Kicked out of Nitrox Class!!

[khel]

zippy once bubbled...

Remember, when the internet drives the LDSs out of business the only place to get trained will be on line. Can't wait until I get my first on-line dive buddy. :bonk:

Well, look at the Europe for example - prices are much cheaper, you can buy either online or in LDS (they didn't disappear ), people don't have problems with fills and service etc.. So, as far as I can see, none of the "horrors of buying fills online" going to happen

 

[domino22]

medic13 once bubbled...
man this is one of the most ap-pauling stories I have ever heard !!!!
first I would call padi, I think you will find out that she cant do that , also she could even loose her business license if you report this to the right person , did she have a sign ( right to refuse anyone posted anyway )!!!
second find out what brand of dive gear she sells and send them a certified letter , you be surprised at the response they will have too, this is ashame that even though you bought something some wear even on-line this isn't what the dive industry is about not only did she hurt you , the dive industry but when this gets out she will hurt herself more now than if she had let you done the class and more than likely would of bought something in future from her.

The purpose of posting my story was that I could not believe what happened I was dumb founded-amazed-confused-I just could not believe what had happened and wanted to share my story with this group and see what everyone else thought of her actions.My purpose was not to put her out of buisness she has some good people working there and I do not want to see them hurt because of her actions and the way I was treated by her not her employees who were always nice to me.The post from a former employee makes me wonder about a lot of other things. Rick when you contacted her was she willing to defend her actions here? I wish she would, and I think everyone on this thread would like to hear her side. I have recieved a email from her and will not post a private email but it was not a i am sorry email it was here is the deal.

 

[Genesis]

and got stony silence, as I expected.

Perhaps I need a new section "the ugly", for Diversunion....

BTW, while a business can refuse to do business with someone they don't like (e.g. "your hairdo sucks!") what they cannot do is enter into a contract and then change the terms, nor walk away from it simply by refunding the customer's money.

You had all the elements of a legal contract, and could conceivably go into small claims court for specific performance.

Whether you'd want to get that cert from her at this point is another matter!

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Genesis once bubbled...
what they cannot do is enter into a contract and then change the terms, nor walk away from it simply by refunding the customer's money.

You had all the elements of a legal contract, and could conceivably go into small claims court for specific performance.

Actually, they can do exactly that, counselor. And there is nothing that a howling internet stroke (in the truest sense of the word) can do about it.

As for specific performance, I'm laughing out loud picturing Karl the Krazy Konsumer presenting this to a small claims court in Texas. I'd hear the laughter all the way up here.

The measure of damages for breach would, in this case, be the purchase price of the course. Its been refunded. Case closed.

Specific performance is only appropriate when dealing with inherently unique items. As stated, there are several LDS' in the buyer's area. The course is hardly unique. Accordingly, specific performance is unwarranted.

Moreover, anyone who has completed more than their first week of law school would be aware that personal service contracts cannot be specifically enforced. That's called slavery or indentured servitude. Money damages are an appropriate remedy in cases of this type.

This is probably a personal service contract. It cannot be specifically enforced. Once again, you lose.

As for the value of time, I'd love to see you prove that. In your case, for example, I'd argue that you saved money because a female (the shop owner) talked to you for 2 hours and you didn't even need to dial a 1-900 number in New York for it to happen.

 

[Rick Murchison]

domino22 once bubbled...
Rick when you contacted her was she willing to defend her actions here?

She did respond to my email, thanking me for directing her to the thread. She said she had chosen not to respond. The impression I got (My impression - not anything said directly) was that she didn't want to get into an endless pissin' contest online with folks who weren't likely to see her point - whatever it is.
Rick

 

[runvus4]

Legality of product ties -
Obligation to honor warentee services is entirely different than any kind of monopolistic illegal product ties. In addition, anti-trust laws apply only to anti-trust. They don't apply to the world in general. Lots of places tie products and services and have no legal problems at all.

It was not an illegal act to cancel the class and return the monies. A lawsuit in any court will result in nothing but wasted time and legal fees if a lawyer is consulted. How many concerts have been canceled with full refunds? Has anyone ever sued let alone won a suit claiming some sort of breach of contract and loss of time waiting on line?

I still want to know, what sort of relationship did the poster have with the dive shop. So you bought some items from the dive shop... What was it a fin strap and some de-fog? Looking at your post, it does seem to imply that you buy/have bought the bulk of your goods from Leisure Pro. After all, once you get your exposure suit, computers, regs, bc from an online shop, how many years will the LDS have to suffer with break even products/service to suck up to you to have even the smallest chance at making an actual profitable sale? It's not like those items aren't durable enough to survive years of use.

IMHO, something just doesn't add up with the story yet, I'd like to hear the other side.

I think what the dive shop did was WRONG. IMHO, once they took the money and started the class, the professional thing to do would have been to complete the class to their best ability, even if they grew to immensely dislike the customer for whatever reason. They would then be free to deny any future products/services with clear professional concience.

On the other hand, if I was a small business proprieter, a customer that only purchased the break-even items, sucked down my time/expertise to utilize that expertise to buy from someone else, that is more than willing to threaten my professional standing and threaten lawsuits is one that I'd be glad to be rid of, the sooner the better. Guess it's a good thing I'm not a small business owner.

Sure, the LDS can change the structure of their business in terms of loss leaders and break even items to increase profit as other have suggested, and in this case, that seems to be exactly what the LDS was doing and they still are getting grief over it. Seems that the popular opinion is that it's all good for them to try to make more money off of their items/services unless it directly affects you...

 

[runvus4]

And while I'm at it...

Even if the dive shop followed my opinion on what the "professional" course of action and did a supurb job while finishing the class they did not want to teach, when they denied future products/services, then most likely there would still be complaints and people would still be incredulous that the dive shop had the audacity to turn away a customer for buying online and still be getting blasted like this one is now. For the message board active diving public, in the court of mob mentality, I guess there is no good way of getting rid of a disliked/bad/problem customer. Not saying that the original poster is a bad or problem customer, but apparently he had become a disliked customer.

 

[Genesis]

Even if the dive shop followed my opinion on what the "professional" course of action and did a supurb job while finishing the class they did not want to teach, when they denied future products/services, then most likely there would still be complaints and people would still be incredulous that the dive shop had the audacity to turn away a customer for buying online and still be getting blasted like this one is now. For the message board active diving public, in the court of mob mentality, I guess there is no good way of getting rid of a disliked/bad/problem customer. Not saying that the original poster is a bad or problem customer, but apparently he had become a disliked customer.

Court of "mob mentality"?

C'mon.

People don't have a right to an opinion all their own, without the censorship of someone standing over them, telling them what to think and do? What's that about?

I have always found it amusing when merchants try to claim the right to impose a "cone of silence" around their activities and outright acts. Of course this is only claimed when they're engaged in something that others might find unseemly or worse! Never is an act of charity undertaken quietly, or some "good work" done without mention - or outright abuse in advertising.

I have sat on both sides of this table. As a merchant in the Internet space, I took many unpopular views, most of them related to family and children in one way or another (e.g. banning the online newsgroups containing kiddie porn and such from my ISP, going after spammers, etc.) Most of what others have cited as evidence of me being a "madman" is a small, vocal group of people raising he-double-matchsticks about my stand on issues that they saw the other way on - no big surprise there.

There is no right when offering a good or service to the public to keep your actions private. You give up that right to privacy as soon as you hang out a shingle and start interacting with other people under the banner of commerce. Your actions become fair game for public discussion - because your actions are inherently no longer private.

Nobody who does business with you has an obligation to keep quiet about their experience absent an explicit agreement of confidence - such a thing is simply never implied, and in fact, I would argue that the public interest is served by public reports from those who you have dealt with in the past.

 

[runvus4]

It is most certainly permissable and often desierable for people to express satisfaction/dissatisfaction over transactions, and certainly acceptable for people to voice their opinions over the issue at hand. No one, aside from you, has mentioned anything like a gag order.

I'm calling this a court of mob mentality because that's what it is. No one but the poster and the LDS knows what actually went on. All of a sudden you've got a vocal number of people talking about to professionally "lynch" the dive shop owner, by having their Padi certs stripped, them sued for damages, other divers to blacklist the shop etc. All those are, in my opionion, mob mentality reactions, not reasoned opinions based upon factual evidence. In the end, the LDS/instructor may or may not deserve such responces, but such extremes behaviour is not called for based upon what has so far been posted.

People are talking about professionally ruining someone and/or attempting to drive a store out of business over, what is in my opinion, simply canceling a class WITH full refunds for a bad reason.

 

[Genesis]

and refuses to respond.

That is their right, but it leaves the further impression that they have something to hide, and are hoping this "blows over".

Their choice.

Their consequence.