Music123.com -- No Longer a Mail Order Ric Dealer!

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Fri May 19, 2006 10:29 am

"The law is pretty clear on this, and RIC is not obligated to do anything for its retail customers, as its contract was with the dealer, and the dealer didn't hold up its end, leading to the split."

Having a legal obligation is one thing, having a moral one another. Ric or any other company, does not have to make its end users happy legally, but if they don't, they won't have customers. I don't care how great the quality of a product is, if I am left feeling like my business isn't appreciated, then I will find someone else to support with my dollars.

As for what is minor and not, there is very little we in North America (or Europe) have that can serve as a major issue when compared to the majority of this planet's inhabitants. I think starving to death trumps dying at the hands of an enemy given the ratio of real life occurences. All the complaints found in this forum (and pretty much everywhere else on the net) are petty in comparison. That doesn't mean we can't complain about them.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri May 19, 2006 11:10 am

So RIC is "morally obligated" to make good on the default of one of its dealers?

Sounds to me like a formula for charity and bad business practices.

Amen on the issue of minor risks.

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Fri May 19, 2006 11:37 am

I think when it comes to limited items such as COY or signature series, then yes, it would be nice if Ric were willing to accomodate people whose dealers are deauthorized during the waiting period, especially if that period amounts to years. It's not like those particular instruments weren't already in the production queue, even if they haven't been assembled.

I never said anything about charity. The end user would still be paying for the instrument, and it wouldn't have to be through the defunct dealer either. My only concern would be that the end user get what they ordered - otherwise my original point returns - why order at all if you risk having your money tied up for years and never get what you ordered?

icelandair · Post by **icelandair** » Fri May 19, 2006 12:01 pm

I'd like to add that my original post wasn't to imply that this was the biggest problem on the planet. This is the Ric forum, and I had a topic of interest to the Ric community, so I started the thread. Since M123 is a very large and visible Internet retailer, their loss as a dealer made the situation even more interesting.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri May 19, 2006 12:15 pm

My point about charity was that RIC would have to engage in charity by bailing out a dealer who didn't hold up its end of the bargain. RIC then would be entering into de facto agreements with retail customers, and it is not a sales organization--it is a manufacturer.

No question that this is an area of frustration for those caught in the middle (customers). But RIC's responsibility is to produce a product which functions as intended, and to supply these to a dealer in exchange for money.

I always wondered what "moral" responsibility really means. It is almost always invoked by an aggrieved party, usually in support of that party's side of a dispute. But the definition of this vague and self-serving term is usually a matter of opinion, not law or commerce.

Oh, well, it's my contractual obligation here to shut up and go back to fixing guitars.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Fri May 19, 2006 1:17 pm

Paul, I think you were in breach of contract several posts ago. I just feel it is my moral responsibility to inform you of this.

This post reminds me of the sale of that Midnight Blue bass that changed hands 3 times and the owner wanted the warranty upheld.

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Fri May 19, 2006 1:17 pm

How does delivering the guitar that was order constitute bailing out the dealer? There could be an argument that Ric's delivery times often exceed a reasonable time frame, which means they aren't delivering to the retailler in a manner that is condusive to ongoing sales or dealer support. It could also mean that the dealer gets stuck with orders that customers cancel due to extended wait times. It works both ways.

Ric doesn't have to please its end users unless it wants those users to ever buy from them again - or in the first place. I don't blame them for dumping dealers that aren't paying their bills, but I can see that some dealers may not be too thrilled with how the order process works either.

britye · Post by **britye** » Fri May 19, 2006 3:03 pm

I'm trying hard to follow the logic of those that feel RIC should make good on the orders of customers of a dropped dealer and I can't. I understand the frustration as I have had a RIC on order for almost 18 months now. If something like this happened to me I'd be upset for sure. As it has been stated earlier in this thread life is full of risks. Sometimes you win one and sometimes you lose. The key is get up and get moving again. Regarding delivery times, not that RIC needs defending regarding production but I knew if I wanted this particular guitar I would be in for a long wait. The online dealer that I ordered from made sure I was perfectly clear on that before I ordered. I agreed. So what right do I have to complain? Ok, so sometimes I mumble and grumble, but I was made fully aware going in.

bitzerguy · Post by **bitzerguy** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:12 pm

Umm... just a logistics thought here: how would Ric even know who (end users) ordered what? Because they sell to dealers, then the dealer would be their customer. As such then Ric would not necessarily know the name of any end user. I would never give my customer's names to any of my suppliers (I had a supplier try to end run me to a good customer). I doubt any instrument dealer would either. You think Chrysler knows your name when they build your minivan? Same deal.

Who finally gets the ordered guitar? The person who ordered it and put a deposit on it, or some other guy who comes along and "says" he ordered it? How would the manufacturer even know?

...Dean

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Sat May 20, 2006 6:24 pm

The bill of sale with the model and order date would be evidence of the transaction. I don't think most people would hand over several hundred dollars to a dealer for an order without some record of the transaction.

bitzerguy · Post by **bitzerguy** » Sun May 21, 2006 4:47 am

Agreed. That is a simple and easy way to track a name.

However, most large dealers would never hand over this information to a supplier when they place their order. The order would likely include other items as well as yours. Ric would never see that bill of sale, so how would Ric know that this is your guitar?

A "Mom & Pop" shop with concern for their customers probably would hand over that info and make an arrangement for you, but a large mail order house? I doubt it very much.

...Dean

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Sun May 21, 2006 6:33 am

The store wouldn't have to hand anything over, the customer would be responsible for providing the receipt, which they would have to do at a retailler anyway to get their order since many won't have the same staff if the wait is a year or more.

Again, my suggestion is not for run of the mill orders, just the ones that can't be reordered elsewhere, like COY or limited editions. I didn't mean for this to turn into a massive discussion, it was just a concern which likely won't affect me personally anyway.

drathbun · Post by **drathbun** » Sun May 21, 2006 6:54 am

What happens when a dealer goes bankrupt? If they are a dealer for all kinds of products, would all of the companies they were a dealer for have to honor all the orders placed by them?

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Mon May 22, 2006 5:35 am

We weren't talking about every company, and we weren't talking about dealers going bankrupt. We were talking about a situation where an authorized dealer lost their authorization. Since I am not one of the people who will be affected by this in the future, I really don't care what happens. It was only a suggestion to keep potential Ric customers happy (and thereby keep them Ric customers).

The bankruptcy risk is another reason for never putting down a deposit on an order, especially when you know it may be years before you see that order.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:27 am

I still completely fail to follow a chain of reasoning that says that RIC is responsible for its dealers' orders, to its dealer's retail customers.

RIC's responsibility is to its dealers. Its dealers' responsibilities are to their customers. End of story.

If you are of the mindset that RIC failed you personally, by cutting off a dealer who didn't fulfill its end of a legal contract, then you will also possibly be of a mindset to never buy a Rickenbacker again. Fine. It takes all kinds, as they say.