From: werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Commentary from an observer (Re: $$$$$$$$$$       RESULT OF MY CASE IN WARNING     $$$$$$$$)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 14:16:18 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: dimebox.cs.utexas.edu

 cyor@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (           ) writes:

>As requested by some of you, I am posting the result of my case
>regarding to Second Wave.
>They gave me 90% of the credit and take that 10% as restocking.
>I don't think they should take that 10% off since it was their
>mistakes.  However, I have to goto school so I don't have time
>to pursuit them.

	I'm glad this matter was settled, and, as I had indicated
	previously, I made an effort on your behalf with Second Wave.
	However, I also desire (and promised) that "the other side" get
	their fair 5 minutes, so I will post what SECOND WAVE responded
	to both you and the BBB (btw, it would have struck me as only
	fair, if you had presented their letter to you here also;
	I can't help the feeling that your presentation of the matter
	here was not quite self-critical enough, in that you seem to
	have both caused expense and time wasted, and I doubt that
	you yourself would deal with someone else trying to do business
	with you in your "style" as charitably as you would like to
	have Second Wave do with you)

	given that you have bad-mouthed them to no end, I find this
	absence lacking, causing a lingering doubt about your whole
	presentation of this matter).

	As to the root of your problem with the Second Wave product,
	there seems to be every reason (as I hinted at in an earlier
	acticle in this thread) to suspect a third product with
	deficiencies in hardware or software as the cause ....


>Please note that a guy form Uof Michigan said that the UofM bougth
>something from Second Wave and they never give refund to them.
>(I am sort-of lucky).  He said that SW uses many different names
>to play the game of law.

	I recommend you stop rumour-mongering.

	if someone at UMICH has a beef, I would be interested to hear
	from him also - and directly.  I am much concerned about some
	fly-by-night operators here in Austin-town, but somehow I don't
	think that SECOND WAVE is one of them ...

	so, with that said, here are the letters from Second Wave to the
	BBB and to you (reproduced here with their permission), please
	note that I am not party to any of this other than as an
	interested and (trying-to-be) fair-minded bystander.

			---Werner  (moderator comp.sys.mac.announce)


[ the following 2 letter-copies were sent to me by Lark Doley of SECOND WAVE,
  postmarked Sept 4, result of my contacting them on behalf of Mr, Or. in
  the second half of August, and again in September ]



FROM: Second Wave
To: Better Business Bureau Austin.
Date: Aug 28, 1992


			TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Please find enclosed a letter to Mr. Jimmy Or in response to hiw complaint
to your regarding a recent purchase from Second Wave, Inc.  You will see
from the chain of events described in the enclosed letter that this trans-
action has been a troubled one.  We have not gone through his letter point
by point to agree or disagree.  Suffice it to say, we view many things
differently.  If he had cancelled his order prior to our shipment of the
chassis to him, none of this would have occured.  We can only try to correct
the situation in an equitable manner.  In light of the refund we have given
to him, we now consider this matter closed.

		Sincerely,		Roger A. Storer


			--------------------


FROM: Second Wave
To: 	Jimmy Or,
	200 Shakespeare Drive, Apt # 1006,
	Waterloo, Ontario
	Canada W2L6L1
Date: Aug 28, 1992


Dear Mr. Or,

Regarding your order placed with Second Wave, Inc., on July 15 1992 and your
subsequent letter to the Austin Better Business Bureau dated July 21.

You called us daily prior to your order to discuss our expansion chassis and
your possible purchase.  On July 15, 1992, you placed your order, and we gave
you a university discounted  price.  Your credit card was declined on July 15,
1992, due to insufficient credit line.  You called us several times on July 15
telling us that your account had enough funds, asking if the unit had shipped.
We advised you that we would ship as soon as the credit card company confirmed
sufficient funds in your account.  We then received approval of $595 and
subsequently an additional $400 to make the total of $995 for the chassis.
THE UNIT SHIPPED TO YOU UPS RED ON JULY 16 AT YOUR INSISTENCE [emphasis as
in letter. ---wru].  On July 20, 1992, you called saying that you had changed
your mind and no longer wanted the unit.  After going through the hassles of
your credit card problems, the export documentation, which included a
Certificate of Origin to save you import duties, additional shipping paperwork
for foreign shipments, and following your instructions regarding how urgently
we must ship this unit, we were somewhat dismayed.

You received the unit and accepted delivery at 11am on July 20, 1992, according
to United Parcel Sevice records.  From your letter, you indicate that you took
our product to a dealer for installation.  You claim that the product did not
work, gave us no opportunity to try and resolve any problems, then shipped
the unit back to us, which we received on August 11, 1992, four weeks after
originally shipping the product to yuo.  On August 13, 1992, we received an
invoice from John V. Carr freight forwarder for a $10 import duty.

	We have credited your VISA account number [deleted] as follows:
	credit of $595 against the original debit to your account of $595
	the balance of $400 has been reduced as follows:

		10% restocking charge as per our documentation	- $99.50
		re-import brokerage fee from John V. Carr	- $10
		A second credit of $290.50 has been issued to your account.

	We believe the above to be a fair and equitable settlement.

			Sincerely,		Lark Doley

-- 
  werner@cs.utexas.edu |  ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet

              "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"