I need a little help? Would You sell this Horn?

[Rick Denney]

Factor that into your answer next time you''re tempted to pontificate from the peanut gallery on how someone "should" run his or her business.

[/RANT]

Pgym

The problem with your rant, of course, is that it assumes the common folk of this country want to live their lives in the debt of attorneys. Getting the advice you recommend could easily exceed the cost of the repair (even the cheap attorneys around here get $300 an hour, and charge an hour if their thoughts even wander in your direction). If that's the only reasonable recourse in a simple case like this, then why would anybody go into business?

If writing a letter saying, "this is what you owe me, please pay or I will pursue my legal options" exposes the owner to risk in Pennsylvania, I would move to a state less hostile to people in business. Maybe that's why some states never seem to prosper.

And, yes, that's a theoretical argument, too.

Rick "hoping it works out for Harv without enriching only the legal profession" Denney

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Wow. No offense intended pgym (and I do appreciate the thought you put into it and the thoroughness of your reply), but...

I have a small Brass repair shop a one man shop. I have a nice 20K dedented,new lacquer.But The ower has not picked it up. For over 6 months. About 3 Month ago his girlfriend called me and said .He would pick it up on the 20th of March.I got to talk to his grilfriend 7 days ago. She said would have him call me But No call.
Before I started the job I called the custormer , I gave him a price , and told him it would be finished in a week. He said go ahead with the job.I called him in week with the horn finished. and now its 6 month later. I am thinking about selling It I could uses the repair money. What do you other repair people do in a case like this?? Thanks Harvey

isn't a request for legal advice. The OP got exactly what he asked for - opinions from contributors to this forum. He can go to http://www.laborlawtalk.com or any number of other sites if he wants a debate on the subtleties of the legal issues (from a wide range of people from qualified to irresponsibly ignorant).

Simply doing business of any kind is "exposing" yourself to legal action. Every business decision made has potential legal consequences - positive and negative. That fact doesn't mean that common sense has no place in such decisions, nor does it mean that the services of a legal professional should be required every time a decision must be made. In this case, common sense would dictate that some effort must be made to contact the customer, remind his of his obligation to pay for the repairs, and present some sort of consequence if he does not pay in a timely manner.

For the record, I agree most with bloke's suggestion on page one (except for the part about selling it to Joe ). That said, I still wouldn't sell it without some sort of response...hopefully just the threat of selling it will take care of the situation. I have a hard time seeing how merely threating a customer who hasn't paid for completed work for 6 months with the sale of their instrument would cost the OP any business in the future at all...any reasonable person would agree with him. Would someone looking for horn repair really want to seek out only the repairman who just lets completed work sit around his shop, unpaid for? C'mon now.

Todd, not buying the potential repercussions angle of the threat to sell

[Donn]

If that's the only reasonable recourse in a simple case like this, then why would anybody go into business?

From my very remote perspective, this is a little like the legal problem practically everyone faces at some point, testate. The key to losing it all to the lawyers is to state a legally enforceable policy beforehand, if you're a repair shop, or draw up a sound will beforehand, if you're an individual who doesn't expect to live forever. Not that we would like to see anyone get gouged in any case, but this is how we provide businesses and estates an opportunity to control legal costs.

And there's room for improvement there. I've wondered if some drugstore or office supply chain could spend a few bucks to draw up a couple of generic fill-in-the-blank wills (and same for durable power of attorney, etc.) that meet local state requirements, and a store policy, get a clerk in each store fixed up with a notary public stamp, and go into the legal business 3-7PM Tuesdays. I have no idea how many people actually die without having made a will, but I think enough that it's a gross waste of time for everyone, and it's a shame that we can't provide a simple standard option for those who would rather not pay a lawyer for more a detailed will.

Probably the same for shop owners - it's easy to say "you should have a stated policy", but you can't really arrive at a guaranteed-to-be-legal policy without hiring a lawyer to draft it? That's a shame, if the same fairly obvious wording would work for auto shops, dry cleaners, etc. all over the state.

[Rick Denney]

Probably the same for shop owners - it's easy to say "you should have a stated policy", but you can't really arrive at a guaranteed-to-be-legal policy without hiring a lawyer to draft it? That's a shame, if the same fairly obvious wording would work for auto shops, dry cleaners, etc. all over the state.

One of the problems we face as a mature society is that we cede bigger and bigger portions of our commercial lives to attorneys. I mean this as no offense to attorneys--there are zillions of really complicated questions that need their specialized knowledge. But we, as a society, really should make it possible for normal people to conduct normal daily business without being afraid to do anything without having input from lawyers. Normal daily business seems to me to include requesting payment from a deadbeat customer.

The more of these routine business activities have to be dictated by the legal profession to avoid risk, the harder it will be for normal folks just to conduct business. Every time some transaction goes bad, there is the desire to prevent that problem from occurring again. So, we build up a set of laws with page after page of protections against a whole slew of such possibilities, adding to the list without limit, and the result is so complicated that half the time even legal advice is not conclusive. Yet there is no counter-balancing influence to simplify laws so that normal people can conduct normal business without some significant percentage of what they might need to feed their families going to the legal profession. The motivation to protect people against all possible risk is usually rooted in good intentions, but at the end of the day the only rich guy in many small towns is the local attorney. That seems to me to indicate a lack of balance.

I remember writing a contract for the conductor of a community orchestra, trying to cover every possibility. The folly of that got exposed by a crusty old businessman on the board who asked me if we were prepared to sue no matter what happened. I said, no--we would never have the budget to sue someone. Then, he asked what our exposure was--and the answer was very little, except for any gross negligence we might demonstrate. He said, then write a contract that addressed the negligence issue, plus normal duties, and leave it at that. A six-page document turned into half a page.

But all that is theoretical, too, and no help to Harv.

Harv got his answer to this extent: The tuba is not his to sell without going through due process.

Rick "but the money owed for the repair is his to pursue" Denney

[Donn]

Normal daily business seems to me to include requesting payment from a deadbeat customer.

As he has been doing. I think the question that just got chewed over was whether your proposal to threaten a customer with seizure also falls within that ordinary business routine. Apparently it isn't obvious that it does.

[Rick Denney]

Normal daily business seems to me to include requesting payment from a deadbeat customer.

As he has been doing. I think the question that just got chewed over was whether your proposal to threaten a customer with seizure also falls within that ordinary business routine. Apparently it isn't obvious that it does.

Well, in my example wording, I did back the threat down to "pursuing" sale of the instrument. If he talks to a lawyer, it's that pursuing? What else would he do? Would that really be criminal, as was suggested? Personally, I can't imagine it.

My experience with attorneys is that they always present reasons for doing nothing (or consulting more), and always risk in doing anything. I've never yet heard a lawyer say that a given course of action eliminates risk. I understand the rant--I've had business responsibilities for a long time and I'm not unaware of those risks.

Think of it this way: If the repairs to the sousaphone cost $600, then the profit on those repairs (after Harv covers his overhead and pays himself) will only be about $60. If he gets billed $300 for an hour of an attorney's time, he has to do five times as much work to overcome the loss of profit. (I'm not one who thinks sole proprietors should think of their salary to themselves as profit.) So, it takes $3000 worth of work to pay for a $300 legal bill or you're losing money. So, while it's easy to fall back on the low-risk recommendation to consult a lawyer, there's already considerable risk in just doing that--if it's unlikely that doing so will generate (or save) $3000 worth of revenue.

Of course, the lawyers one might consult aren't paying for it or considering the amount of business one needs to bring in to overcome even a modest legal bill, so they overestimate the risk ratio of not doing so.

When incorporating, writing policy documents, reviewing someone else's proposed contract for a large transaction, reviewing large transactions, business mergers--those are the times when the risk ratio is much more favorable for some attorney time. I don't think anyone should expect Harv to spend $300 chasing $60 in profit, and too often people compare the $300 against the possible gross revenue and not to the profit on that revenue, which doesn't seem to me good business. But it is also seems to me utterly unreasonable to expect him to eat it.

Hence, were I in Harv's shoes, I would write a letter demanding payment, with the threat to pursue the sale of the instrument to pay the bill if the payment isn't made. I would only change my mind if a PA attorney told me that doing so was criminal (civil I wouldn't care about--nobody is going to bring a civil action in a case like this), but if that was the case, I'd move. What Harv decides to do is up to him--he's had an opportunity to hear a lot of perspectives.

Rick "who would also start demanding a deposit" Denney

[tofu]

--

[mclaugh]

Harv got his answer to this extent: The tuba is not his to sell without going through due process.

Yes, he did ... from the lawyers, NOT from the bloviating bags of hot air who comprise the TNFJ.

[iiipopes]

Most anyone can file a suit against most anyone else for most anything....

Yes, I've said that often. And whether or not the person has a good reason to sue is an entirely different question.

Two elderly gentleman were talking about how great it was to do business in the USA:

#1: "Yes, this is a great country. You can do your business just about anyway you want."

#2: "Yes, indeed. All you need to do is factor the cost of doing business properly."

#1: "Yes, that's true. All business models require a little time to do the numbers."

#2: "Yes, and other business models require a little number to do the time...."