Ken, I spent some time thinking about it and this is what I think.
Legally (no I am not a Lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt) I am
sure they are only required to replace the damaged on. However, this is a
retail business (this I do know a lot about) and customer satisfaction and
service can often be the ruling factor. More times than not if you
complain enough (or to the high enough person) they will give in.
Managers are almost always allowed a certain amount that they can deal with
to satisfy a customer. I would present your argument to the dealership
this way: you drive a classic British sports car, that is shown in
competition and having matching tires is extremely important and necessary
to you. If you bought the tires at the store originally this should be a
half way easy argument. You only used your tires for 3000 miles (they are
almost new!) Ask them to pro-rate these tires and replace your other three
(only charge you for the averaged amount of what you have actually used
yours for). I personnaly think this is extremely fair, remember they will
turn around and sell these as used tires for almost as much as a new set
and they had 40 to 60% mark up anyhow, they will make money twice on the
deal. Remember the first person will always say no, keep asking.
my $.02 worth
Patrick
At 10:10 PM 10/15/98 -0500, Ken Tharp wrote:
>Listers,
>
>A new dilemma for my Spitfire: I took it in today to have all four tires
>switched from one set of rims to another. During the process, the
>company doing the work accidentally ruined one of my tires. They
>apologized profusely and told me that they had put a brand new tire on
>in its place. My cause for concern is that it is not a match for the
>other three tires on the car. The company, who shall remain nameless
>(but whose name rhymes with "Hood-deer" <g>), said that the tires that
>were on my car are no longer available. They chose a tire that is
>exactly the same size, but has a different tread pattern, of course.
>
>The four tires that were on the car were nearly new in terms of tread
>wear (probably less than 3,000 miles on them). Is having one mismatched
>tire something I need to be concerned about? They indicated that it
>wasn't (surprise, surprise), but I told them that I was not going to
>consider the matter closed until I got a second opinion. That's where
>you come in - what do you think? Considering that the tire that they
>ruined was virtually new, is asking for another tire so that I have two
>pairs of tires unreasonable? Or do I just forget about it?
>--
>Ken Tharp
>79 Spitfire 1500
>West Des Moines, IA
>
>
>
Patrick Bowen
'79 Spitfire
Jacksonville FL
|