> A few days ago when the chrome thread was running, Randall recommended
> customer and plating shop should jointly sign duplicate pieces of
> paper to presumably avoid all doubt of what customer was getting in
> return for a payment and what the shop would do for a given price?
> Presumably Randall wrote from experience but he concluded that if the
> goods didn't meet expectation, there might be grounds for a lawsuit.
> Each to his own of course but I doubt I'd employ the services of
> Learned Counsel to uphold my claims for a badly plated bumper for the
> simple fact that two new bumpers would be a lot cheaper.
John, I may not have been clear that I was mostly referring to the situation
where the plating shop had unexpected ruined a rare, almost irreplaceable
part. Buying a new one would involve finding one on someone else's car that
they were willing to be let used for a mold, then paying someone to cast a
single new part. I've no idea what this would cost, but it would
undoubtedly be far more than two Triumph bumpers. (Well, except maybe for
the bumpers for my Sports 6 ... <g>)
That said, even if the item ruined was only a few hundred quid new, I would
still expect the people who ruined it to make good. Many states in the US
(CA is one) have a "small claims" process for small amounts, where a
solicitor/lawyer is not required. But usually, just the threat of small
claims court is enough to make people pay, when they are clearly in the
wrong.
Mind, I agree with your rant in general, there are far too many frivolous
lawsuits filed. I just don't think this is a good example of one.
Randall
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|