So what's the deal. Is the body going back to Jan or Brian or what.?
John
Brian P. Huber wrote:
>
> 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 >
< 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 >
|