Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Stolen Leica
From: "Richard J. Wyble" <rwyble@erols.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:28:29 -0400 (EDT)

These couriers are regulated by stringent (and astringent) Commerce
Commission regulations. There is a virtual Koran of what they are and
are *not* required to do. There is some precisely described waiting
period during which they have to do *nothing* and after which they are
required to do *something* based on the specific applicable tariff. It's
all pretty much according to the book, but the claimant may need to prod
them a bit. 

Heck . . . about four years ago a well-known freight company *LOST* two
entire pallets of freshly-minted CD's for me, somewhere in a warehouse
(so they claimed)!!! They never did show up and said freight company was
obligated to cough up tens of thousands of dollars to have the product
re-manufactured.


Excerpts from leica: 25-Jul-99 Re: [Leica] Re: Stolen Leica "Robert G.
Stevens"@hfx. (1048*)

> I think what you have to realize is that airborne may have actually lost
> this camera and are hoping it shows up in their system eventually.  They
> are probably not trying to avoid paying the claim, but just giving a
> reasonable time for the package to surface if it is still in their system.
> I think very few courier packages are ever stolen.

> Regards,

> Robert

> At 01:49 AM 7/26/99 GMT, you wrote:
> >You might also consider listing the serial number in the stolen equipment 
> >registry at photo.net 
> >
> >As to Airborne doing the two-step shuffle, I would think that, if your local 
> >television station has a consumer advocate, he/she would have a field day
> with 
> >this one. Perhaps let Airborne know that you plan to involve the media if
> the 
> >company does not respond in a manner satisfactory to you. 
> >
> >Sandy 
> >
> >> And you're ABSOLUTELY correct.  Airborne is supposed to make good on
> >> it........but.........I think that they're crawfishing on this one --
> >> apparently claiming in telephone conversations that it was beyond their
> >> control. 
> >
> >




  rwyble@erols.com
  Richard J. Wyble