Whitestrat
New member
Does it not make sense that the customer pay for a refurbishing fee? At least you can have the guitar refinished and sell it at a cheaper rate (about $300?), but the customer would be more inclined to buy an unblemished guitar?
Music store etiquette
- Thread starter relinquish69
- Start date
Does it not make sense that the customer pay for a refurbishing fee? At least you can have the guitar refinished and sell it at a cheaper rate (about $300?), but the customer would be more inclined to buy an unblemished guitar?
ymmak
New member
Perhaps. Like you said, the driver may be charged with manslaughter, or driving pass speed limits, or reckless driving or drunk driving or something of that sort. Because of negligence, the driver may be punished by jail term or a fine, irregardless of whether he is test driving or driving his own car or his friend's car. Anyway, what happen to the driver is not my concern at the moment. My main concern is whether the car dealers get any compensation from the driver? Is the driver liable to bear any damages suffered by the car dealers?
Honestly, I have not bought my first car so I do not know about the blue plate and waiver thing. Let's say that these protections exist, then the car dealer will have some of its losses minimized. But if let's say there is no such protection, can the car dealers still demand compensation from the test driver?
lordie: hot sales lady die, yup thats really a shame.
theliverevolution: I've realised your location is no longer in Hendon camp.
Last edited:
balloons
New member
I can truly sympathize with you,Seekz. and put myself in your shoes, the incident doesn't favour u nor them both.It is a lose lose situation.Have you considered other options of displaying your fenders Japan,or make a win win policy for display?
jskadiang
New member
These are both entirely the fault of the customer. L2research and L2check.
dodgethis
New member
1. Customer has the right to not buy. She/he can always walk out of the shop. Kudos to the salesperson on his/her persuasive skills, though.
2. One to one exchanges, and warranties, are only valid for manufacturer faults and defects. In this case, the instrument left the shop without damage and was damaged during the transit home, nothing to do with the shop or manufacturer. Too bad the guy didn't take care of it. I mean, COME ON. What do you have to do to a guitar to damage it so significantly while going home.
Sure, Gibson Les Pauls and SGs have the tendency to decapitate themselves, due to shocks. But how much of a shock do you need to subject one to actually to do that? Unless, the customer is stupid enough to have brought to a black metal mosh pit. Oh, didn't come with a hardcase? You've been had. Boo hoo for not doing your research. And I've carried my Strat in the crappy unpadded Fender gig bag so many times and it gets home unscathed, even through rush hour traffic.
tl;dr, none of these are the fault of the shop's. It was all in the customer's hands.
And cramp shops? I'm 1.78m and weigh at over 0.1 tons. I have no issues about walking in all the shops, even at the Marshall distributor on a busy day. And the way I see it, that's how some shops keep the overall costs down and need not pass on any additional burden to the customer.
Last edited:
Just to clarify that misconception. There is no such thing as manslaughter in Singapore. We call it culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In any case, a driver in that scenario may be charged under the causing death through reckless or dangerous driving ( s. 66 of the Road Traffic Act) which carries a maximum jail term of 5 years. A similar offence is that of s. 304 of the Penal Code, which causing death through a rash act.
In this particular situation, the car dealer does have a civil claim against the negligent driver. Firstly, if he is successfully charged and convicted under criminal law, it may form the basis of his civil claim under negligence. This is because where you have proven (beyond reasonable doubt) of the charge under s. 66 RTA or s. 304 PC, you have made out the claim of negligence. Thus, he may be able to claim for property damage and wrongful death etc. BUT what may be relevant here is the role of the sales executive who was sitting next to him - was she contributorily negligent? This will impact the assessment of his liability
This scenario, however, is vastly different from that of a customer dropping a guitar in a guitar shop. But even if we were to establish a prima facie tortious claim of negligence against that particular customer, a case could easily be made that the shop owner was contributorily negligent...
1. Customer has the right to not buy. She/he can always walk out of the shop. Kudos to the salesperson on his/her persuasive skills, though.
2. One to one exchanges, and warranties, are only valid for manufacturer faults and defects. In this case, the instrument left the shop without damage and was damaged during the transit home, nothing to do with the shop or manufacturer. Too bad the guy didn't take care of it. I mean, COME ON. What do you have to do to a guitar to damage it so significantly while going home.
Sure, Gibson Les Pauls and SGs have the tendency to decapitate themselves, due to shocks. But how much of a shock do you need to subject one to actually to do that? Unless, the customer is stupid enough to have brought to a black metal mosh pit. Oh, didn't come with a hardcase? You've been had. Boo hoo for not doing your research. And I've carried my Strat in the crappy unpadded Fender gig bag so many times and it gets home unscathed, even through rush hour traffic.
tl;dr, none of these are the fault of the shop's. It was all in the customer's hands.
And cramp shops? I'm 1.78m and weigh at over 0.1 tons. I have no issues about walking in all the shops, even at the Marshall distributor on a busy day. And the way I see it, that's how some shops keep the overall costs down and need not pass on any additional burden to the customer.
1. Sure. Customer has the right not to buy - he can walk out. But as the TS has made out previously, what if this was the only shop in Singapore that carried the item? Could we justify exorbitant pricing (e.g. 400% profit margin)? That would be unreasonable. In any case, if that particular salesperson did manage to convince the customer to pay $1k for something that is really worth $100, a claim can be brought grounds of unconscionable conduct either in common law or through the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.
While caveat emptor is relevant, i think we are going way too far to stand on the side of business owners. A customer may be faulted for failing to do his research; but what if he relies on these shops (having little knowledge about guitars and such) to give him adequate advice? So you see it fit for others to take advantage of another knowing very well of the unequal bargaining position?
Well the thing is, the right answer would be yes, it would be possible if one goes for a claim under negligence. But the likelihood of the claim failing is extremely high, and once u factor in contributory negligence and the cost of legal proceedings, there's no point, really.
Damage to property (goods) in the course of business is also a foreseeable risk that business ought to have mitigated; unless in extreme cases, I doubt that courts will side with the shop owner.
As for a claim under contract, you'll have to prove that there was a contract between the customer and the shopowner to begin with, without delving too much into contract law per se... but i think one can easily foresee the problem of trying to conceive of
- what is the contract to begin with? (to touch the guitar? or to buy the guitar - but the law says the transaction only occurs at the cashier/checkout counter)
- does the sign have binding effect?
- what should the customer be liable for? (purchase whole guitar? - would this be fair?)
dodgethis
New member
If this Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act applies in this case, does it state on what is a fair profit margin that a retailer can earn? If an amount is not stated, what would be defined as a 'fair' value for the product?
On another note, does not the closing of a sale equate to a contract being made between both parties? Correct me if I am wrong, but if a contract is made without either party being coerced to do so, isn't it considered legally binding? If a lawful authority were to overturn the contract, just because he thought it was not fair, wouldn't it set a precedence in the judicial system and change the way how such future cases are handled?
And honestly? Yes. Then again, that's just me. That's why I protect myself by knowing what I am getting into.
Y'know, I am enjoying this discussion. Nothing against you, whee
Contract is more than just consensus ad idem. For it to have legally binding, it must satisfy certain criteria (e.g. consideration etc) and must have been free of any other vitiating factors. Even if the contract is formed, it could be vitiated - by misrepresentation, frustration, (and yes, mistake) or duress. Is there such a thing as substantive unfairness? Yes there is. In fact, our Judge of Appeal has argued that if we really look at the law of contract, it is a tension between upholding the sanctity of agreements and substantive unfairness.
Is there a profit margin as for retailers regarding the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act? No. That's really missing the point. It allows the Court to consider, in the context of situation, whether the salesperson has indeed behaved in a manner so as to take advantage of his unequal bargaining power, his knowledge of a particular weakness in the consumer etc.
Within the law itself, the idea of vitiating a contract due to substantive unfairness isn't new. Contract law is more than just writing terms on a piece of paper and getting two people to sign.
Is there a profit margin as for retailers regarding the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act? No. That's really missing the point. It allows the Court to consider, in the context of situation, whether the salesperson has indeed behaved in a manner so as to take advantage of his unequal bargaining power, his knowledge of a particular weakness in the consumer etc.
Within the law itself, the idea of vitiating a contract due to substantive unfairness isn't new. Contract law is more than just writing terms on a piece of paper and getting two people to sign.
ymmak
New member
Hi whee. Thank you for your clarification of the "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" thinggie. Also, to keep things simple, I have assumed that in both scenarios, the sales lady and the shop owner are not contributorily negligent.
Anyway, am I right to say that the car dealers probably cannot have a civil claim against the test driver if the test driver is not successfully charged and convicted under criminal law?
Yup, it is pretty obvious that the "test drive" scenario is vastly different from the "test guitar" scenario. If the test driver crashes the car, he might be charged with under section 66 of the Road Traffic Act, thus the car dealers may demand a claim from the test driver. But if a customer drops a guitar, it is highly unlikley that he will be convicted under criminal law, and from what is being discussed so far, it seems that the guitar shop will not be compensated by the customer. So even though both the car dealers and the guitar store owners are businessmen, it appears to me that the level of "protection" they have on their display or test products is not exactly equal. Sure, the guitar store owners can use some sort of insurance or protection, which I believe the car dealers have for their cars, but this will mean higher inventory cost, most likely leading to higher price for the consumers. So it appears to me that it is harder to run a guitar shop business than a car dealing business.
So to be fair, we as consumers should just abide by the rules of the guitar shop (like asking for permission or assistance when testing a guitar), and be extra extra careful when handling the guitars. I think this is the only win-win outcome of any given scenario.
Last edited:
Vocalistman
New member
To TS and any shop owners, I think it pays for you guys to have a Standards of Procedures (SOP) for handling customer complaints and other issues.
Most of the time misunderstandings occurred either when customers are plain snob or that the staff get too personal and let their emotions settle over. Thus causing a problem to escalate.
This case is often that the staff got blinded by emotions and forget of their main objectives, which is to solve a problem, not to aggravate. Rule of thumb, no matter of how sh**ty the customer is, customer is always KING.
So in order to save trouble and save cost and save breath arguing, create a customized SOP for your shop. These protocols will keep your staff in-check and be clear of the objectives to solving a problem without going "gabrah".
Most of the time misunderstandings occurred either when customers are plain snob or that the staff get too personal and let their emotions settle over. Thus causing a problem to escalate.
This case is often that the staff got blinded by emotions and forget of their main objectives, which is to solve a problem, not to aggravate. Rule of thumb, no matter of how sh**ty the customer is, customer is always KING.
So in order to save trouble and save cost and save breath arguing, create a customized SOP for your shop. These protocols will keep your staff in-check and be clear of the objectives to solving a problem without going "gabrah".
As others have pointed out, it is 'harder' to run a guitar shop only because of the attitude the guitar stores have. With more salespeople, better control over testing policy etc, they can minimize such risk. I think attempting to reduce the circumstances as such would be quite artificial.
As for the car-dealer accident scenario, one may have a claim against the driver even if the criminal charge fails. The standard of proof under criminal law is higher than that of civil law. As a result one may fail in the former and succeed in the latter. But if anything goes, as the trial will invariably lead to findings of fact, it will really depend on the outcome of the trial and what the judge in that particular instance holds.
Thus, could the car dealer still have claim if the charge fails? Yes.
As for the "once broken considered sold" - is it legally binding? I don't think so, but one can probably come up with a novel argument to insist that it is.... probably along the lines that one formed a contract to touch the guitar [absurd as it sounds]
shinobi
New member
using cars as an analogy is shit. cars and guitars are totally different things. for one the ownership of a car is not as easily transferrable as that of a car. alot of legal shit involved. nobody even owns a car, part of every car is owned by the government.
secondly when you crash your car you are causing harm to the public. if you langgar a lamp post you are damaging public property. if you make yourself a nuisance on public roads you are incurring a cost to society. it becomes a completely different matter because of all the external implications.
if u damage a guitar nobody is gonna give a damn except the person who owns the guitar, which is the shop. a guitar does not fall under some guitar law.
u cant just conveniently draw comparisons based on the similarities and ignore the differences which may prove to be significant. u wanna compare, compare everything, if not it will be useless.
anyway all this is veering off topic.
'the customer is king' or 'the customer is always right' or whatever is correct.
however, it does not say 'everybody is king' or 'sellappan ramanathan is king' or whatever. 'the customer' is a role that must be fulfilled and implies certain codes of etiquette. if you behave like a customer u will be treated like one. if you dont then the store is not obliged to give you service. it may sound retarded to some but this is what you call 'civilisation', maybe some people are indeed uncivilised.
look at the top end boutiques in new york or tokyo. if you patronise them you will be treated like a superstar. but that's IF you patronise them. those atas shops have freaking bodyguards to prevent you from entering if they dont like the shirt you are wearing.
service in singapore probably sucks but that's probably because staff are, by and large, serving a bunch of assholes everyday anyway.
secondly when you crash your car you are causing harm to the public. if you langgar a lamp post you are damaging public property. if you make yourself a nuisance on public roads you are incurring a cost to society. it becomes a completely different matter because of all the external implications.
if u damage a guitar nobody is gonna give a damn except the person who owns the guitar, which is the shop. a guitar does not fall under some guitar law.
u cant just conveniently draw comparisons based on the similarities and ignore the differences which may prove to be significant. u wanna compare, compare everything, if not it will be useless.
anyway all this is veering off topic.
'the customer is king' or 'the customer is always right' or whatever is correct.
however, it does not say 'everybody is king' or 'sellappan ramanathan is king' or whatever. 'the customer' is a role that must be fulfilled and implies certain codes of etiquette. if you behave like a customer u will be treated like one. if you dont then the store is not obliged to give you service. it may sound retarded to some but this is what you call 'civilisation', maybe some people are indeed uncivilised.
look at the top end boutiques in new york or tokyo. if you patronise them you will be treated like a superstar. but that's IF you patronise them. those atas shops have freaking bodyguards to prevent you from entering if they dont like the shirt you are wearing.
service in singapore probably sucks but that's probably because staff are, by and large, serving a bunch of assholes everyday anyway.
Last edited:
Morlock
New member
How do you determine a true customer from not? let say someone goes to the store tests a bunch load of guitars and did not buy anything... would he still be considered a customer? coz if I go into marks and spencers, fitted a bunch of clothes and did not buy anything... I come back next time, still I would be considered as a customer
but honestly the problem, imo, is not with customers. its lazy store owners. sorry to be blunt but that is how I see it. it is the store owners resposibility to protect his stuff not the customer. if the store is properly thought out in a way that the customer will not be able to damage anything accidentally. then there wont be any problem in the first place. but you might ask "how can a store owner prevent accidental damage from happening?".
a few suggestions I can think of are:
1. Put guitars in a glass case.
2. instead of displaying all guitars, create a catalog and put it in a binder or folder. then keep the actual guitars in a stock room.
3. online selling. people go online more than they go to shops. if they want to test something on your website then they can go to your shop where you keep most of guitars in stock room.
etc.etc.
Lets take guitar center for example, When you buy a guitar in guitar center, they will let you test the display guitar, but when you buy one, they will not give you the display guitar, instead they will give the in stock room. Guitar center usually sell display units at a discount rate
these are examples on how you can protect your units.
but honestly the problem, imo, is not with customers. its lazy store owners. sorry to be blunt but that is how I see it. it is the store owners resposibility to protect his stuff not the customer. if the store is properly thought out in a way that the customer will not be able to damage anything accidentally. then there wont be any problem in the first place. but you might ask "how can a store owner prevent accidental damage from happening?".
a few suggestions I can think of are:
1. Put guitars in a glass case.
2. instead of displaying all guitars, create a catalog and put it in a binder or folder. then keep the actual guitars in a stock room.
3. online selling. people go online more than they go to shops. if they want to test something on your website then they can go to your shop where you keep most of guitars in stock room.
etc.etc.
Lets take guitar center for example, When you buy a guitar in guitar center, they will let you test the display guitar, but when you buy one, they will not give you the display guitar, instead they will give the in stock room. Guitar center usually sell display units at a discount rate
these are examples on how you can protect your units.
relinquish69
New member
but honestly the problem, imo, is not with customers. its lazy store owners. sorry to be blunt but that is how I see it. it is the store owners resposibility to protect his stuff not the customer. if the store is properly thought out in a way that the customer will not be able to damage anything accidentally. then there wont be any problem in the first place. but you might ask "how can a store owner prevent accidental damage from happening?".
a few suggestions I can think of are:
1. Put guitars in a glass case.
2. instead of displaying all guitars, create a catalog and put it in a binder or folder. then keep the actual guitars in a stock room.
3. online selling. people go online more than they go to shops. if they want to test something on your website then they can go to your shop where you keep most of guitars in stock room.
etc.etc.
Lets take guitar center for example, When you buy a guitar in guitar center, they will let you test the display guitar, but when you buy one, they will not give you the display guitar, instead they will give the in stock room. Guitar center usually sell display units at a discount rate
these are examples on how you can protect your units.
That sort of management would only work for large stores that stock up on a lot of the same guitar. Also do note that a display guitar might not sound the same as the same one coming straight from the box. Not every customer has the mindset that every guitar sounds/feels the same.
Whitestrat
New member
Agreed that the legal costs might not make sense. Also agree that the store would have low rate of success in claiming successfully.
However, lets discuss your points here.
There is no contract in guitar stores. But there is a binding agreement for car testing. This is signed everytime you take a car for testing. But that is a 5 to 6 figure vehicle rather than a 4 to 5 figure guitar.
However, I don't agree that the customer be made to purchase the guitar. If anything, like I mentioned above, it should be a repair/refurbishing fee. However, in the rare chance that the guitar is destroyed (broken and unreplacable neck) then shouldn't there be something that helps the store owner?
If the store owner were to take up property insurance for this, and factor in the cost of the premium to the cost of the instrument, then that would jack up the price of the instrument. Actually, on an after thought, that might not be too bad an idea when developing pricing!
Similar threads
