Crazy Accident

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why on earth should the shop pay for some idiot's actions.......

I agree with Mike. Unfortunate things happen all the time, but that
does do not make the original seller responsible in the least. If so
then we would have a 'sob' story rating procedure for compensation.

Shannon

Paul Cassel said:

Scott said:

I recently won a case in small claims court where I sued for damages
after the operators of a local UHaul storage facility went into my
storage locker without my consent and threw a bunch of my stuff away
(frameset, rollers, a hitch-mounted bike rack, custom cue stick,
etc...).

I presented to the judge a list of items lost, with full replacement
costs based on MSRP of the items. The issue of what I paid for them
or if I ever intended to replace them never came up. I received
full MSRP for every item I lost, even though I did not pay anywhere
near full retail for any of them. The judge awarded me damages in
the amount of full MSRP of all items lost.

I only replaced one of the items with a direct one-for-one
replacement. In the other cases I either didn't replace them at all
or substituted a different item for the one lost. In a couple of
cases I bought more expensive items, in others I bought less
expensive items. I kept any money left over.

Maybe I'm missing something, but was the judge complicit in my fraud?

Quoted message said:

I'd say just a wee bit soft in the head. No judge I've ever worked
with would have granted you that judgement.

And hell, he /still/ wasn't satisfied!

BS (really)

Scott said:

I recently won a case in small claims court where I sued for damages
after the operators of a local UHaul storage facility went into my
storage locker without my consent and threw a bunch of my stuff away
(frameset, rollers, a hitch-mounted bike rack, custom cue stick,
etc...).

I presented to the judge a list of items lost, with full replacement
costs based on MSRP of the items. The issue of what I paid for them or
if I ever intended to replace them never came up. I received full MSRP
for every item I lost, even though I did not pay anywhere near full
retail for any of them. The judge awarded me damages in the amount of
full MSRP of all items lost.

I only replaced one of the items with a direct one-for-one replacement.
In the other cases I either didn't replace them at all or substituted
a different item for the one lost. In a couple of cases I bought more
expensive items, in others I bought less expensive items. I kept any
money left over.

Maybe I'm missing something, but was the judge complicit in my fraud?

I'd say just a wee bit soft in the head. No judge I've ever worked with
would have granted you that judgement.

-paul

Bill Sornson said:

Paul Cassel said:

Scott said:

There's nothing fraudulent about giving a replacement quote based on
MSRP.

Yes there is. It is CLEAR fraud. The customer is entitled to be made
whole which in our system of laws means being compensated LCM. Here C
and M are about equal so it's the amount he paid - not some inflated
mfg 'suggested retail'.

I hold with those who think the bike seller may, as a goodwill
gesture, offer a killer deal on the next bike he sells this
unfortunate, but I resist the idea that the LBS owes it to the
customer to lower its price any.

I think the LBS should sue GM for making crappy cars that crash into
its customers.

Sure you're joking, but was there ANY indication that the fault wasn't
purely the driver's?

I was joking, but I do think GM makes crappy cars.

Paul Cassel said:

Bill Sornson said:

Paul Cassel wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the LBS should sue GM for making crappy cars that crash into
its customers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure you're joking, but was there ANY indication that the fault
wasn't purely the driver's?

Quoted message said:

I was joking, but I do think GM makes crappy cars.

My pathetic Ford stock agrees!

Bill "nearly worthless Roth IRA (and already paid taxes on a /much/ larger
conversion amount...d'oh!)" S.

"Scott" wrote: (clip) Maybe I'm missing something, but was the judge
complicit in my fraud?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this had been a case involving big bucks, the defense probably would have
been more vigorous, and the judge might have ruled somewhat differently.
Technically you are not entitled to MSRP, unless that is the lowest price
for which the item can be purchased. Furthermore, unless each item was
brand new, it technically should have been depreciated in arriving at an
award.

If you had been able to prove malice, the judge might have granted you
punitive damages. The question of how you used the money is irrelevant to
the case.

Bill Sornson said:

Scott said:

Bill Sornson said:

Scott wrote:
> Paul Cassel wrote:
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There's nothing fraudulent about giving a replacement quote based
>>> on MSRP.
>>
>> Yes there is. It is CLEAR fraud. The customer is entitled to be
>> made whole which in our system of laws means being compensated
>> LCM. Here C and M are about equal so it's the amount he paid - not
>> some inflated mfg 'suggested retail'.
>>
>
> I recently won a case in small claims court where I sued for damages
> after the operators of a local UHaul storage facility went into my
> storage locker without my consent and threw a bunch of my stuff away
> (frameset, rollers, a hitch-mounted bike rack, custom cue stick,
> etc...).
>
> I presented to the judge a list of items lost, with full replacement
> costs based on MSRP of the items. The issue of what I paid for them
> or if I ever intended to replace them never came up. I received
> full MSRP for every item I lost, even though I did not pay anywhere
> near full retail for any of them. The judge awarded me damages in
> the amount of full MSRP of all items lost.
>
> I only replaced one of the items with a direct one-for-one
> replacement. In the other cases I either didn't replace them at all
> or substituted a different item for the one lost. In a couple of
> cases I bought more expensive items, in others I bought less
> expensive items. I kept any money left over.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but was the judge complicit in my
> fraud?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Probably more like punishing the storage stooges for their overt bad
acts. The "Crazy Accident" *was* an accident, after all. (Would the
ruling against the driver be harsher if she /purposely/ ran over the
guy's bike and slammed into his car? You betcha!)

Quoted message said:

I don't know. He did turn down my request for 'treble damages'. If
he wanted to 'punish' them, making them pay extra sure would've
helped.

Sounds like they DID pay extra. How greedy are you?!?

Bill "sensing a pattern here?" S.

Not greedy at all. Keep in mind, that in small claims court the judge
probably didn't feel it necessary to determine actual replacement value
nor did he have to take into account depreciation.

Frankly, I think what really motivated the judge to grant the full
award I requested in my original filing was that, while they (the UHaul
folks) didn't deliberately/maliciously throw my stuff away (it was a
misunderstanding of sorts) they went to great trouble to convince me
that because I didn't buy their insurance policy I wasn't entitled to
anything.

Bill Sornson said:

Paul Cassel said:

Scott said:

I recently won a case in small claims court where I sued for damages
after the operators of a local UHaul storage facility went into my
storage locker without my consent and threw a bunch of my stuff away
(frameset, rollers, a hitch-mounted bike rack, custom cue stick,
etc...).

I presented to the judge a list of items lost, with full replacement
costs based on MSRP of the items. The issue of what I paid for them
or if I ever intended to replace them never came up. I received
full MSRP for every item I lost, even though I did not pay anywhere
near full retail for any of them. The judge awarded me damages in
the amount of full MSRP of all items lost.

I only replaced one of the items with a direct one-for-one
replacement. In the other cases I either didn't replace them at all
or substituted a different item for the one lost. In a couple of
cases I bought more expensive items, in others I bought less
expensive items. I kept any money left over.

Maybe I'm missing something, but was the judge complicit in my fraud?

Quoted message said:

I'd say just a wee bit soft in the head. No judge I've ever worked
with would have granted you that judgement.

And hell, he /still/ wasn't satisfied!

BS (really)

Actually, I was very pleased with how it worked out.

You should sell that story to AllState for one of there "Rube Goldberg"
commercials!

- -

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

"May you have the winds at your back,
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

Quoted message said:

like the old SNL skit "the Change Bank"

In my opinion, one of their all-time best pieces of work. Even better than
New Super Colon Blow.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

2-since the bike itself is the lowest margin item in the store, then
you really aren't losing that much, relative to what you have to gain

Is it just me or does something not quite click here? I'm reminded of the
old retail joke "Sure, we lose money on every one we sell, but we make up
for it in volume!"

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

like the old SNL skit "the Change Bank"

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Paul Cassel <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Scott said:

I recently won a case in small claims court where I sued for damages
after the operators of a local UHaul storage facility went into my
storage locker without my consent and threw a bunch of my stuff away
(frameset, rollers, a hitch-mounted bike rack, custom cue stick,
etc...).

I presented to the judge a list of items lost, with full replacement
costs based on MSRP of the items. The issue of what I paid for them
or if I ever intended to replace them never came up. I received
full MSRP for every item I lost, even though I did not pay anywhere
near full retail for any of them. The judge awarded me damages in
the amount of full MSRP of all items lost.

I only replaced one of the items with a direct one-for-one
replacement. In the other cases I either didn't replace them at all
or substituted a different item for the one lost. In a couple of
cases I bought more expensive items, in others I bought less
expensive items. I kept any money left over.

Maybe I'm missing something, but was the judge complicit in my fraud?

I'd say just a wee bit soft in the head. No judge I've ever worked
with would have granted you that judgement.

-paul

You surprise me here. The point of awarding damages is awarding money, not
things. The party at fault is *not* entitled to benefit from the negotating
ability of the person who lost property, nor does the law impose an
obligation on that person to use the money in any particular way. Once the
loss is quantified, payment is due, and the basis of quanitifying must have
been a proven fact, such as published prices in a free market. If the
responsible party wants to show that the published price is not a real
price, they have an opportunity to do that, by comparable proof, but it must
be credible and significant, in order to reduce the awarded damages
measurably. In addition, that will rarely happen in tort cases, although in
commercial disputes between merchants, it may come into play.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Jasper Janssen said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

A resonable $$ amount to cover the overhead is what the bike shop sells
the thing for anyway. Remember that in a bike shop the LOWEST margin
item is normally bicycles...

Restaurants/food, car dealership/cars, etc.etc. It pretty much goes for
any $THING store that $THING is the lowest margin item, and the money is
made on extras.

Jasper

Not so for clothes, skis, jewelry...those margins are often double
triple the cost. Same for coffee.

Scott said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Scott said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Llatikcuf wrote:
> > Clarification to previous post:
> >
> > I am not suggesting the shop give him a new bike at the cost of the
> > shop, that is ridicules. I am suggesting that the shop offer him a
> > replacement discounted to the shops cost. The shop made the profit for
> > their sale, why should he pay it twice? Is this such a crazy idea?
>
> Because they lose the margin that they could have had by selling to
> another 'customer'.
>

I'm surprised that no one, especially the numerous shop owners who've
contributed to this thread, have mentioned the potentially greater
profit inherent in creating an incredibly loyal customer.

No one's suggesting that the shop sell the bike for their invoice
price. Shop cost includes things like assembly.

For the sake of argument, let's assume a similar scenario but one where
there's no potential insurance payment involved. Factor in a
reasonable $$ amount to cover the overhead, sell the bike to the poor
guy at a reasonable price and create tremendous goodwill and
word-of-mouth advertising.

It's so much easier to keep a customer than to get one, so why lose one
who may have (make that 'most likely would have'😉 brought you others?

Why would the bike shop 'lose' a loyal customer after he got smacked by
a car? Hopefully the buying experience by the customer before he got
hit would make him a loyal customer.

A resonable $$ amount to cover the overhead is what the bike shop sells
the thing for anyway. Remember that in a bike shop the LOWEST margin
item is normally bicycles...

Two things:
1-you may not lose the customer by not helping him out (again, all this
assumes no insurance involvement. Settlement $$$ changes everything)
but you most likely will keep him if you do. If he was a first time
customer, you may be able to cement loyalty that wasn't there before

2-since the bike itself is the lowest margin item in the store, then
you really aren't losing that much, relative to what you have to gain

I guess some time in retail and looks into the bank account, would be
an eye opener for you. Retail is tough and not much money there. If the
bke shop were somehow 'involved', then I agree help the guy but if they
were innocent bystanders, like the customer, let the insurance/legal
system work...

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

like the old SNL skit "the Change Bank"

In my opinion, one of their all-time best pieces of work. Even better than
New Super Colon Blow.

I can't remember either of those, but have you ever seen the Schweddy
Weiner skit? I'm laughing out loud just thinking about that one!

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Friend of a friend bought a ~$2000 Specialized bike at a bike shop. He
walks out to his car (the Audi in the pictures) turns around to see a
car jump the curb at high speed (flying at him about waist level -- no
joke). He drops the bike and dives for cover. The car (The Chevy) hits
his bike and barrels into his car. This all happens in the bike shop
parking lot ~20ft from the front door.

http://www.bicyclecenter.com/accident/

Bike shop said, "You bought the bike and walked out the door, not our
problem."

I hope they didn't use those words exactly.

Quoted message said:

Any thoughts? Sure, it's not the shops fault, but I thought the shop
should help out a little - at least give him a new bike at cost. From
what I hear we have yet to see what the insurance will do.

Why should the bike shop take a loss on something that is not their fault in
any way? What they should do is help the customer get a replacement bike
that the insurance company of the car that hit the bike will pay for. They
could offer to order the bike and have it ready for the customer so that when
they get a check from the insurance company they can pick up the bike ASAP.
-------------
Alex

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Leo Lichtman said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You write a nice, fanciful fairy tale. The owner of the shop has bills to
pay. He pays for insurance, but this loss was not his, and will not be
covered. The driver of the out-of-control car is responsible, so if he was
insured, the car and the bike will both be taken care of. What logic is
there to say the bike shop should replace anything? Should they also repair
the car?

Who said the bike shop should replace it? Did you read my post? I said
it would be a kind gesture for the shop not to make twice the profit
for one sale.

It's two sales, not one. One sale to the customer who had their bike destroyed
and the second sale is to the insurance company of the driver that destroyed
the bike.
--------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez said:

Why should the bike shop take a loss on something that is not their fault in
any way?

One point which seems to be missing from this thread is the concept of
the "lost" sale. If the supply of Bikes was finite, then selling the
replacement bike to the Customer who was hit for some price over the
marginal cost of the replacement bicycle would result in a loss to the
Bike Shop from the lost sale. If the supply of the Bikes was
infinite (which for the purpose of this situation is essentially the
case), then selling the replacement Bike to the Customer who was hit
for some price over the marginal cost results in more profit for the
shop in that making this "extra" sale will not cost the Bike shop
another sale. And it is good business because people talk and tell
there friends about "good" businesses and "bad". And when it doesn't
cost a business a dime to be a "good" business, it is foolish for the
business not to be the "good" business.

Maximizing profits at every turn and squeezing the Customer for every
last dime, does not, ultimately, result in greater profits unless
everyone else in your town engages in the same kind of conduct.

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Alex Rodriguez <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Leo Lichtman said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You write a nice, fanciful fairy tale. The owner of the shop has
bills to pay. He pays for insurance, but this loss was not his,
and will not be covered. The driver of the out-of-control car is
responsible, so if he was insured, the car and the bike will both
be taken care of. What logic is there to say the bike shop should
replace anything? Should they also repair the car?

Who said the bike shop should replace it? Did you read my post? I
said it would be a kind gesture for the shop not to make twice the
profit for one sale.

It's two sales, not one. One sale to the customer who had their bike
destroyed and the second sale is to the insurance company of the
driver that destroyed the bike.
--------------
Alex

Clearly you live a charmed life, Alex. The insurance company does not get a
choice of buying a bike, unless they plan to ride it, too. They settle for
money. They don't get to tell the person they caused damage to how to use
it. In addition to the lost property, if the bike is hard-to-get, then the
person may also have a fair claim for interim rental costs. Money. The
bike shop has enough trouble making friends with each new customer, and it
doesn't have to deal with the insurer, unless it really, really wants to,
for the proof of price.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

like the old SNL skit "the Change Bank"

In my opinion, one of their all-time best pieces of work. Even better than
New Super Colon Blow.

Quarry cereal?
Bass O Matic?
Big Red?
Jewess Jeans?
Spud Beer?

[Open on interior of hospital room. A patient is led into
the room by nurses]

Announcer: You've just had a heavy session of electroshock
therapy, and you're more relaxed than you've been in
weeks. [Patient climbs into bed] All those childhood
traumas magically wiped away, along with most of your
personality. Now is the time, time for Spud. [Nurse wheels
in bucket with cans of Spud Beer]

Singers: Ohhhhh, Spud!

Announcer: Filled with the full, rich flavor of potatoes.
[Patients begin smiling] Spud, the beer brewed for people
who can't taste the difference.

[Patients and nurses open cans of Spud]

Singers:
"When you say Spud, just put your mind on hold.
Do what you're told, and open a cold,
Refreshing Spud. Just watch your life go by.
No need to try. When you've got Spud. Ohhhhh Spud!"

Announcer: Spud, the beer that made Boise famous.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

like the old SNL skit "the Change Bank"

In my opinion, one of their all-time best pieces of work. Even better than
New Super Colon Blow.

Quarry cereal?
Bass O Matic?
Big Red?
Jewess Jeans?
Spud Beer?

[Open on interior of hospital room. A patient is led into
the room by nurses]

Announcer: You've just had a heavy session of electroshock
therapy, and you're more relaxed than you've been in
weeks. [Patient climbs into bed] All those childhood
traumas magically wiped away, along with most of your
personality. Now is the time, time for Spud. [Nurse wheels
in bucket with cans of Spud Beer]

Singers: Ohhhhh, Spud!

Announcer: Filled with the full, rich flavor of potatoes.
[Patients begin smiling] Spud, the beer brewed for people
who can't taste the difference.

[Patients and nurses open cans of Spud]

Singers:
"When you say Spud, just put your mind on hold.
Do what you're told, and open a cold,
Refreshing Spud. Just watch your life go by.
No need to try. When you've got Spud. Ohhhhh Spud!"

Announcer: Spud, the beer that made Boise famous.

--
Michael Press