cafzali

Right, but in that sense, the misrepresentation is still on him, not on Scott. If a guy shows up in a cable company vehicle and promises me free cable for life in exchange for a payment directly to him, that doesn't mean that I have a viable agreement entitling me to free cable.

Now, the OP has a legitimate claim against the actual seller. But if the 2 of them can't work it out, his option is to pursue a court remedy on his own. For Scott to do anything else, they'd be going above and beyond. One could argue that's smart business, but that's on them.

Monstermash

Just to reiterate, the only reason I called Scott was to inform them of what their employee was up to. I do NOT think they are responsible for what their employee did as he did it with his own property. I was kinda surprised they really didn't care and treated me like I was out of line by calling them. I even told them I wasn't looking for them to get involved. I know that if I owned a business and an employee was doing shady things wearing my uniform and driving a vehicle with my logo all over it I would be concerned and at the very least want to have a conversation with him.

cafzali

I hear you, but most companies don't think that way -- especially once they reach a certain size.

As far as a conversation with the guy, they definitely should have one, and probably have. But most companies don't react to a crisis until they perceive it a threat to their business.

himespau 

That's a major bummer, and I do think acting the way he did while dressed in their apparel, in their vehicle, saying he worked for them would be a firing offense in many industries. Because it hurt their image, not necessarily that it exposed them to valid lawsuits.

I would probably have turned the deal down or said we'd try again the next time he was in town, but that's just me.

Monstermash

At over 400 views on this thread, I would say people are starting to take notice. As this thread continues more and more members will see it and like some have stated, they probably will not look at a Scott bike now. Considering they don't exactly have the largest share of the market (not even close) I don't think they can afford to take a hit anywhere. It's the lack of proper management that will hinder Scott from claiming more of the market when they have an attitude like this when a customer calls with a concern.

Handling my call would have been very simple. All they had to do was say "I'm very sorry you had this experience and thank you for calling to let us know about the action of our employee". But instead, I was treated like I was a bother and I shouldn't have called.

It's funny, I've only been seriously back involved with the bike industry for the last 4 years or so but I've had more poor customer service experiences than good ones.

Wanderer

I'd be willing to bet, that a judge, or jury, would look at it differently. If you work for a company, and represent it as such, you are an agent of the company.......... especially when company vehicles and uniforms are involved!

Yendor72

From what I read there were parts on the bike that were recalled by Scott. So I imagine that part of the conversation goes like this. "Looks like this has the old *insert part here* which were recalled. Since I work for Scott I will get the replacements for you and ship them with the other stuff." <--To me anything that implies his association with Scott then represents the company, even if he is in his personal vehicle wearing Bontrager clothing.

cafzali

You misunderstand.... the rep would be liable, but not the company. The company isn't forcing the rep to make the misrepresentation. Thus, they're acting outside their capacity as an agent of the company. Unless a company is forcing someone to do something, they're generally not going to be held responsible.

Stucky

It'd be interesting to scour all the regional CL ads where OP saw the many ads for his bike appearing, to see if any other Scotts show up, in like manner, being advertised in the same area- to the intent to see if this was just a one-time sale of the guy's personal bike, as he represented; or if it's an ongoing thing- in which case, I'd bet Scott would be VERY interested that one of their employees were conducting such business- and in an unscrupulous manner.

cafzali

You're right. And, oddly, there's a good chance the company feels that way too. The problem is your situation hasn't risen to the right level and getting it there is difficult for someone unless they're going through someone with connections there or the ability to compel attention.

cafzali

No, you're impersonating an agent of the company or acting in an unauthorized capacity. If a receptionist takes a phone call from an irate customer and makes a promise she can't keep, the company's not going to be held liable for that promise unless it's put in writing from an authorized person.

Scott would maintain in court that it doesn't sell directly to end customers, only through dealers. In that context, the salesperson was unauthorized to enter into that transaction. Thus, there's no legal responsibility for them to make it right.

Monstermash

Not recalled by Scott. The bike had Red Hydro's which had a recall on them from SRAM. It was never mentioned until he showed up to sell me the bike and then I had to remove the parts and go to my local dealer and have them send them off to SRAM for replacement which of course took several weeks. The part where he used his association with Scott was to assure me that he would ship me the parts he forgot to bring with him. There were some extras that were included such as an extra set of wheels, tires, rotors, and a few other things. He brought some of the items but "forgot" the others.

Wanderer

I'd still bet they would lose - due to the FACT that their vehicle was allowed by them, to be used for the transaction - whether they knew it of not!

Stucky

OP, as WPHamilton and I have mentioned here, WRITE to the company; to a specific person, by name- via certified letter. At least that way, yopu'll know that the issue has gotten to someone who might care/be able to take action/worry about liability. A phone call, unless you knew to ask for a specific person by name and actually got to talk them, is often ineffective, as it is intercepted by operators/receptionists/flunkies who have no authority/don't care.

If it were my business, and i had an employee conducting himself in such a manner while appearing to be connected to my business, I'd sure want to know about it! And I would help-out in any way posible to try and diffuse the situation, even if I didn't have clear liability- just to avoid the hassle and expense of having to defend myself if any action were taken; and to avoid bad publicity.

AlmostTrick

Since the rep likely was an actual agent for the company, that is not impersonating. Seems to me there would be some legal obligation on Scotts part here to make things right. You just need to rattle the right chains like Stucky advised.

Nachoman

It could go either way, but you're probably correct, based on the legal theory of 'ostensible authority'.

Stucky

Or....Scott could be held accountable for the actions of someone who was in their employ; and in-turn, they'd have an action against him for over-stepping his bounds and tarnishing their reputation by not abiding by the terms of his contract (which probably stipulates what he is allowed and not allowed to do while representing them by wearing the uniform/driving the truck/etc.)

cafzali

Not if the agent's contact was an unauthorized one, which this was. That's the key distinction. He had no authorization to sell anything directly to a customer. Thus, there's no contract between Scott and the OP.

Should they do something? Probably. Will they? Likely not.

spdracr39

How do you know he gave you his real name ? I would chalk it up to lesson learned. Anytime someone tries to sell me something that is misrepresented from the beginning it goes on the instant no sale list. My experience is that the deal always get worse from that point on.

milkbaby

Somebody wake me up when the Judge Judy episode airs. Thanks!

Stucky

Dunno about that. If the rep were drive drunk and have an accident in the Scott truck- or even his own vehicle, while during the course of doing work for Scott, you can bet that Scott is getting sued by the victim, and is going to be forking over some money- even if what their employee did was not authorized by them. They in-turn could sue him to re-coop the damages..... It may be unjust, but that's the way our present legal system operates.

wphamilton

There is enough obligation there to rattle some chains. Whether it was authorized, suggested, forced or unforced, matters only for how bad it could get. He represents Scott as an agent, meaning he acts on their behalf with respect to bicycle business.

The biggest question here is do you really want to force this on Scott company. Bad enough to get this guy fired? Want to hurt the company? Because if you go very far down that road, the value of that bike by itself isn't going to be worth the headache.

Or you could just put it out on the internet, like here Which is probably more effective PR against them anyway.

AlmostTrick

How much money are we talking about here?

Monstermash

We're only talking about maybe $300-400. But it's more the principle of the thing. And like I said I'm not planning on holding Scott accountable for his actions but I did think they would be a little more interested as to what he was up to than they did when I called.

milkbaby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

"Courts sometimes distinguish between an employee's "detour" vs. "frolic". For instance, an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability. Employer will be held liable if an employee does an authorized act in an unauthorized way."