurance is there so that if is determined to be my fault, $ will be available.
I think internet sales have allowed many businesses to start up so easily that I doubt most of them have any insurance. But considering that these vehicles are going to be used on the highways, where does the requirement for liability protection get addressed, not just in terms of the buyer's car repairs, but of possible injury to others.
another example:
control arm snaps, you plow into a Mercedes, causing him $40,000 damage, and you total your car. no-one injured. It is deemd your fault by the CHP. you don't have collison insurance; your auto liability carrier rules that your hot-rod parts install voids their coverage. You will get sued for the 40k plus legal fees and are out your 25k mini. So you turnaround and sue "Mini-PartsO" (pseudo) who sold you the arms, but he is just a phone jockey operating out of his basement and decides to go out of business in the face of a 65K plus lawsuit, so you go to the OEM who "made" the arms, call it B and B Tuning; they pass the lawsuit up the chain to the machine shop that actually threaded the arms' connectors, but he claims your installer cross threaded the arm putting it in. A nasty story, eh?
i think the issue for CP is that he feels he was put out much more than simply the cost of the kit. Install and de-install costs, time and trouble, etc.
So the question is, how far does the vendor responsibility go? a couple of examples:
you buy an installed 15% pulley at a pulley party. through some quirk of fate, the pulley is defective, but no-one spots it, resulting in the car throwing a belt on the highway while you're on a vacation. You need to get towed and a belt replaced at the nearest dealer and it costs you $750 out of pocket. What happens then? Should you just get your $400 pulley and install $ back, or does the vendor responsibility extend more?
Same thing, but higher stakes: you have a lightweight flywheel put in and it fails, now the out of pocket can get up considerably more.
Same thing, but now the big brake kit pops a hose, the car gets into a fender bender trying to come to a safe stop...maybe there are injuries, etc. Vendor, OEM, installer all get into finger pointing.
you get the idea. some parts, even though relatively inexpensive could potentially involve much greater risk of damage costs. Contol arms, for example. how would you like to snap one of those at 75mph?
In my business, I pay $20,000 per year for $2Mil liability insurance specifically to cover these sorts of issues. If I make a product and it fails, everyone in the chain can get sued for any losses. The insurance is there so that if is determined to be my fault, $ will be available.
I think internet sales have allowed many businesses to start up so easily that I doubt most of them have any insurance. But considering that these vehicles are going to be used on the highways, where does the requirement for liability protection get addressed, not just in terms of the buyer's car repairs, but of possible injury to others.
another example:
control arm snaps, you plow into a Mercedes, causing him $40,000 damage, and you total your car. no-one injured. It is deemd your fault by the CHP. you don't have collison insurance; your auto liability carrier rules that your hot-rod parts install voids their coverage. You will get sued for the 40k plus legal fees and are out your 25k mini. So you turnaround and sue "Mini-PartsO" (pseudo) who sold you the arms, but he is just a phone jockey operating out of his basement and decides to go out of business in the face of a 65K plus lawsuit, so you go to the OEM who "made" the arms, call it B and B Tuning; they pass the lawsuit up the chain to the machine shop that actually threaded the arms' connectors, but he claims your installer cross threaded the arm putting it in. A nasty story, eh?
Trending Topics
pug poo picker-upper
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,803
Likes: 30
From: California
Thread Split
This thread has been split out of the M7 "beware" thread. The issue of whether the customer is always right probably deserves to have it's own discussion and not just be a side issue to the other thread.
Last edited by dave; Dec 3, 2004 at 08:14 AM.
6th Gear
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 6
From: Lansdale, PA
Customers are wrong ... a lot. IMHO, the best idea is to make your guarantee and/or warranty very clear from the outset so that the customer knows what he is getting into. Policies of "no questions asked, return for any reason at any time" just encourage misbehavior. I've wondered about the LL Bean - style policy of returns (you can return boots your grandfather wore out in 1921 for a refund or exchange). They must anticipate a certain amount of abuse of that policy, but figure that it is outweighed by good word of mouth, etc.
4th Gear
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
From: Gurnee, IL
I do not agree that the customer is always right, but they are always the customer. Everything should be done, within reason, to make the customer happy. The bad part is when what the customer wants is unreasonable.
I have always taken the position that a company is in business to make money, and if I do things to hurt that company, they may go out of business and that will be one less place for me to make purchases.
I have no problem with a business making a reasonable profit on my purchases. I do have a problem with a company that will not stand behind their products or have excessively high prices. If I come across a company like that, then I choose not to do business with them. If enough people do this, the company will either change their polices or go out of business.
Eventually, it will work out.
I have always taken the position that a company is in business to make money, and if I do things to hurt that company, they may go out of business and that will be one less place for me to make purchases.
I have no problem with a business making a reasonable profit on my purchases. I do have a problem with a company that will not stand behind their products or have excessively high prices. If I come across a company like that, then I choose not to do business with them. If enough people do this, the company will either change their polices or go out of business.
Eventually, it will work out.
4th Gear
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
I wish the world would switch to more of an "Acceptable Risk" policy. As a consumer I put most of the blame on myself if things go wrong and accept the risks I am taking buy putting aftermarket parts on my car. Although I do all my own installations so that puts more responsibility on myself.
As far as I'm concerned the Manufacturer/Supplier should only be responsible for replancement/refund of the defective part. Everything else is my resposibility since I "Accept the Risk" when installing aftermarket parts even if the part doesn't work at all on any car... Should have been my responsibility to to more homework before buying the part.
Now if I pay an installer and he installs the part incorrectly and creates a problem then we have another issue. The installer should be responsible for the damage he has done if proven than it was his fault and assuming the part wasn't defective.
If you apply this to the M7 situation.... The product works and has been proven to work. The product didn't work on this particular car and no one knows why. M7 should be responsible to replace/refund the product that didn't work but nothing more. We still don't know if the installer messed up or the car was to blame. Either way the consumer in this case should be responsible for the extra costs if he so chooses to abort the upgrade or plow ahead and find a solution to the problem with his car and/or it's installation and that is between him and the installer and not the Vendor.
My $.02
As far as I'm concerned the Manufacturer/Supplier should only be responsible for replancement/refund of the defective part. Everything else is my resposibility since I "Accept the Risk" when installing aftermarket parts even if the part doesn't work at all on any car... Should have been my responsibility to to more homework before buying the part.
Now if I pay an installer and he installs the part incorrectly and creates a problem then we have another issue. The installer should be responsible for the damage he has done if proven than it was his fault and assuming the part wasn't defective.
If you apply this to the M7 situation.... The product works and has been proven to work. The product didn't work on this particular car and no one knows why. M7 should be responsible to replace/refund the product that didn't work but nothing more. We still don't know if the installer messed up or the car was to blame. Either way the consumer in this case should be responsible for the extra costs if he so chooses to abort the upgrade or plow ahead and find a solution to the problem with his car and/or it's installation and that is between him and the installer and not the Vendor.
My $.02
4th Gear
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
From: temple city, CA
i think that nowadays, the customer is more wrong than right. with people trying to outsmart the vendor in some way, by getting something free, or refunded because they simply did not like the product. times are not like before where the customers were always super loyal and honest,i am not saying that all people are not loyal, but a lot more than before
my .02
my .02
4th Gear
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Oh, I would agree with that. I know some people who don't think twice about picking something up at the store, using it and then returing it... I always seem to pick that product back up off the shelf and get it home and find out it's been used... I hate that! 
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
Originally Posted by RandyBMC
Actually it does - Peter and the customer came to an agreement for a refund, yet the customer was still disgruntled. It seems to me Peter did everything the customer wanted, but was still shafted after giving opportunity for the customer to voice his requests. How far should Peter have gone? That's the question I have - what could he have possibly done to make it right, and is that a reasonable request?
Randy
Randy
Randy, do you work with peter? If so I have to say you are Bias in this situation...
I am not saying Peter is 100% wrong here either...I am a firm beliver that everyone should take responcability for thier part....
Also, this is a small comunity here...we mini folk...this is not some random guy from china...this is someone who took his car to PETERs recommended installer....did a few fixes that peter recommended and the product still didn't work...at that point I too would want a full refund for the product and shipping...not the install/uninstall...That is the duty of a good customer service rep....
I have learn as a vendor to be wary and protect my self...but in the end it is my job to make the consumer happy...if you didn't want to deal with that customer...then you should have sold them goods...
ofcourse tha'ts what this post is about...who isn't jaded...who isn;t trying to screw the customer...and who isn't trying to screw vendors...LOL....I will not be jaded...
I will continue to care about my customers and be loyal to vendors that deserve it...
and well just be honest
6th Gear
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 6
From: Lansdale, PA
Originally Posted by mlebeau
Spoken like a true Ross-Tech employee. No offense. 
-mike
-mike
6th Gear
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta/Amsterdam
I think the customer is always right, sadly is not applying much anymore. It wasn't too long ago that people showed Policeman respect, now they curse them, spit on them and do other things for very minor offenses. These same people do the same sort of thing to business owners, and it isn't right. I think the business owner is entitled to show the person respect and to resonably address issues. But I think customers have gone to far nowadays and because of that, the average consumer suffers because business owners have to assume everyone is ready to take them on.
4th Gear
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
From: Stanford, CA
Originally Posted by andy@ross-tech.com
Feel free to sit next to me for a day to see some of the whoppers I hear from customers. Do you have a specific grievance with my company?
-mike
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
I can see this is going to get ugly...
since I don't want to **** anyone off....I am no longer posting on this thread...LOL
Randy and Peter...I think what you guys do is great...my posts were just looking at this from the out side...and well we all know...you can't see the forest from the trees....keep it up...
Ross-Tech...I have no expirence with you guys....etc...so er...good job!...LOL
for those potential consumers....the bigest mistake I see umong my friends and people I know...is you all buy spontainiously with out doing proper research...do not get on the boards and post a thread saying..."blah blah blah...WHAT SHOULD I DO?" your peers are you worst source of information...Do the research yourself...learn what it is you are doing...then make and educated desiction...we'd all be better off...
this is my point....just that you can still take care of people....if I lived this way well then I would be single...cause obviously ever woman in the world is a cheating *****...cause I was cheated on ALOT...... right?....LOL...I thnk not...take resopncablity people...
since I don't want to **** anyone off....I am no longer posting on this thread...LOL
Randy and Peter...I think what you guys do is great...my posts were just looking at this from the out side...and well we all know...you can't see the forest from the trees....keep it up...
Ross-Tech...I have no expirence with you guys....etc...so er...good job!...LOL
for those potential consumers....the bigest mistake I see umong my friends and people I know...is you all buy spontainiously with out doing proper research...do not get on the boards and post a thread saying..."blah blah blah...WHAT SHOULD I DO?" your peers are you worst source of information...Do the research yourself...learn what it is you are doing...then make and educated desiction...we'd all be better off...
Originally Posted by dgszweda1
I think the customer is always right, sadly is not applying much anymore. It wasn't too long ago that people showed Policeman respect, now they curse them, spit on them and do other things for very minor offenses. These same people do the same sort of thing to business owners, and it isn't right. I think the business owner is entitled to show the person respect and to resonably address issues. But I think customers have gone to far nowadays and because of that, the average consumer suffers because business owners have to assume everyone is ready to take them on.
6th Gear
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 6
From: Lansdale, PA
Originally Posted by mlebeau
I have no doubt you guys get some irrational customers who expect way too much. But it's no secret among lots of car boards that Ross-Tech has taken this and translated it into "be hostile to a customer if they rub you the wrong way in the slightest". I don't think I need to get into it beyond that, I think you guys make a great product, but customer service is, well, lacking substantially. I'll just stop there.
-mike
-mike
So what are we asking, "is the customer always right?" The answer is no. Should the customer be treated like they are always right? The answer is usually. The art is knowing where to draw the line.
In the specific case, I have a couple of questions:
What logic did M7 use in determining that $700 of the $799 purchase price shoud be refunded? His website says this:
Also, in the first page of the post, M7 wrote this:
But on his website, it clearly states this:
Maybe I'm missing something, but things don't seem to add up.
In the specific case, I have a couple of questions:
What logic did M7 use in determining that $700 of the $799 purchase price shoud be refunded? His website says this:
Originally Posted by M7 Tuning
To top it off, the Limited Warranty has been extended from 90 days to 1 year for that extra peace of mind, exclusively for our MINI-specific system (please contact us for further details on the Limited Warranty).
Originally Posted by M7
Thank you for hearing my side of the story.....
Gunther called me about 10 months ago to purchase a N2O kit for his car,
in the discussion about the finer points of Nitrous use, I recommended him to consider lager 400cc injectors which gives a safer and cooler nitrous delivery.
At this time Gunther decided to pass on my recommendation.
Gunther called me about 10 months ago to purchase a N2O kit for his car,
in the discussion about the finer points of Nitrous use, I recommended him to consider lager 400cc injectors which gives a safer and cooler nitrous delivery.
At this time Gunther decided to pass on my recommendation.
Originally Posted by M7 Tuning
The M7/Venom Nitrous Kit comes complete with all the necessary parts for a successful installation, a step-by-step MINI-specific installation guide with color pictures, wiring diagrams and more.
6th Gear
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta/Amsterdam
Originally Posted by andy@ross-tech.com
Since I am responsible for customer service, I'm interested to know specifics of your situation, with examples, in the interest of improving our service. Feel free to respond or contact me offline if you'd prefer. I believe it is more important to be fair than to be nice when it comes to customer service.
6th Gear
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 2
From: a canyon, south Bay Area
We can only speculate as to the content of the communications between Peter and the disgruntled customer... There is more concrete information though...
Apparently there was some type of agreement upon a figure (700 bucks). And even more so, the cashing of that check further clarifies an acceptance of terms. If indeed the customer felt that not to be an appropriate amount, he shouldn't have deposited it, but he did. One would then think that this is over, the customer has been made whole again, and the vendor and customer go about their lives... But no, this somehow continues to fester within the customer and he lashes out again, publicly - where this vendor does a good part of his business. The intent is oh so obvious, and it is very wrong. The crtical eye should now turn to the customer for scrutiny!
He didn't buy an intake, but a nitrous kit. It doesn't take much research to find-out that such products come with a fair share of concerns and corresponding disclaimers. Let the buyer beware! So, things didn't work-out. He was the one out a 100 or so for which that happens sometimes, an aberration of sorts. The vendor worked with him trying to fix it, to no avail. A check was cut by the vendor, and cashed by the customer.
If Peter had not returned his emails and phone calls, yes the cust has a beef. If Peter had not taken the time to look into the issue personally, yes the cust has a right to be upset. If Peter did not agree to compensate him on an agreed upon amount, yes the cust should feel compelled to share with all the situation. Peter did the above, then some, and still gets lambasted here where he pays to do business! What about vendor rights?
The NAM community has done a good job at keeping our vendors on their toes, which is great. I think we all feel safer that we are not going to be taken by the unscrupulous. Attacking vendor claims is one thing, attacking a vendor is another. I feel that NAM needs some hard-set rules of engagement on this topic. If the cust has done x, y and z to resolve a dispute with a vendor, to no avail, let him vent here; we will hear ya. If a cust has received a compensatory check from the vendor and cashed it, you lose your right to gripe - to the vendor, to anyone!
Our vedors/tuners need a environment in which to thrive. This bs is certainly not conducive to their well-being, and in-turn ours...
Apparently there was some type of agreement upon a figure (700 bucks). And even more so, the cashing of that check further clarifies an acceptance of terms. If indeed the customer felt that not to be an appropriate amount, he shouldn't have deposited it, but he did. One would then think that this is over, the customer has been made whole again, and the vendor and customer go about their lives... But no, this somehow continues to fester within the customer and he lashes out again, publicly - where this vendor does a good part of his business. The intent is oh so obvious, and it is very wrong. The crtical eye should now turn to the customer for scrutiny!
He didn't buy an intake, but a nitrous kit. It doesn't take much research to find-out that such products come with a fair share of concerns and corresponding disclaimers. Let the buyer beware! So, things didn't work-out. He was the one out a 100 or so for which that happens sometimes, an aberration of sorts. The vendor worked with him trying to fix it, to no avail. A check was cut by the vendor, and cashed by the customer.
If Peter had not returned his emails and phone calls, yes the cust has a beef. If Peter had not taken the time to look into the issue personally, yes the cust has a right to be upset. If Peter did not agree to compensate him on an agreed upon amount, yes the cust should feel compelled to share with all the situation. Peter did the above, then some, and still gets lambasted here where he pays to do business! What about vendor rights?
The NAM community has done a good job at keeping our vendors on their toes, which is great. I think we all feel safer that we are not going to be taken by the unscrupulous. Attacking vendor claims is one thing, attacking a vendor is another. I feel that NAM needs some hard-set rules of engagement on this topic. If the cust has done x, y and z to resolve a dispute with a vendor, to no avail, let him vent here; we will hear ya. If a cust has received a compensatory check from the vendor and cashed it, you lose your right to gripe - to the vendor, to anyone!
Our vedors/tuners need a environment in which to thrive. This bs is certainly not conducive to their well-being, and in-turn ours...
Temporarily Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,382
Likes: 2
From: Denver
I have no formal relationship with M7 or Peter - but I have done evals of his products in the past and have started working with him on a supercharger replacement. I have also been to Steve's twice for a pulley party.
I may agree that the customer should have been refunded the part plus shipping - I have done that in the past for folks that weren't happy for whatever reason (the parts were not defective even), but if the customer accepted the $700, then it seems to me a deal was reached. It isn't like Peter is just going to mail out an arbitrary amount to someone, so the customer obviously must have agreed in some way to the amount.
I am usually a pretty good judge of character - it has only burned me a few times - and the postings of CP seemed shady.
The customer should always be treated with respect, and I think my customers know I go out of the way to make sure things are right. I could give a few examples.
There have been numerous times where I could have been taken advantage of, and haven't been - pulley parties for example: I ship everything based on folks signing up online, thousands of dollars worth. I mention that because I still do have faith in the human race. I just don't think it is right for the vendor to have to worry about being trashed on the internet by someone who he thought he had taken care of.
Randy
I may agree that the customer should have been refunded the part plus shipping - I have done that in the past for folks that weren't happy for whatever reason (the parts were not defective even), but if the customer accepted the $700, then it seems to me a deal was reached. It isn't like Peter is just going to mail out an arbitrary amount to someone, so the customer obviously must have agreed in some way to the amount.
I am usually a pretty good judge of character - it has only burned me a few times - and the postings of CP seemed shady.
The customer should always be treated with respect, and I think my customers know I go out of the way to make sure things are right. I could give a few examples.
There have been numerous times where I could have been taken advantage of, and haven't been - pulley parties for example: I ship everything based on folks signing up online, thousands of dollars worth. I mention that because I still do have faith in the human race. I just don't think it is right for the vendor to have to worry about being trashed on the internet by someone who he thought he had taken care of.
Randy
Turbius Maximus
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and beyond
Originally Posted by RandyBMC
I have no formal relationship with M7 or Peter - but I have done evals of his products in the past and have started working with him on a supercharger replacement. I have also been to Steve's twice for a pulley party.
I may agree that the customer should have been refunded the part plus shipping - I have done that in the past for folks that weren't happy for whatever reason (the parts were not defective even), but if the customer accepted the $700, then it seems to me a deal was reached. It isn't like Peter is just going to mail out an arbitrary amount to someone, so the customer obviously must have agreed in some way to the amount.
I am usually a pretty good judge of character - it has only burned me a few times - and the postings of CP seemed shady.
The customer should always be treated with respect, and I think my customers know I go out of the way to make sure things are right. I could give a few examples.
There have been numerous times where I could have been taken advantage of, and haven't been - pulley parties for example: I ship everything based on folks signing up online, thousands of dollars worth. I mention that because I still do have faith in the human race. I just don't think it is right for the vendor to have to worry about being trashed on the internet by someone who he thought he had taken care of.
Randy
I may agree that the customer should have been refunded the part plus shipping - I have done that in the past for folks that weren't happy for whatever reason (the parts were not defective even), but if the customer accepted the $700, then it seems to me a deal was reached. It isn't like Peter is just going to mail out an arbitrary amount to someone, so the customer obviously must have agreed in some way to the amount.
I am usually a pretty good judge of character - it has only burned me a few times - and the postings of CP seemed shady.
The customer should always be treated with respect, and I think my customers know I go out of the way to make sure things are right. I could give a few examples.
There have been numerous times where I could have been taken advantage of, and haven't been - pulley parties for example: I ship everything based on folks signing up online, thousands of dollars worth. I mention that because I still do have faith in the human race. I just don't think it is right for the vendor to have to worry about being trashed on the internet by someone who he thought he had taken care of.
Randy
