I'll chime in from the customer side having watched this thread with interest. From what I understand from the ping pong match are these items:
1) customer selected Fortress - I'm not sure how that decisions was arrived at (ID or Fortress dealer); 2) Termul is a long standing and well-respected CI, but has no dealer direct with any seating manufacturer; 3) Termul is the main CI with a long-standing client who selected Fortress for a job primarily handled by CI with the involvement of an ID; 4) in some way, Termul learned that client was interested in Fortress and had some inkling of client's preference for Fortress and possibly more particular choices of model seat and cover finishing; 5) Termul wanted to control the whole job to the extent possible to reduce friction later regarding service (as should be expected); 6) Termul inquired to Fortress about becoming a dealer and indicated what the first purchase would be; 7) as best can be understood, there was no understanding of confidentiality between Termul and Fortress about the request to become a dealer; 8) Fortress contact Fortress dealer about Termul inquiry and presented options to Fortress dealer - Fortress dealer did not desire to be middle man in sale so Fortress declined to source customer-selected Fortress items to Termul as potential dealer, but did not specifically decline to sign-up Termul as a Fortress dealer for other projects.
So essentially we have a seating company that makes great products (so as not to be accused as a shill, I am a Fortress customer - 9 Palladium leather seats in love seat and couch formation), that was forced into a standoff between a potential CI as a customer and an existing CI. Fortress is then ranted about as being unethical because it sided with the Fortress dealer.
Lost in the equation is the Termul client - the client wants Fortress. Figure it out and focus on that. I get Termul's situation and if it's really about service, get an agreement so that Termul will be a Fortress dealer, take over servicing the furniture and control the whole job, and Fortress dealer makes the sale and be done with it. Customer is happy. ID is happy. Termul controls post-install of furniture and gains a seating line. Original Fortress dealer makes sale, is stuck with a competitor in Termul, and yes, profits with no downside in the future for service of the furniture purchase.
How would the customer react to this? Well, the customer got what was desired all along and Termul further extended his relationship with the client.
Yes I know what the margins are on a $40k sale - grow up, you came in 2nd and were late to the party on the furniture deal. Don't torture Fortress as being "unethical" because you disagree with its decision. Whether right or wrong, it was a reasoned response.
Would this discussion have really taken place if we were talking about a $4,000 Stewart front projection screen. I suspect not, because there's less margin at stake. In that situation Termul would have just rolled on. Once the dispute is heightened because of dollars, not service, you leave yourself exposed. And yes, the customer would understand that Termul did not sell the furniture so if there's an issue post-install, Termul would expect some type of leeway with client and Fortress to resolve the issue.
