quote:Originally posted by fisher:quote:Originally posted by CashGap:quote:Originally posted by JasonR:quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
Do you think the letter to Great America would help?
There's always a chance he'd be willing to make a horrible business decision for some PR reason.
Marketing aside... no chance.
Agreed.
The client (is it a municipality?) either took a risk knowingly "Eh, flood insurance, who needs it" or unknowingly (incompetence). They now have a loss.
But, this is the trend... I made a bad decision, is there someone with the last name ", Inc." who can be coerced or compelled to pay the bill?quote:Originally posted by fisher:
The leasing company is now after them for thestream of payments plus the residual value of the equipment. Think about this.....the leasing company funded $8,000 for the deal and a month later when the equipment was destroyed they want $12,500 from the customer.contracted obligations to which the customer agreed.
Fixed that for you...
So, do you think it would be ethical for the leasing company to go after full stream of payments plus residual in the case I described??? I don't begrudge the leasing company a fair return on their outlay of money but to want the full stream plus residual 4 weeks after funding is excessive. That's making 40% interest on their money for a one month investment. Would you be happy as the leasing partner???? I doubt it. Keep in mind your reputation as a salesperson is attached to how your leasing partners treat the customers.
Imagine if you had a mortgage on a new house and your house burned down a month after settlement. Would it be ethical and reasonable for the bank to go after you for the 30 years worth of interest and principal?
Just trying to do the best I can for my client.
Well, of course. We all understand that there is NO question of ethics, both parties signed a contract and agreed to obligations.
Both took on risks. Now one party has experienced those risks.
Is GA entitled to what the contract says they are entitled to after 4 weeks, or only after 5? Five is pretty short... maybe they get what the contract says after 15 weeks, but not 14? Or maybe they get what the contract says if the contract goes to term but they eat it if anything bad happens prior to full term?
People will always try to find a way to move the impact of their bad decisions to the other party. Google "Counter party risk".
And certainly, it would be ethical and reasonable for the bank to demand whatever the mortgage stated the day after closing. They cannot subsidize my failure to adequately insure.
There are only three parties. The shareholders of GA. The other GA customers. The customer who experienced the loss. One of them will experience the loss. Why not the customer who experienced the loss and failed to insure against it, especially since that will be the ruling of any court in the land?