Subject:
|
Re: Has any one else noticed this lately?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 21:25:20 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdm.(spamless)org
|
Viewed:
|
983 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
> personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
> it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
> LEGO to eat it.
> Am I alone in this rather radical stance?
I agree with you. If you get compensated for not having the pieces, there's
not much more to complain about. If you know in advance that you can call CA
and get replacement pieces for free (which wasn't necessarily the case
here), you shouldn't ask for very much of a discount.
But, you certainly should tell the retailer, so they know what's going on.
And maybe they'll offer a discount out of the goodness of their hearts. If
they do that, then I don't really see a problem with taking that and also
getting the pieces from Lego.
If Lego Direct turns out to be everyone's dream, and all parts are available
for order from them in quantities of one, then it'd be pretty reasonable to
ask for a discount equal to (or perhaps slightly more, for the trouble) the
price to order the missing pieces.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Has any one else noticed this lately?
|
| (...) Agreed, CA is swell. But my question to you is, you asked for a discount and got it. Was that just to cover the hassle of getting the replacement parts? Or did you argue that because there were parts missing, you should get a discount for the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
