My repairman destroyed my Leica Lens

[Don_ih]

More and more, "mint" is a term that alienates buyers. It says more about the seller than the item.

 

[BrianShaw]

And then his insurer either jacks ups his rates through the roof or cuts him off. Either way he is out of business. Modern insurance companies are the biggest cons known to mankind. In this case I think he would be denied anyway. Sorry for the rant and please don't let this derail the thread.

So why do we all waste so much money on insurance if unwilling to use it occasionally? In my lifetime I've used auto insurance several times and not noticed an increase due to the claim (increases happen, but they happened without claims too), and homeowners insurance a couple of times with similar results. The only time I've had bad interaction with insurance was when my homeowners insurance (and everyone else they insured in California) was cancelled whether or not putting in a claim... after they had to settle a lot of claims from a natural disaster. Either the repairman has insurance for this kind of event or he doesn't, and if he does it seems like good business to use it in this situation.

 

[BradS]

More and more, "mint" is a term that alienates buyers. It says more about the seller than the item.

Yup. Mint, Vintage, Rare...all result in disgust followed shortly by my loss of interest in the item offered.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yup. Mint, Vintage, Rare...all result in disgust followed shortly by my loss of interest in the item offered.

LOL... I skip the disgust phase.

 

[BradS]

LOL... I skip the disgust phase.

I hope to be as good some day.

 

[BMbikerider]

And then his insurer either jacks ups his rates through the roof or cuts him off. Either way he is out of business. Modern insurance companies are the biggest cons known to mankind. In this case I think he would be denied anyway. Sorry for the rant and please don't let this derail the thread.

On what grounds would the claim be denied? Apart from fungus it was usable now it isn't, Cost to him from one or another direction something that he would have to bear. For one claim, the insurance would not have been too badly affected, if it was one of multiple claims then I could understand it. Irrespective he caused the damage so he should face up to the fact that some sort of compensation should be paid. No payment then, a claim through court is certain to be more expensive.

The lens was apparently in a condition that needed attention which involved cleaning. The cleaning was not done as asked, but major damage inflicted on the lens optics. The original post does not suggest that the owner was made aware that doing the work would irreparably damage the lens so the repairer, I would suggest is responsible. What is the cost of a replacement similar lens? That is hardly going to break the bank or upset any insurance company. the engineer was/is responsible get him to cough up. Unless friendship is more important of course, but someone who damages someone else's property, but refuses to pay is hardly worth 'friendship'

 

[BMbikerider]

But he should have known enough to warn the customer that something like that might happen.

Absolutely correct!

 

[BrianShaw]

I really don't understand this expectation that all possible errors and bad fortune be disclosed. Even taking the word "all" out of the sentence... the most I've ever heard in a situation like this is, "well, I'll try but not sure I can do it." or "I'll do the best I can." Wasn't even that much said? Full disclosure of risk when getting stuff repaired just isn't a reality that I understand, except in the medical field where so many disclosures are made that often I'd rather risk death than have the needed procedure because the potential errors and bad fortune would be more difficult to live with.

 

[BMbikerider]

a lens with Fungus is a long way from being mint optically,,
Ian

It all depends upon the degree of fungus. All lenses are liable to fungus growth but that does not stop it from being returned to 'mint' condition if the fungus is cleaned and restored to 'as new' condition. It will still perform like a new lens given the work was done by a competent engineer.

 

[Pieter12]

I really don't understand this expectation that all possible errors and bad fortune be disclosed. Even taking the word "all" out of the sentence... the most I've ever heard in a situation like this is, "well, I'll try but not sure I can do it." or "I'll do the best I can." Wasn't even that much said? Full disclosure of risk when getting stuff repaired just isn't a reality that I understand, except in the medical field where so many disclosures are made that often I'd rather risk death than have the needed procedure because the potential errors and bad fortune would be more difficult to live with.

If elements would have to be heated to clean the fungus from the lens, it seems to me that would inherently pose a risk and the client should have been made aware. It's not like the tech dropped the lens on a concrete floor. Unless incompetence was involved (like too much heat or too much force) the damage was within the realm of possible effects of the procedure and the client should have been informed of such.

 

[otto.f]

So he made one mistake in his life. Do you live mistake free? I on the the other hand only made one mistake in my life. I thought that I had been wrong about something and it turned out that I had bee right all the time.

Give the man some slack.

It’s not about the mistake, it’s about the non-communication before and after. Strange if you know your client for 40 years. Perhaps from both sides then, but still

 

[BradS]

Keep in mind that we've only heard ONE side of the story.


...and neither side has presented any evidence.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm curious what was said immediately after "He apologized, and of course did not charge me for his time and effort." Honestly, though, I have no idea what I would have said had I been in that situation... could have been several things.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm curious what was said immediately after "He apologized, and of course did not charge me for his time and effort." Honestly, though, I have no idea what I would have said had I been in that situation... could have been several things.

It is a hard and awkward situation. On television shows the actors have teams of writers that supply them with perfect line, but life is not like that. It is a hard situation on both sides that started with less than good circumstances. The lens had problems that may or may not have been repairable and the options for repair were not attractive. This takes the wisdom of Solomon and he is not here with us.

 

[Don_ih]

This takes the wisdom of Solomon and he is not here with us.

Solomon probably would be ok with the lens split in two. That way, two people could use it.

 

[Pieter12]

It is a hard and awkward situation. On television shows the actors have teams of writers that supply them with perfect line, but life is not like that. It is a hard situation on both sides that started with less than good circumstances. The lens had problems that may or may not have been repairable and the options for repair were not attractive. This takes the wisdom of Solomon and he is not here with us.

My response would certainly be full of expletives. Many addressed to me.

 

[Arthurwg]

On what grounds would the claim be denied? Apart from fungus it was usable now it isn't,

True enough, OP should have simply used the lens as-is. Would have given a nice "vintage" look. As for insurance, sometimes you have to accept that not everything is reimbursable.

 

[BMbikerider]

True enough, OP should have simply used the lens as-is. Would have given a nice "vintage" look. As for insurance, sometimes you have to accept that not everything is reimbursable.

If an item as rare and quite valuable had been entrusted to a professional and he managed to completely destroy it I would be asking, no demanding some form of compensation to which I would be entitled.

In UK if this happened and recompense was refused, we have a relatively cheap legal way to deal with it by way of what is known as the Small Claims Court. I think it costs about £50 to start an action. No legal representatives are present and the two parties represent themselves and the judges decision is final. The compensation is limited - I think to around £5000 and if this is not paid the plaintiff has the further option of using Court Bailiffs to seize property to the value of the damages awarded or if there is no money or goods, to make him bankrupt making the sure the other person will have his business which will destroy his business.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If an item as rare and quite valuable had been entrusted to a professional and he managed to completely destroy it I would be asking, no demanding some form of compensation to which I would be entitled.

In UK if this happened and recompense was refused, we have a relatively cheap legal way to deal with it by way of what is known as the Small Claims Court. I think it costs about £50 to start an action. No legal representatives are present and the two parties represent themselves and the judges decision is final. The compensation is limited - I think to around £5000 and if this is not paid the plaintiff has the further option of using Court Bailiffs to seize property to the value of the damages awarded or if there is no money or goods, to make him bankrupt making the sure the other person will have his business which will destroy his business.

We have the same option in the US although the upper limit will vary by state [jurisdiction].

 

[Pieter12]

Not to be too repetitive, but usually a receipt or other form is filled out when a shop accepts an item for repair. That form should spell out in whatever vague or specific terms, the shop's as well as the customer's liability. Such as not being responsible for hidden damage or items not claimed within a certain period of time after the repair is complete. Pretty boilerplate, I would assume.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are many cameras and lenses that are hard to find qualified repair people to service due to the lack of repair parts if they are needed or if things go wrong. This is an example of a repair that goes beyond that range. What was asked was to separate lens pairs to remediate fungus damage. There is even the question whether even if the pair were successfully separated could the fungus damage be repaired. Therefore this is a care where the repair man was operating at or near his limits. Would he, should he, could he, what if, what about, ... lots of second guessing and finger pointing ... Well from what we are told is that apparently no warnings or cautions were given. Monday morning quarterback really do not help. The two need to calmly set down and discuss what each will do to defuse the situation. I hope they can come to common ground. Yelling and screaming will raise the heart rates and blood pressures but accomplish nothing more than more damage and of course exercise.

 

[Arthurwg]

If an item as rare and quite valuable had been entrusted to a professional and he managed to completely destroy it I would be asking, no demanding some form of compensation to which I would be entitled.

In UK if this happened and recompense was refused, we have a relatively cheap legal way to deal with it by way of what is known as the Small Claims Court. I think it costs about £50 to start an action. No legal representatives are present and the two parties represent themselves and the judges decision is final. The compensation is limited - I think to around £5000 and if this is not paid the plaintiff has the further option of using Court Bailiffs to seize property to the value of the damages awarded or if there is no money or goods, to make him bankrupt making the sure the other person will have his business which will destroy his business.

Here in the US, try to collect.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here in the US, try to collect.

Small claims courts works well if both sides are basically honest. If one is dishonest, they can dodge paying, but when one is knowledgeable as I am, I just went and attached his wife's checking account. I got my money and he was shouting how could I do that and it was her money, not mine ... I laughed all the way to my bank and he got to explain it to his wife. It would have been nice to be a fly on the wall at his place.

 

[MattKing]

I just went and attached his wife's checking account.

Certainly wouldn't work that way here.
You can't even attach a joint account, without an expensive Court Order that would require service of application on the other joint owner.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Certainly wouldn't work that way here.
You can't even attach a joint account, without an expensive Court Order that would require service of application on the other joint owner.

I was done with a court order. One has to know what rights they do and do not have as well as what the court will do.