A Business Dilemma

[Tom Servinsky]

Ric,
Point well said!
We all have to be aware that we can all be one step from being on the wrong
end of a law suit, whether it be ludicrous or factual.  In this judicial
world of ours we have to be aware that our words can be miss-interpreted,
and considered malicious by some.
There have been numerous times on this very list that law suits could have
been generated by wrong minds having to much time on their hands to create
turmoil.

Tom Servinsky,RPT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Moody" <remoody@midstatesd.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: A Business Dilemma


> You wrote....
>  |   I sent a copy of this email to E* at *---*     last
> | week so that he might have a chance to respond one on one and keep this
> | personally between us; I had asked that he recant his story of the
events
> and
> | apologize for the slander regarding my behavior and for the
> unprofessional
> | manner in which he dealt with my client. He sent back the letter
> unaccepted
> | and unopened.
>
>     I know very well the risks of appraising pianos on dealer's premisis,
> and I agree with your position that the appraising tech must be
> independent, honest and of course up to the best of his ability.
>     But you have put your self in possible jepardy by mentioning names of
> people in business on a "published" forum relating to the Music Industry.
> Nothing "wrong with this, but if you don't think you put the people you
> named in a bad light I would ask what are/were your motives for
> "publishing" this to the "World Wide Web".
>
>     You may have in effect "slandered" the dealer you mention.   Keep in
> mind that today's interpretations of libel laws allude that even if you
> say, (worse yet publishing) something that is true about someone but that
> puts him in a "bad light", you might loose a libel suit.  And they don't
> have to prove damage.   (I don't blame them why wait until they actually
> incur damages, shouldn't they have rights to nip it in the bud?)
>     So I hope you don't get a letter from *__'s lawyer, but  *__ does have
> rights now that you have "smeered his name all over the internet".  While
> you might think you the freedom of speech to talk about what are true and
> actual events, you are in a sense "charging" him with these acts.   And of
> course he has the right to answer these "charges".  Unfortunatly it seems
> he has been denied those rights because I suspect you did not notified him
> before you "published".
>     I keep harping on "published" because the strongest evidence in libel
> cases seems to be what has been "Published"   So I would suggest extreme
> discretion in mentioning names on this list in a negative light,
especially
> when it comes to  business dealings.
>     Please don't think  the above is admonishing  for posting honest
> opinion. I am completely in your camp on this and only wanted to point out
> other dilemmas we may incur from going about our daily business in ernest
> and to the best of our abilities.  ----ric
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Yardarm103669107@AOL.COM>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:01 PM
> Subject: A Business Dilemma
>
>
> | Dear Folks:
> |
> | I encountered a strange circumstance recently which may or may not have
> | bearing on all of our one-on-one dealer relationships, |
> |
> I was not welcome in the Fandrich Piano store because I
> | had "blown a deal on a Steinway for them", that, "because he sells
> pianos",
> | he (I) had disrecommended the transaction.
> .......|
> | I advised the client in that case that
> | the piano was good, but at the very highest end of the price range and
so
> | should be excellent. I never heard again from him or what the results of
> his
> | dealing with *-* were.
> |
> ......|{another} client has decided, only on the
> | basis of what had happened and through no persuasion from me, not to
deal
> | with *-* and to look elsewhere.
> |
> | This situation, although an insult to a customer and disconcerting to
me,
> | leads me to a few observations of a broader nature, which you may or may
> not
> | be inclined to think about for yourself, or for your chapter.
> |
> | 1) If techicians cannot neutrally evaluate pianos for clients in a store
> | setting, then there is a problem. This neutrality is important on both
> sides
> | of the coin, technician and dealer.
> .............As the client in this matter said to
> | me in an email, "I believe that, as a neutral technician seeking to
> operate
> | in this market, you have a legitimate gripe that should be aired for
your
> | sake and for the sake of all technicians who want to provide clients
with
> | honest evaluations of pianos."
> |
> | Just so you know, as well, I sent a copy of this email to *__* last
> | week so that he might have a chance to respond one on one and keep this
> | personally between us; I had asked that he recant his story of the
events
> and
> | apologize for the slander regarding my behavior and for the
> unprofessional
> | manner in which he dealt with my client. He sent back the letter
> unaccepted
> | and unopened. *_* also a member of the PTG (associate in the W______
> pter); while there is obvious recourse to us through the ethics committee
> | and the disciplinary code, I choose not to take this path.
> |
> | I am quite baffled by all of this. I would welcome any comment or
> | recommendations on future business dealings from any one of you. I have
> tried
> | to do my business as faithfully as I can, and to make ethical judgments
> as
> | well as I can.
> |
> | Regards all.
> |
> | Paul Revenko-Jones
>