--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
RE: [OM] [OT] Damage! |
|
From: |
"Brian P. Huber" <bphuber@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
16 Feb 99 11:25:29 |
Jan,
One of the options I gave you was that I send you 500f the repair cost.
I will be doing that tomorrow. Then I will consider the matter over.
You can keep saying all you want. I certainly haven't asked you for
reimbursement for shipping back to you.
Did you also mention that I had double-boxed it to prevent damage?
Did you mention that I stated I found the problem after I received the
manual from Olympus?
Remember I stated I had never used a 4 before and didn't know how to enable
Spot mode since pressing the button didn't seem to work? Hmm
Jan, there's no way you or I at this point can prove or disprove the body
was in working condition when you sent it or
when I received it. We'll always wonder both ways.
It's time to drop this and get on with life.
Brian Huber
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Steinman [SMTP:jans@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 4:27 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [OM] [OT] Damage!
>From: ClassicVW@xxxxxxx [SMTP:ClassicVW@xxxxxxx]
..
>P.S.- Avoid - brabfoto@xxxxxx (e-bay I.D.- Jac1.NL ) he sent me a
defective
>OM-10 body, and when I wished to return it he said: "I don't accept
returms."
>From: "Brian P. Huber" <bphuber@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Couldn't agree with you more, I'm going through the very situation now.
Except in your situation, you claim the package arrives damaged, but you
tell the seller you "checked the OM-4, it's fine!"
Then four days later you tell the seller the camera is suffering problems
consistent with a damaged lens-sensing button.
Then the seller offers a refund, but you choose to keep the camera, instead
having the seller pay for repairs, based on such damage being covered by
postal insurance.
But the repair person put in writing on the repair invoice that the damage
was not caused by shipping, but by a faulty lens, so an insurance claim is
impossible, since the post office requires a copy of the invoice for the
claim. The seller respectfully requests that you reimburse the cost of
repairs, based on the unbiased findings of the repair shop.
Then the camera is returned to you fixed, direct from the repair person,
but soon develops the same problem. Co-incidentally, the box seems to be
damaged in shipping this time, also. The seller once again, without blame
or accuasation, respectfully requests that you reimburse the cost of
repairs.
Then the seller hears from you that your son may have put a defective lens
on the OM-4 the second time, but definately not the first time, and you
suggest that you and the seller split the cost of repairs, rather than you
pay the entire cost of repairs, as the seller twice respectfully requested.
I don't think you're going through the "very situation" at all, Brian.
I also don't think this is the proper forum for this, and will not respond
on-list to any follow-up. All the above came from email and/or
correspondance from an uninvolved third-party (the repair person). My
non-response to follow-ups is for the sake of the list, and should NOT be
taken as acquiescence to any counter claims that may be posted.
: Jan Steinman <mailto:jans@xxxxxxxxxxx>
: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068-1331 USA
: +1.503.635.3229
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
--- End Message ---
