In message <[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask] writes:
> No reputable company can object to having the terms under which
> they trade attached to their name and published.
> What is their name? and again, what _exactly_ was the deal they
> appeared to offer and the response when they were asked to
> deliver?
I didn't post the name at the time because the response that we had
had from them was only by phone, and so they could have tried to
deny that their salesman had said such a thing.
I sent a recorded delivery letter stating my interpretation of the
telephone discussion, my regarding it as unreasonable and
indefensible, my recording of excess copying costs mounting
against them in the meantime (as we were having to use an old
machine with higher running costs), my willingness to go to court,
and more than once mentioning the possibility of unfavourable
publicity for their firm and it's practices.
Gave them ten working days to respond.
On the tenth day at 9am the copier arrived back in working order
("We managed to buy two old machines in the trade with the relevant
parts").
Copy quality looks better than it ever has been.
This contract, which appears to have no get out clause for them if
the machine becomes obsolete, (not unreasonable since they
inspected it before entering the contract and had an opportunity
to estimate it's life expectancy), requires both them and us to give
twelve months notice of termination, so it should carry on being
fixed for us for some time yet :)
--
Simon Child
GP
Bury, Lancs
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|