Schafer Gets $13.62 Million?

[RndyPotter@aol.com]

Regarding Sy Zabrocki's Dec. 17 summary of the Dec. 1995 Music Trades, et.
al., reports of Vern Schafer of Colton Piano Co. in Los Angeles being awarded
a $13.62 million judgement against Daewoo. There are a few things I do not
understand.

First, how is it that Vern Schafer of Schafer & Sons (ala Colton Pianos)
manages to win a judgement against Daewoo, at least in part, because Daewoo
"sued him into bankruptsy" after he ran up $4 million in dept to them. Having
never been in that exact situation myself (either oweing, or being owed, $4
million), I am sure I do not understand. But if someone beats you out of $4
million . . . then files bankruptsy to get out of paying it, aren't you
SUPPOSED to sue them and try to get it?

And since Daewoo owned the pianos still on Colton's floor, due to their
dealer contract (which allows pick-up of un-paid-for merchandise, chattel
lean laws and such, since when do you not have the right to take them back,
and sell them?

And since one partner (Schafer . . . ) apparently defrauded the other
(Daewoo) in the first place (by not paying their $4 million debt), what would
be improper about Daewoo continuing to make pianos under the name that they,
though jointly, built? Just because their former partner defrauded them out
of $4 million, do they have to quit making products under the name they also
labored to build up? (That is, assuming you can call the reputation of
Schafer / Daewoo-built pianos "up".)

The part I really don't understand, however, is that "Schafer countersued,
claiming the pianos were poorly built and not salable in the U.S. market."
Every technician I know, who has ever tuned a Daewoo product, has known for
years that these pianos were of, shall we say, less than acceptable quality!
So how is it that Mr. Schafer is able to claim, and apparently convince a
jury, that Daewoo delivered him "poorly built pianos"?
If you order one batch of pianos, and find you got "poorly built" instruments
- you get a refund, or sue because they defrauded you. But if you continue
ordering, and accepting, the "poorly built" instruments for years and years,
knowing their relative quality and pawning them off on the public anyway -
how is it you can sue years later, as if you did not know?

If you ORDER cheap pianos, you GET cheap pianos, normally.
And if you do, and if you sell it, then it seems to me you are ruining your
own business.

If you knowingly sell cheap junk to the public aren't you SUPPOSED to go out
of business? Isn't that what America is supposed to be like? Those who sell
good products, and provide good service - prosper. And those who don't -
fail.
So whose fault is it when they went out of business?

No, I don't have any admiration, whether great or small, for Daewoo. The
pianos I have seen and serviced are, to a large part, quite below any
acceptable standard. Someone recently remarked that it took the importing of
Chinese piano-shaped- objects to make them look, and only by comparison,
acceptable at all.

However, in the interest of fairness, and realizing that this case did, after
all, take place in Los Angeles County, the land of the intelligent jury pool,
what should we expect? If I ever cheat, or kill, anyone, I hope I can get
tried in LA, too.

Randy Potter. R.P.T.


P.S.  For those of you who do not see the humor in this situation, and can't
see the tongue-in-cheek joke I have purported, well, I am sorry about that.
This was meant in fun, and it is, in my opinion, quite a humorous turn of
events. Get it? Or do I have a sick mind.
I realize, however, that is it not very humorous to those unfortunate persons
who bought these instruments, but that is another matter entirely.