I apologize for my lack of clarity in my question and any offense you
may have felt.

In a verbal conversation you probably would have understood me better.
In the dry medium of the typed word I can see how I came across
differently than what I intended, now that I re-read what I wrote.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my poorly worded question
with exactly the kind of response I was hoping for.

In my opinion you are one of the best contributors to this group. I
alway look forward to reading your posts and I have learned quite a bit
from you.

(clipped)



Hold your horses Capt. I don't think you can use such a broad brush to
make
such a claim. There are unethical salesmen in all sorts of fields,
including boats. However, their actions do not necessarily reflect on
the
company they work for unless the company is aware of and condones those
actions.
(next post)

In the automobile business, I supervised new and used car sales crews
for many years.
While its possible to sell a ton of stuff while conducting business
honestly, not enough people who are attracted to careers in the auto
industry have the skills to do so. Those who do, go very far. In a
dealership selling a couple of thosand cars a year, we probably had
somebody hollering "fraud!", or what not, about once a month. There
were cases where the customer was, frankly, either lying or wrong-
(sometimes thought they discovered what looked like a better deal after
taking delivery of a car from us and would be willing to say or do
*anything* to unwind their decision and go save, they thought, a couple
of hundred bucks somewhere else). There were other cases where the
customer
was right, and one salesperson or another said or did something that
was either careless, misinformed, or deliberately dishonest. Even when
you run a strong "desk" system, as I always did, things will sometimes
be said in the privacy of the closing booth that aren't even similar to
what the salesperson was instructed to say.

If the customer had a valid claim because the salesperson did something
that was careless or misinformed, we'd make things right with the
customer, counsel or train the salesperson, and tell the salesperson
that repeating the exact same mistake could result in termination.

If the customer had a valid claim because the salesperson did something
that was intentionally dishonest, we'd make things right with the
customer and then go to the parts department to find an empty cardboard
box to hand to the culprit. We'd give the salesperson about five
minutes to empty his or her desk, turn in the keys to their demo, and
be waiting at the curb for the next city bus to haul their shameful
butt away.
You can change careless behavior, train the misinformed, but you can't
normally turn somebody around who thinks its easier to lie and steal
for a living than it is to sell.



I would not torpedo MarineMax based on a couple of bad transactions,
especially considering they are one of the largest boat dealers in the
world.


When you need to hire a lot of salespeople, a few bad apples will
accidentally slip into the barrel. The difference between a top flight
organization and a House of Sleeze isn't whether one could discover a
bad apple working the floor- but what sort of action the dealership
takes when the bad apple makes him or herself known by actions and
statements. Too many guys take the short view and say, "But he was the
top producer last quarter!". The fact is that most of the people he
*didn't sell* (which will be the majority of customer contacts for
nearly everybody) probably walked out of the place with a negative
impression of a salesperson that seemed far too eager and slick. If
management were able to measure the amount of future business that the
wrong sort of salesperson actually *costs* them and subtract that from
the amount of business he somehow managed to bully or grease into
place, they wouldn't keep him on for 15 minutes.

Like I said up thread, there was a proper and ethical way to sell this
boat. If the buyer was fully informed about the damages to the boat
(and allowed or encouraged to have his own surveyor check out the work
and render an expert opinion) and if the buyer then agreed to proceed
with the transaction, the seller did everything the seller could
possibly have done. The responsibility for making the purchase, *if
fully informed and not deliberately deceived* becomes the buyer's.

While we know which way the judge ruled, we don't really know how the
sales process went. I can say from experience that when an auto or boat
dealer goes to court he or she steps up to the plate with two strikes
already called (especially if an emotional jury is involved) and needs
to realize that in the eyes of the human beings applying the law he or
she is "guilty, unless proven innocent, and if proven innocent there
must have been a miscarriage of justice." :-)

After 28 years in major appliance sales, I couldn't agree with you more. I
wish some of our sales managers had been like you. I can't tell you how
many times they held up to us as an example "their" top producer who the
rest of the staff knew was was not above board in his/her transactions.
Usually, within a month of the bragging, they would find out that the star
salesman was not only cheating customers but usually cheating the company,
also. He/She would disappear and management would never mention their name
again. It never did any good to point out the salesperson's digressions as
management usually took it as "sour grapes" because we didn't have the
"numbers" they were getting from the star. I can honestly say, however,
that the bad people were a small minority and usually didn't last long.

Tom G.

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
news

"akheel" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I hope that this is a good lesson to those in the industry.
Lying about the condition of a boat you sell may not produce
the intended results. I'll bet that MarineMax thought that they
had just clipped another pigeon. It looks like the pigeon won
the battle in the end.

Chuck, I know you are in the industry. The title of the thread
seems to
indicate that you think that this was excessive.

What makes you feel that way?

You made a very quick leap from an assumption that the title
"seems to indicate" something to asking me to defend what you
presumed the title must have meant.

"Ouch!" means that for even a company as large as Marine Max, a
$2.5mm settlement, (plus attorney fees for both sides etc that
will probably bring the total to $3mm) is a good sized bite out
of the bottom line.

Unless the judge ordered otherwise...........their insurance
company was left holding the bill. No big deal for Marine Max
other than possible higher insurance rates.

snip

Maybe not; It wouldn't be unusual for an insurance company to
exclude from coverage any damages awarded to purchasers proving
blatantly dishonest sales practices.


Actually not. Unless the judge or State orders/mandates otherwise
they are paid by the insurance company under most standard
commercial insurance policies.

Wrong. First, most commercial insurance policies specifically exclude
punitive damages and damages from an intentional act. In fact, in
many states, it is illegal to even sell insurance covering punitive
damages. Here the judge ruled the misrepresentations to be
"deliberate." Second, the base amount of the award, the difference
between what the buyer paid and what the boat was worth, is also not
usually covered by insurance. That's becasue had the
misrepresentation never occured, the dealer would have been paid the
lower amount; to have the insurance company now cover the difference
would mean the insurance company would be paying the dealer for the
loss profit that never should have existed in the first place. Sorry,
Marine Max is most likely SOL in this case. And yes, I am a lawyer
and have litigated many insurance coverage cases.


Perhaps that is true in the State you practice in.

I just checked with a friend of mine who is a commercial lines
underwriter for a fairly large insurance company. She said that it is
a State by State decision (whether the insurance company can/shall pay
for punitive) and that her company no longer excludes punitive damages
by endorsement.



It is indeed state by state, and my comments were perhaps too general. In
California where I practice it would be very unlikely that it would be
covered. But insurance for punitive damages are prohibited in many states
as wel, and in those where allowed, often has to be specifically covered in
the policy. Ohio, where the case was brought, seems to follow this rule.
See:

http://www.mcandl.com/puni_states.html

This webpage is a review of all 50 states viewpoint on this issue if anyone
is interested in that sort of thing. My original point was that there's a
good chance the punitive damages weren't covered by insurance and an even
better chance that the fraud damages weren't covered either because they
merely represent the benefit of the bargain that the buyer lost, and most
policies won't cover that. They only way to know for sure is to read the
actual policy.

I would not torpedo MarineMax based on a couple of bad transactions,
especially considering they are one of the largest boat dealers in the
world.

That's the paradox of consolidation. Trying to "go big" in the rather small
boating market seems like financial suicide. One location screws up and
they all take a beating for it. I'd much rather go with a long time
regional dealer than a corporate outfit like MarineMax.

"Bill Kearney" wrote in message
...
I would not torpedo MarineMax based on a couple of bad transactions,
especially considering they are one of the largest boat dealers in the
world.

That's the paradox of consolidation. Trying to "go big" in the rather
small
boating market seems like financial suicide. One location screws up and
they all take a beating for it. I'd much rather go with a long time
regional dealer than a corporate outfit like MarineMax.

The very method that MarineMax used to "go big" was in fact to buy out every
regional dealer they could. The process is ongoing as we speak. They are
essentially using a model similar to AutoNation and others in the car
business. Point being, the regional dealer you buy from today, may well be
part of a corporate outfit tomorrow. It appears that there are now two
types of Sea Ray dealers. Those that have been bought by MarineMax and
those that will be.