Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:33:37 EDT
Reply-To: Ssittservl@aol.com
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: S Sittservl <Ssittservl@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Parts Place - Dear Vanagon List Subscribers
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Jack Finn of Parts Place (via Kevin Hale, kjhale@earthlink.net) wrote:
> ... The van is towed to the Parts Place...
> Melissa ... tells us the engine is blown
> We pay her $200...
> We have not inspected the van, have not driven it, have not tried to start
> it, etc....
> Two days later we take the van in ... we find it is not bad....
Melissa Hohauser-Thatcher (Vwvangrrl@aol.com) wrote:
> ... you said $200. Considering you had the van for 24 hours prior to the
> sale, I was under the impression that you had time to make a fair and
> correct assessment of what it was worth....
There it is! There's the miscommunication that initiated the problem.
Melissa is thinking: "I took my broken van to VW experts, they examined
it, and gave me $200 for it based on their examination. Later, they
say 'Ha Ha! It's really worth $3500, do you want to buy it back?' "
Parts Place is thinking: "Melissa brings us what she says is a dead van,
and we give her $200, which is about what a dead van to part out is worth
to us. But on later examination we find out her evaluation was wrong; it's
worth $3500. We're feeling rather lucky (we just made an unexpectedly
good deal), but out of a sense of fairness we give her first right of
refusal before we sell the van."
They key point is that Melissa thought the $200-dead-van price was based
on Parts Place's examination, while Parts Place thought it was based on
Melissa's examination. (I think their disagreement on who first
mentioned the $200 figure basically comes back to this, too.)
Parts Place feels they're in the position of a buyer at a garage sale
who picks up someone's old train set for $25, takes it home and polishes
it up, and finds that it's a valuable collectable that sells for $400 on eBay.
Melissa feels she's in the position of someone who took her bracelet
to a jeweler, is told by the jeweler that it's worth $25, sells it,
and then sees it in the store window the next day for $400.
May I propose a possible solution?
Melissa has been offered a used van for $3500; this is presumably
negotiable. Melissa could think about the $200 she was paid, the
value of the tow, the value of Parts Place's labor (and parts, if any)
on the van, her own failure to thoroughly investigate the condition
and value of the van before settling on a selling price, a good profit
for Parts Place, plus some more for Parts Place because they perhaps
deserve to get a bit lucky on the deal, and because she's hoping they'll
be good sports and they deserve something for that, and then, if that
adds up to an amount she can afford, she could make a counter offer.
Parts Place could think about their own failure (as VW experts)
to make it clear to their customer exactly what they had or had not
done with the van, the weight of public opinion, their business
reputation, their desire to, when possible, have even customers
with whom they disagree go away happy, and that little nagging feeling
of kindess or guilt or both that made them call Melissa back,
and then, if they're not actually going to lose money on the deal,
they could accept Melissa's counter offer even if it's significantly
less than they could get from someone else.
Melissa thanks Parts Place (even if she doesn't feel all that thankful),
Parts Place apologizes to Melissa (even if they don't feel all that
apologetic), the list congratulates Melissa and says nice things
about Parts Place, and promises to tell their friends that Parts Place
responded to a customer's criticism, fairly and professionally presented
their side of the story, and then came to mutually agreeable terms.
Disclaimer:
I hope it's clear that wherever I've said things like "Melissa thinks..."
or "Parts Place feels...", it is entirely my own conjecture, based on
my understanding of what they've written. I am of course in no position
to speak for either of them, and hope they will correct my error if
I have mischaracterized them.
And yes, everyone gets the benefit of the doubt as to their motives,
unless there's a good bit of evidence to the contrary.
-Steven Sittser
| 
