From: letoured_at_together.net
Date: Fri Nov 08 2002 - 05:47:29 EST
In <fc.0010c7b20063e2323b9aca00ac430cf4.63e2ba_at_Capaccess.org>, on 11/06/02
at 12:30 PM, "David A. Vandenbroucke" <davanden_at_capaccess.org> said:
>letoured_at_together.net writes:
>>No connection at all. The customer is being harmed without a good or
>>rational
>>explanation. If they refuse to deliver that -- which is probably required
>>under the UCC -- then the rational course of action is to force them to
>>deliver it.
>>
>...and to many people on this list, the first resort is to sue them. If
>their employees have the same attitude about workplace hazards, it's no
>wonder they rejected the laptop.
IBM has had (and had) a few days of watching this list. They know what the
story was. There was no response, and still isn't. Furthermore, if you knew
how small claim courts work, you would know that you fill out the form, pay
the fee -- and the other party has a certain time to respond and solve the
problem.
For me, if that didn't get them moving in a real hurry, I'm sure the company
lawyers would be telling management what to do right after they received the
subpoena for the supporting information I wanted. -- The point, which I
don't make simple enough is this; they don't want that information made
public. When it can be, you see a change in thinking in Presto-time. They find
another way to solve the problem instead of playing the stone wall game.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------- letoured_at_together.net -----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:59:37 EST