Bad Customer Experience
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 reason why Don was so upset was because the shop owner had not discussed the repair process with Don. Being a shop owner it is his responsibility to communicate with the customer (Don) before starting the repair job. As we can tell from the case study that Don was under the impression that van only had a minor problem. He hadn't given them permission to do what is needed to fix his van. He only told them that there was a problem but he didn't mention anything about fixing it. It sounded more like he needed the shop to investigate what the the problem was "maybe just a tune up". When the problem about the burnt exhaust valve was detected, the shop owner should have phoned Don and ask for his OK to start the repair job. This wasn't done and that's why Don was upset. They had taken his engine out and apart and now Don was looking at a very expensive repair bill. The engine was taken out with out Don's permission. Now because of this Don would even have to sort out a temporary vehicle for his business as his van was now out of commission for the next three to four days. That is why Don was very upset, he hadn't given them permission to take his engine out and now he was inconvenienced for his job as well.
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?
From the owner's point of view Don had given permission to fix his van when he had dropped it off. Don had told them that the van needed fixing. The owner misinterpreted this into thinking that he was to do what it needed to fix the van. This was wrong of him and he should have clarified with Don as to what he wanted to be done with the van. Even afterwards when the cause of the rough engine running was found, he should have called up Don and discussed the next step to take. He should have done this because the repair job was very costly. People like to know the price of a job before committing to it and Don didn't know the price. The owner of the shop should have called up Don and spoken to him about the fault in his engine. He should have explained the repair procedure required for the van and should have also told him the cost involved. The owner should have then waited for an answer from Don, whether to go on with the repair or not. The shop owner did not do this and that was wrong.
3. What should have been done in this circumstance? If you were Don, what would you have wanted to be done?
If i was Don i would have liked to know the fault within my vehicle and the cost of repairing it first. I would not have wanted them to take my engine out of the car either. I would have wanted them to call me up and ask me if it was OK to remove my engine to further investigate the fault in the van. Even if they didn't ask me about removing the engine I would have wanted them to call me up and explain the fault within my van. I would have liked to know about the repair procedure and the cost involved with repairing it. I would have also liked to know the time frame of the repair as I am using the vehicle for my business. Not having my van means that I am not being able to do my business efficiently.
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 the repair shop did not have the right to hold the van until full payment was made. The reason being is that Don was never quoted a price for the repair he was told the repair was costing him $400.00. Don had never agreed to a repair of such and as a result of this no valid contract was made. Neither Don or the shop owner discussed the repair procedure and the cost. There was no contract binding the two parties together and as a result of this Don doesn't have to make the full payment. He can pay what he believes is a reasonable price for the repair job done to his van. Since there was no legal contract binding the two parties together, the repair shop has no rights to hold the van until they got paid.
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?
Being the judge I can see that there was miscommunication involved between Don and the shop owner. I would have also noted that being the seller of a service the shop owner should have informed Don about what has to be done to his van to fix it. It would have then been up to Don if he wanted to go ahead with the repair plan or not. Because of this action Don did lose out on a bot of business causing him some financial loss. But in the shop keepers defense Don did say the van needs fixing and left the van at the shop. There was defiantly lack of communication between the buyer and the seller in this circumstance. Because of this I would have not ruled in Don's favor for the shop to pay for his lost business. He should have been more clear with what he wants to be done with his van. But saying this I would rule in favor of Don to not pay the entire bill. It is the shop owners responsibility to make sure that his customers understand what is being done to their vehicles. He should have called up Don upon finding the fault within his van to discuss what further action needs to be taken place. Do the repair or not. The repair shop should also pay for the replacement rental vehicle as this was Don's work vehicle and it being in the shop caused Don to lose business.
6. What New Zealand laws relate to this story? What do New Zealand laws say should have been done in this case?
The law that relates to this story is the Fair Trading Act. In this act there is a section about Consumer Information Standards. Don wasn't informed about the job before it started. If he was informed about the job needed to fix his van he would have said no or considered other alternatives. "These standards make it mandatory for information about certain products to be disclosed to consumers. They are made as regulations under the Fair Trading Act and are enforced by the Commerce Commission." The information was not disclosed with Don before starting work with the engine. It was also an "unfair practice" that the engine was out and apart before the owner told Don about the repair that needed taking place. Don had no choice but to repair the van. It was an unfair practice because Don didn't have a say in the mater. He was not aware of the expensive and lengthy repair job that was needed with his van. Also The Consumers Guarantees Act comes into play here as well. Since no price was never agreed upon (Don was just told the price) he is entitled to pay what he thinks is a reasonable price for the repair job "A reasonable price, if no price or pricing formula has been previously agreed." Also the Contract law comes into play here "A contract is an agreement entered into by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation". Don had never agreed to the engine being taken out of his van in the first place and nor did he agree with the repair job. There was no agreement made and as a result of this no contract between Don and the shop owner was made.
No comments:
Post a Comment