🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jun26.022629.17251@gibdo.engr.washington.edu>, slh@gibdo.engr.washington.edu () writes:
|> In article <20fe6m$dpm@access.digex.net> stephen@access.digex.net (stephen balbach) writes:
|> >
|> >Just from a neutral perspective - I don't think Glen intentionaly sent a
|> >bad printer, it obviously got messed up in the shipping.  The FedEx money
|> >should go to repair the printer and if it cost any more than that Glen
|> >should pay for it, since it was advertised as in excellent condition.  
|> >
|> >Nor is Glen obligated to take the printer back - it was not his fault it
|> >was messed up in the shipping.  But he is obligated to provide what he
|> >stated as a printer in excellent condition, by having it repaired (or
|> >paying for the repair exspense).
|> >
|> >Stephen 
|> 
|> 	assuming the one side of the story we're hearing is true,
|> 	I think he's a lying slimy bastard.
|> 	(remember he got the money from fedex and
|> 	 did't pass it on to the buyer, how do you excuse that?)
|> 	he didn't pack it properly;
|> 	he should take back the printer and repay fedex.

I think Glen should make good on the printer one way or another, Either take
the printer back and refund the money, or send the money to get it repaired.  
But I missed something on the last line, of the folloup.  Why should he pay 
back Fedex, they did indeed damage the printer (even though shipping it with 
the toner in didn't make sense).  

Michael B.
-- 
Michael Browner     		browner@sun1.interlan.com or
(305) 846-6848                  browner@rd1.interlan.com
Racal-Datacom, MS E-112, 
P.O.Box 407044, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340