|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
A Tale of Two Cities and FedEx
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 06:11:25 +0700, John B.
wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 07:25:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:54:14 +0700, John B. wrote: But that is thievery. Yes, but in this case, it would be stealing from myself. There's a bit of a tangle surrounding the ownership of the repeater, repeater building, and service company, but basically, they're all the same company. The law says that I'm required to "offer" the old parts to the customer. So, what should I do? Offer the dead tubes to myself? If I were working on equipment that belongs to a different customer, you would be correct. I even had a required section on the invoice for dealing with defective parts. However, there's nothing for working on the company's own equipment. You go somewhere and replace a tube, tire, light bulb, bicycle wheel, whatever. the old part belongs to the owner of the device being repaired :-) True. However, the only responsibility is for the service shop or LBS to "offer" the dead part to the customer in advance. If they don't want it, it goes into the trash. For example, for auto repair: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/small_claims/your_rights.php 3. RETURN OF REPLACED PARTS, IF REQUESTED AT THE TIME A WORK ORDER IS PLACED. Ah, but you stated that your man removed tubes and then returned to the shop to test them which assumes that you might then return tubes that test O.K. to your inventory. Maybe, except your order and sequence is wrong. He returned them to inventory before testing them, which was the problem. Which is, in a sense, fraud as it appears that you might in some cases remove a tube, test it as serviceable and then use it to replace a possibly faulty tube at a later date and undoubtedly then bill the client for the tube. The way a tube tester works is if it says the tube is bad, it's bad. However, if it says the tube is good, it could still be bad, usually in some manner that the tube testers of the day were unable to test. Whether they were good or bad had not effect on the billing because the tubes belonged to the service shop and therefore there was no invoicing involved. The law requiring repair shopts to offer returning defective parts was created because of deceptive practices involving "core charges". There was a common belief that TV servicemen performed un-necessary tube replacements. Returning the original tube to the customer allowed the customer to retest the tube and complain that there was nothing wrong with the original tube. That was probably not true since the customers tube tester could not reliably determine if the tube was good. It could only reliably determine if it was bad. It was a bad law that failed to accomplish anything useful for anyone. (More fun then futzing about with the meaning of words :-) Futzing? That's Yiddish for arumfartzen which literally means "farting around". https://www.dictionary.com/browse/futz--around It might be fun, but is this really a problem worth solving? What did I do Friday nights before I discovered R.B.T.? -- Jeff Liebermann PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272 Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
A Tale of Two Cities and FedEx
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 17:20:46 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 06:11:25 +0700, John B. wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 07:25:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:54:14 +0700, John B. wrote: But that is thievery. Yes, but in this case, it would be stealing from myself. There's a bit of a tangle surrounding the ownership of the repeater, repeater building, and service company, but basically, they're all the same company. The law says that I'm required to "offer" the old parts to the customer. So, what should I do? Offer the dead tubes to myself? If I were working on equipment that belongs to a different customer, you would be correct. I even had a required section on the invoice for dealing with defective parts. However, there's nothing for working on the company's own equipment. You go somewhere and replace a tube, tire, light bulb, bicycle wheel, whatever. the old part belongs to the owner of the device being repaired :-) True. However, the only responsibility is for the service shop or LBS to "offer" the dead part to the customer in advance. If they don't want it, it goes into the trash. For example, for auto repair: https://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/small_claims/your_rights.php 3. RETURN OF REPLACED PARTS, IF REQUESTED AT THE TIME A WORK ORDER IS PLACED. Ah, but you stated that your man removed tubes and then returned to the shop to test them which assumes that you might then return tubes that test O.K. to your inventory. Maybe, except your order and sequence is wrong. He returned them to inventory before testing them, which was the problem. Which is, in a sense, fraud as it appears that you might in some cases remove a tube, test it as serviceable and then use it to replace a possibly faulty tube at a later date and undoubtedly then bill the client for the tube. The way a tube tester works is if it says the tube is bad, it's bad. However, if it says the tube is good, it could still be bad, usually in some manner that the tube testers of the day were unable to test. Whether they were good or bad had not effect on the billing because the tubes belonged to the service shop and therefore there was no invoicing involved. The law requiring repair shopts to offer returning defective parts was created because of deceptive practices involving "core charges". There was a common belief that TV servicemen performed un-necessary tube replacements. Returning the original tube to the customer allowed the customer to retest the tube and complain that there was nothing wrong with the original tube. That was probably not true since the customers tube tester could not reliably determine if the tube was good. It could only reliably determine if it was bad. It was a bad law that failed to accomplish anything useful for anyone. (More fun then futzing about with the meaning of words :-) Futzing? That's Yiddish for arumfartzen which literally means "farting around". https://www.dictionary.com/browse/futz--around It might be fun, but is this really a problem worth solving? What did I do Friday nights before I discovered R.B.T.? My younger brother once had a job as a "tube tester". When he went to collage he sort of went wild - girls, booze, etc. - and the collage kicked him out. My father (who as I grew older seemed to gain in wisdom) said, "Well lad, you are out of collage and on your own, your mother and I will be closing the house and going to Florida for the winter so you probably need to find a job". So he went to Boston and the only job he could find was a "Tube tester" for a large radio and TC shop. When spring came he went "on bended knee" to the collage and pleaded for re-admission. I guess even school was better then 8 hours a day testing tubes :-) The end of the story has that, some years later, my young brother receiving a Master's Degree :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
a tale of 2 ads | lowkey | General | 25 | October 18th 05 08:39 PM |
Another Bird Tale | hemyd | Australia | 4 | December 5th 04 03:33 AM |
Tale of wet feet | DaveB | Australia | 11 | November 11th 04 03:56 AM |
just a funny tale | Torgo | Australia | 0 | September 6th 04 03:54 AM |
A Tale of Two Septembers | Don't do it | General | 4 | September 12th 03 02:00 PM |