Defending Ski Haus

[ski_resort_observer]

Missed the part about her coming back nearly 2 months later. I assumed it was a couple of days. You go to HR get your pass/ID badge, come back with documentation, deal happens. What took so long? My guess is she wasn't an employee when she made the deal but knew she would be in a couple of months. Not cool at all.

 

[Puck it]

Their mistake was letting her think that that was her set of skis. It should have been impressed upon her that it was contingent on Volkl having them in stock when she came back with proof of employment. And whatever proof she was waiting for, it seems like she could have gotten a temporary letter from the mtn. Ball dropped on both ends. Bad attitude ends any hope of working something else out.

Okay. I was not going to type on the iTouch. She was told that it was contignent on her employment. Ski haus didn't think it would 2 months. She did not have her crap together and they tried to be accomodating

 

[severine]

Thank you for obtaining the other side, Puck It. I agree with wa-loaf.

 

[andyzee]

So then it's settled, she was a douche bag that tried to use the Internet to ruin a business since they would not succumb to her blackmail attempt.

 

[marcski]

So then it's settled, she was a douche bag that tried to use the Internet to ruin a business since they would not succumb to her blackmail attempt.

25 pages and Andy sums it up in 28 words.

My take is...similar to Wa-loaf's...but If you snooze you lose.

 

[Puck it]

Their mistake was letting her think that that was her set of skis. It should have been impressed upon her that it was contingent on Volkl having them in stock when she came back with proof of employment. And whatever proof she was waiting for, it seems like she could have gotten a temporary letter from the mtn. Ball dropped on both ends. Bad attitude ends any hope of working something else out.

Steve said that they told her it was contignent on the proof of employment.

 

[Philpug]

Too many times, what is SAID and what is HEARD are two different things.

Either way, the expectation to her from the shop shouldn't have been to pull a pair of skis off the ski wall either, that is now how it is done.

 

[skidbump]

"Two men say their Jesus, one of them must be wrong"

Some would say both are wrong.

 

[andyzee]

Some would say both are wrong.

True philosopher!

 

[Glenn]

Two slaps...the skin of the onion peels right off......

 

[wa-loaf]

Steve said that they told her it was contignent on the proof of employment.

I got that. They just should have let her know that it was time sensitive and that pro-forms run out.

 

[Geoff]

I got that. They just should have let her know that it was time sensitive and that pro-forms run out.

They should just fire the employee who pulled skis out of stock for a pro form deal. If I were the shop owner, that's what I would have done. I'm not running a charity. Ski resort employees can get pro form through their ski resort. Why bother a flatland business in Salem, NH with it? My employees should be trying to make a profit for my business, not doing side deals with potential customers where I don't make a dime.

 

[Puck it]

They pulled out of inventory thinking that the proof of employment would be coming soon. Not 7 weeks later.

 

[hammer]

I got that. They just should have let her know that it was time sensitive and that pro-forms run out.

Agree...kind of an important detail if you ask me.

Things got screwed up on both sides...and the whole threat of legal action made it much worse.

 

[Puck it]

She was told that that skis would set aside and held until they got the proof of employment and a confirmed shipment from the manufacturer. It still comes down to the time it took so long to get the proof of employment. That is the problem. She should sue Gunstock then.

 

[hammer]

She was told that that skis would set aside and held until they got the proof of employment and a confirmed shipment from the manufacturer. It still comes down to the time it took so long to get the proof of employment. That is the problem. She should sue Gunstock then.

Yes, but was she told that she needed to get that proof within a certain time period?

Don't know about others, but in my line of work if you don't make the terms of a sale clear from the start you can get into a lot of trouble.

Not justifying her legal threats (which I still believe are over the top) but I can't say that Ski Haus was in the right here either...

 

[dmc]

She should sue Gunstock then.

Dont joke... Or give her ideas...

 

[andyzee]

I think she should sue Alpinezone for not fully supporting her, boycotting Ski Haus, and informing her of details of Pro whatever deals.

After which she should sue herself, her parents, and her school systems, well for obvious reason.

 

[wa-loaf]

She was told that that skis would set aside and held until they got the proof of employment and a confirmed shipment from the manufacturer. It still comes down to the time it took so long to get the proof of employment. That is the problem. She should sue Gunstock then.

We get all that. The only thing missing is them saying, "Hey these go fast, get your shit together ASAP". a. she might have tried harder to get proof, b. she wouldn't have been so upset when it didn't work out. They didn't do anything wrong, it's just the info would have been helpful for everyone. I guess you assume the people getting pro-forms should know what's up.

 

[dmc]

I think she should sue Alpinezone for not fully supporting her, boycotting Ski Haus, and informing her of details of Pro whatever deals.

After which she should sue herself, her parents, and her school systems, well for obvious reason.

Her counsel has contacted herself...