Instructions: Divide up into small groups. Read the following story, and discuss the following questions in your small groups. Then write your answers in the space provided.
This is a true story.
The year was about 1958, in California, before there were strong consumer laws. Don Higgins owned a laundry and dry cleaning business, in which he used one of the new Volkswagen bus trade vans for his deliveries. He would pick up dirty clothes from businesses (like restaurants and auto repair shops), clean them and deliver them back. He liked his Volkswagen van: it had lots of space to hang the clothes and it got good fuel economy. Up until recently, it had been very reliable. But lately the engine wasn’t running very well. The engine was regularly missing and had low power.
So in the morning, Don took his van to his local auto repair shop. He told them it needed fixing, maybe just a tune up, and he got a ride back to his cleaning business. Then in mid-afternoon, he went back to pick up his van.
To his surprise, the van wasn’t ready. If fact, the repair shop owner showed Don the engine that was now out of the van. The exhaust valve for number 3 cylinder was burnt, causing the poor running engine and lack of power. The shop owner said he could have the engine fixed and back in the van in 3 or 4 days. And the bill would be about $400.00. (In 1958, this was a lot of money. Don’s monthly mortgage on his house was only about $120.00 per month.)
Don was very upset. He was so upset that I (Steve McAfee) heard about this as the little boy who lived next door to Don.
Discussion Questions:
1. From Don’s point of view, what was wrong here? What did the shop do wrong that upset Don so much. (After all, they were fixing his van.)
The shop owner didn't allow Don the option of having his engine pulled out or left unfixed. Perhaps he would have decided the cost, $400, was too high and would have gone elsewhere. By the shop owner taking it out prior to consulting with Don about his options, Don now is in an uncomfortable position; he can only get his engine put back in the car if he pays the $400, which he probably can not afford.
2. From the repair shop owner’s point of view, what was wrong with Don getting upset at them? What did they do right or wrong?
The shop owner was asked to fix the car. He discovered the exhaust valve for number 3 cylinder was burnt, which had been causing the poor running of the engine and lack of power. From his perspective he was just doing what Don had asked him to do 'fix the engine'. Don just expected a 'tune up' but the affects were more severe. The shop owner should have consulted with Don, prior to taking the engine out as $400 was a large sum of money in 1958, this is especially important because Don would not have a vehicle for 3 to 4 days.
3. What should have been done in this circumstance? If you were Don, what would you have wanted to be done?
If I were Don, I would want to be consulted prior to the engine being taken out of the Volkswagen. The car was not completely useless, Don could still drive it. If I were Don I would have wanted to be consulted prior so I could have had the active decision whether or not to have the engine taken out. There, I would either leave and save for its repair and then bring it back, get a quote from another auto-repair shop or, have it unfixed.
4. When the repair was finished, and Don went to pick up his van, he took the van and did not pay the whole repair bill. Did the repair shop have the right to hold the van until they got paid?
No, there was no contractual agreement and this was before there were strong consumer laws. However, the repair shop could have held onto the van until they got paid. There was no law restricting either of them from taking or taking possession of the car at that time.
5. If Don took the repair shop to court, what would you have ruled if you were the judge? Should the repair shop pay for a replacement rental vehicle? Should Don pay the whole repair bill? Should the repair shop pay Don for lost business because he could not pick up and deliver clothes to his customers?
If I were a Judge, I would rule that the lack of communication between the repair shop and Don was irresponsible as a business and for future references, to take this as a warning. However, Don had asked them to 'fix the car', it was just that Don, himself had underestimated the extent of the damages to the engine and had only expected a tune-up. The repair shop should supply Don with a replacement vehicle while the car is being fixed. Don should pay the whole repair bill, if he wants his car back as this is a business. Don's laundry business was affected, but that is irrelevant.
6. What New Zealand laws relate to this story? What do New Zealand laws say should have been done in this case?
Servicing -
although the Consumer Guarantees Act sets out your responsibilities regarding spare parts, associated with that, comes some ethical responsibilities regarding servicing.
When you offer servicing, you should ensure:
•That the service facilities promote a quality service, i.e., the customer does not have to return later because the job was not done properly in the first place.
•The service is provided as efficiently as possible.
•Any quotes given prior to the work commencement reflect a reasonable price.
•All prices charged are reasonable.
•Replacement parts are of a high standard.
•Offer “replacements” while the product is being serviced.
•That the collection/pickup time is accurate, i.e., the customer is told that the product will be ready to
collect at 4 pm today, only to find they have to wait 2 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment