yknot
Guest
Can you add a link to the petiton at the bottom of the cover page- right where it mentions signing it? Also, will there eventually be a list of the manufacturers whom you have contacted?
REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Petition text -- READ THIS!!!! --
- Thread starter Genesis
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
The link on the bottom of the cover page is easy.
The other information will be returned to EVERY signer automatically; the petition system already handles this internally.
The way the petition system works, when you sign a petition and confirm (by email) the system returns to you a list of the people and organizations it queued your signature to. This will give you EXACTLY what you want - you will know who is getting your signature.
The other information will be returned to EVERY signer automatically; the petition system already handles this internally.
The way the petition system works, when you sign a petition and confirm (by email) the system returns to you a list of the people and organizations it queued your signature to. This will give you EXACTLY what you want - you will know who is getting your signature.
- Messages
- 3,464
- Reaction score
- 12
Genesis once bubbled...
I'll see what I can do - the background is easy (just changed it to a light-sky-blue color), the buttons require me to go back into Fireworks and re-do each of them individually.
Is it difficult to see on your monitor?
Not difficult to see, just kinda ugly. I think you want a very bussinesslike look to this page which precludes colors like that blue. Personally I believe business sites should be primarily black and white, black text on a white background with light graphics. In any case, background colors, other than white, take away from the business feel of the page.
WW
If your suggesting that since we could do service without being dealers and therefore could buy from someone other than the manufacturer we also need to target the insurance companies also. Also the restrictions against a dealor selling to another reseller need to go.
Are we talking about doing away way with the idea of the "authorized dealor"?
As it stands now when someone dumps that much money into a single brand they want some assurance that the guy down the street isn't selling it out of his trunk. That IMO is a major reason shops go along with the current practices. I'm not sure they can be seperated.
Are we talking about doing away way with the idea of the "authorized dealor"?
As it stands now when someone dumps that much money into a single brand they want some assurance that the guy down the street isn't selling it out of his trunk. That IMO is a major reason shops go along with the current practices. I'm not sure they can be seperated.
The insurance companies should be simple to deal with on this when you have the certifications and they're recognized as valid, along with the rest.
I'm willing to bet that issue can be easily handled with the insurers. They're businesspeople after all, and are interested in your money and rating you on a quantifyable risk.
Getting rid of "authorized dealers" isn't going to happen, nor should it. There's nothing wrong with a manufacturer choosing who sells their product as an "authorized" dealer.
What's wrong is using the threat of revocation of a dealership to set pricing policies, preventing consumers from having choice in where and what they buy by attempting to stop them from getting parts and service except from their "annointed" place, and other similar shenanigans.
The opening order and quota stuff is pretty easy to make go away with a free and open marketplace. Its destructive to the manufacturer's distribution; with an open market I bet it doesn't survive long.
I'm willing to bet that issue can be easily handled with the insurers. They're businesspeople after all, and are interested in your money and rating you on a quantifyable risk.
Getting rid of "authorized dealers" isn't going to happen, nor should it. There's nothing wrong with a manufacturer choosing who sells their product as an "authorized" dealer.
What's wrong is using the threat of revocation of a dealership to set pricing policies, preventing consumers from having choice in where and what they buy by attempting to stop them from getting parts and service except from their "annointed" place, and other similar shenanigans.
The opening order and quota stuff is pretty easy to make go away with a free and open marketplace. Its destructive to the manufacturer's distribution; with an open market I bet it doesn't survive long.
djhall
Guest
Genesis,
I seem to remember the original petition text contiaing more requests than the current one. Also, the requests do not seem to match the practices.
Practice #1 - Request #2
Practice #2 - Not Addressed?
Practice #3 - Not Addressed?
Practice #4 - Request #3
Practice #5 - Not Addressed?
Practice #6 - Not Addressed?
Request #1 does not seem related to anything else in the petition (at least, not at first glance). Where in the list of unfair practices, or anywhere else, do we mention manufacturers or wholesalers setting prices based on un-objective criteria?
Conversely, although we list "banning sales of equipment via other than face-to-face transactions" and refusal to honor warranties on product purchased through "unauthorized" channels in our list of unfair practices, we do not include any requests for the manufacturers to change these practices.
I am also curious about the question Mike Ferrara raised. What about the restrictions against a dealor selling to another reseller?
I know the original was kind of long, but I think we may have lost some clarity about what we oppose and especially why we oppose it in the shortening.
I seem to remember the original petition text contiaing more requests than the current one. Also, the requests do not seem to match the practices.
Practice #1 - Request #2
Practice #2 - Not Addressed?
Practice #3 - Not Addressed?
Practice #4 - Request #3
Practice #5 - Not Addressed?
Practice #6 - Not Addressed?
Request #1 does not seem related to anything else in the petition (at least, not at first glance). Where in the list of unfair practices, or anywhere else, do we mention manufacturers or wholesalers setting prices based on un-objective criteria?
Conversely, although we list "banning sales of equipment via other than face-to-face transactions" and refusal to honor warranties on product purchased through "unauthorized" channels in our list of unfair practices, we do not include any requests for the manufacturers to change these practices.
I am also curious about the question Mike Ferrara raised. What about the restrictions against a dealor selling to another reseller?
I know the original was kind of long, but I think we may have lost some clarity about what we oppose and especially why we oppose it in the shortening.
Let me go back through the petition itself. The site got a bit "ahead" of the actual petition text.
I believe this boils down to three issues:
1. Pricing and "first sale" restraints. They should go away.
2. Parts availability. Should be available from any authorized dealer.
3. Service information and classes for certification on various pieces of gear. Again, should be available to all comers.
The rest pretty much disappears with those three, I believe; clarification on #1 should take care of the issues you cite.
Let me see what I can do with the petition itself; the web site at http://www.diversunion.org should, however, be consistent.
I believe this boils down to three issues:
1. Pricing and "first sale" restraints. They should go away.
2. Parts availability. Should be available from any authorized dealer.
3. Service information and classes for certification on various pieces of gear. Again, should be available to all comers.
The rest pretty much disappears with those three, I believe; clarification on #1 should take care of the issues you cite.
Let me see what I can do with the petition itself; the web site at http://www.diversunion.org should, however, be consistent.
djhall
Guest
Just so I am certain I understand, we are no longer objecting to 1) refusal to honor warranties on items purchased new but not from an authorized dealer, 2) refusal to allow authorized dealers to sell to customers other than face-to-face, and 3) authorized dealers loosing their dealerships for selling to other re-sellers or pooling orders with other authorized dealers? The three issues you list seem to allow manufacturers to continue these practices.
The items you cite all fall under the general doctrine that is known as "first sale."
That is, the manufacturer's or distributor's control over a product should extend only to their sale to the retailer.
The three practices that you cite are explicitly banned by such a practice, since there is no "reach" beyond the first sale.
Warranty issues are to some extent an issue of Magnuson-Moss (federal law, at least in the US); while many manufacturers try to escape on this one, it is unlikely to fly if someone is willing to press the issue. You can find a "consumer-level" explanation of Magnuson-Moss at http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/warranties/undermag.htm
(2) and (3) are part of the first issue on the web page, and I have edited both the page and the petition to insure that it is clear on both those two points, and the first (even though the first, IMHO, probably doesn't NEED expansion since Magnuson-Moss covers this in many of the particular circumstances.)
Similar threads
