All that is well and good, and no more than should be expected given the shop's screwup, but since none of us in the TNFJ know whether the accommodation was offered up front or only after negotiation with a dissatisfied customer, I'm not prepared to throw the OP under the bus in this instance.DP wrote:The original poster failed to mention that [blah, blah blah]
Could (should) the OP have handled this privately with the shop? Yes.
But by the same token, the shop must bear the lion's share of the blame in this instance, not so much for failing to perform the job as specified (mistakes can and do happen), but for attempting to justify that failure by characterizing it as an intentional decision by the shop to disregard the explicit job specification, i.e., "I plated it in bright silver as opposed to a satin cup. I hope you don't mind. I did not think it would look as good"; ESPECIALLY since, as the shop knew—and as much as admitted to knowning by the offer to plate another mpc free of charge—that a redo of the original mpc would be less likely to take than the initial replating.
If, in fact, the shop truly believed that a satinized mpc would not look good, they had a professional obligation to dissuade the customer from having it satinized before accepting the job or to decline the job altogether; and even if the shop did attempt to dissuade the customer from satinizing the mpc and failed to do so, by accepting the job, the shop accepted the professional ethical obligation to perform the job as specified. That they failed to do so, whether through their own fault or that of the plater (assuming it was sent out for plating), and attempted to explain away their failure is, ipso facto, a breach of professional propriety.
So, yes, even if the mpc was bright plated rather than satinized as a result of an honest mistake, the attempt by the shop to explain it away was a completely unprofessional response, despite whatever remedy was subsequently offered.






