This is a tough call and I can see both sides of it. If I was Terrmul I'd be outraged. If I was cmont I'd be happy and feel like a manufacturer I had supported had been loyal to me.

However I tend to think that if Fortress wanted to protect their existing dealer the correct path was to simply tell Terrmul they couldn't sign them up.

I'm not an attorney but I'd imagine there are some situations where what Fortress did could even land a company in a lawsuit.

Deleted.

Part of being successful in business is building and maintaining good relationships. How would a long time dealer feel, if we just decided to open up a new dealer after we identified this potential new dealer was going to quote the exact same thing. How does that help us? By doing this, we'd run the risk of upsetting the existing dealer and jeopardizing that relationship for a single sale? That doesn't make sense.

I also have seen situations where 2 existing dealers are quoting the same project, in that particular case we wouldn't alert either company to the situation we're not going to play favorites, and whoever wins the job wins the job. But that's not the situation here. Turmll isn't a dealer, he could do the biggest jobs around the world or be just a regular Joe AV company, it doesn't matter to me, because this business is about relationships and we've built one with the existing AV company and that is why I contacted them to discuss opening up a new dealer.

When the decision was made to not open up Turmll as a dealer I fully understood that it probably wouldn't sit well with him, and the likelihood of us ever doing business is about 0. That's the risk a manufacturer has to take when they protect their existing dealer base. I also understood, that if Turmll had the relationship with the client like he says he does, he could then decide to present an alternative seating company to the client, and we and the existing dealer could lose the sale. Again this is a risk we are willing to take to protect our existing dealers. As I said before this business is about relationships and the relationships we build with our dealers are far more important than a single sale, because we know this will be a dealer who will support us vs. someone that is just signing up for a single job.

So you might not find that professional (I disagree, I think it's the definition of being professional), but your scenario and what occurred are completely different and I think you'd feel different if the shoe was on the other foot.

Apologies for taking so long to reply. Played golf today and shook it off.

The point of the original post was to ask others opinions on whether the salesman's actions were unethical. I thought they were. So I'll reiterate the facts as they occurred.

First, the ID was simply unaware of the best way to go about this process as her day job is a set designer. I had no idea theater seating was even being considered, it wasn't when I last spoke with the client who is usually very communicative. The ID had no idea we sold chairs, mostly because she doesn't really know us well. We did not know that she was involved in anything beyond decor for the room.

She contacted me to ask about pricing for chairs and shared with me a drawing of a chair layout "from Fortress", (her words) no pricing or other info attached except materials she had chosen. To me it looked like other drawings she has shared with me, I thought little of it. I did not know she had not selected the choices from the fortress website.

I called Fortress for pricing and to apply for a dealership.

I was told when naming the materials that the design was familiar and had just been quoted, I did not know this and said so, the sales guy didn't seem fazed. The conversation continued and finished with the sales guy offering to send us dealer paperwork.

At this point I think several acceptable things could have happened.

1) Tell us sorry, this has already been quoted, we must respect our dealer base. Perfect. End of story.

2) Follow through on the dealership and let us know of their intent to inform the other dealer.

Instead sales guy hangs up, calls competitor, competitor offers discount. I have no reason to believe 5% isn't accurate.

I was initially also upset with competitor but did not bring them by name into the discussion as I have in all other experiences with them always seen them as a respectable. With being a little calmer, I understand their actions and have no hard feelings against them. They didn't offer a crazy discount but one that reflects their desire to keep a sale it appears they certainly worked for.

I'm not upset with the ID either as she thought correctly that there is no harm in getting two quotes for a job. Hell CEDIA even suggests that.

I am, however, still upset by the way things unfolded through the misguided actions of the salesman. He claims his actions were well intentioned. Maybe so.

As one poster says, "put your big boy pants on", I did. I'm calm. I still believe Fortress sales guy could have acted better.

One last point, I at no time called names, belittled anyone or used personal names or the name of our competitor. I did ask whether people thought the handling was unethical. I though it was.

P.S. We did not have a direct relationship with a seating company as a distributor has sufficed till now.

I haven't watched this for a couple of days....


I'm pretty amazed that you don't have a policy in place that defines for you ahead of time the conditions under which you will open up a new dealer. It sounds like your policy, that you are all prepared to explain, is to tell a prospective dealer that there is already a dealer very close to them and you don't want to open up another one so close.  I think everyone here understands that.  That's the first way this could have been handled well.

But you seem to have asked an existing dealer if they mind competition! Who would say yes?  Why was this call at all necessary?  (Reread the last paragraph.)


Again, I don't think it's in your best interest to ask them.  It's obviously caused some bad feelings here and may have soured the relationship between Terrmul and that dealer.  Reread my first paragraph.


Odd.  That does not come through in anything Terrmul wrote.



The definition of professional includes working out ahead of time what you will do, without involving your dealers, when new dealers come calling.  I've been granted dealership, and I've been denied dealership, and the denials have always been explained to me.  And the other dealers never knew about it.   What did you have to gain by contacting your present dealer? Has it made things better for you?  Or does that current dealer now know that they have to be careful what they tell you -- you might think you have to get some of their competition involved in making your decision....


I think the shoe was on the other foot and you shot it.

I have a close buddy that is studying business law and will be taking his bar exam soon, we grabbed a few beers tonight and I brought this scenario up (no names were dropped) and he said the company that did this can be sued back to timbucktoo. Then he went off on a 10 minute ethics rant LOL. He brought up that the company should have asked for the inquiring dealers location and simply responded "were very sorry but this territory has been closed, if you would like we can take down your information and if. Dealership opportunity opens up we can discuss options"

this is all fortress had todo. But no, they went off listened to him, said they would get back with a quote and then went as far as to give the other dealer the heads up and in doing so either fortress or the dealer lowered their price In order to "win the bid cmont (or whoever) should be just as ashamed as fortress; but judging by both of their attitudes they do not have one strand of ethics in them and assume the position of "business as usual"

Fortress dropped the ball here and crossed the line, all they had todo is say what others have said and what my buddy brought up. In reality is a small business gojng to take on a company and sue them, no. Not unless the lawyer that is taking on the case is going to so it for free or at a nominal fee. If I was termmul and my best friend was a lawyer you bet my ass I would sue you and any other company that pulled this shit.

And wtf kind of company calls up an existing dealer and asks them if they are ok with another dealer coming in? I've been in this industry long enough and have enough close relationships with manufactures and reps to know this doesn't happen anywhere. If anything all they say is the territory is locked down, nothing else.

This tHread is going nowhere, no help has been offered or given. I stand that fortress was wrong and run by a bunch of people that like to give inside info to favored dealers so they can have the upper hand. It's ashame, fortress makes some nice seats but ill be dammed if I ever give a dime of my clients money to them or any company that is run like this.

If the shoe was on the other foot the shoe would not fit. 

I never liked that analogy.

What's hard to rationalize is that Fortress and Existing Dealer cannot acknowledge the relationship Termul had with the existing client and has to operate with the assumption that Existing Dealer is getting screwed, their intellectual property stolen (LOL) by the unscrupulous slammer Termul or shady ID. As long as those assumptions are maintained then the noble defense of the cherished relationship between manufacturer and dealer is justified. 

If we're going to acknowlege the shoe being on the other foot than all of us should.
Including Fortress and the existing dealer acknowledging that the prospect had a CI with a long term relationship.

If this is truly about the clients or the profession then having 1, 2, or 3 dealers in the same market is irrelevant. The number of dealers does not matter. The professionalism and maintainence of the quality/brand is, which benefits all: the client, manufacturer, and dealer. 

I'm not sure if I'd call Fortress or the other dealer unethical. Playing price games is a little sketchy, we're just commoditizing our value, but I guess if the numbers are small then it's easier to justify. But I feel comfortable in saying this whole sequence is fairly short sighted.


 

Turmel seems to admit to stealing the quote, he just didn't know where it came from. He could have done an ounce of legwork to earn his commission and go on the fortress website to find that a dealer made it, the ID couldn't have since he/she isn't a dealer.

Lol at anyone, including Turmel, being mad at anyone but Turmel. He had multiple opportunities to avoid this. He could have pitched his client seating before he heard of a large quote (he said he's in contact and we're salesman not ordertakers), he could have produced his own quote when asked (he may lack the tools to do this not having a furniture line) and when this went tits up he could have avoided questioning ethics.

Didn't you say he'd be fired from your company 3pedal? It sounds like the only thing missing from his quote was MSRP.

I am a lawyer with over 15 years experience in intellectual property matters, particularly patent disputes and other business ventures, so my advice to your friend is to keep studying for the bar exam. Hopefully he will encounter few business law questions when he takes the exam later this summer. Mainly because he's way off base. Ask him whether there is any underlying contractual obligation between the parties. Ask him about the expectations between the parties and whether there exists any mutual understanding or explicit commitments to each other. Ask him whether the junior party to the transaction is subject to an "unclean hands" defense. Does he believe the UCC applies to a situation where a potential vendor customer volunteers information to a vendor when seeking a relationship with a vendor? This is a basic situation involving a potential relationship that was never actually formed.

Funny thing, this is not about a territory being closed, it is about a bid on the same project - one from an existing dealer (1st in the door) and the second from a potential dealer (2nd in the door). There is zero basis for a lawsuit. That point by your friend highlights a problem with my profession in that everyone wants to sue. Any time there is any bit of disappointment. My job becomes explaining why or why not the situation deserves taking the matter to a judge or jury for a decision. Yes, of course, anyone can be sued. Is there a basis for it, well that takes about 1 1/2 years to establish that there was no basis for a lawsuit.

As others have said maybe it would have been better for Fortress to state upfront that an existing dealer is ahead of you on this same project and ended it there. In the end, Termul did nothing wrong trying to source what his client wanted, the existing dealer did nothing wrong by discounting whatever the amount (that's his choice), the ID did nothing wrong with shopping the quote for a client (that's part of the job) and Fortress did nothing wrong with standing by an existing dealer. This situation plays out every day.

Termul explained that he was upset that the other dealer was told about his inquiring into becoming a dealer - thinking, and potentially justifiably so, that this was information Fortress should not have volunteered to the existing dealer. I see the point and respect that point. We don't know whether the conversation was specifically clear that the information discussed was not be shared. In any event, Fortress saw the situation differently and did not believe it was obligated to maintain in confidence Termul's inquiry about becoming a dealer and the bid for the particular project.

Just because there is a disagreement now about what should have happened, that does not rise to the level of the actions taken by Fortress to be unethical, and certainly falls way short of a justification for a lawsuit.

Jay

DISCLAIMER: And because someone may believe they should rely on information from message boards if spoken by a lawyer, I'll be clear. Don't rely on anything said in any of my posts. All statements I make are my personal opinion alone and are not to be considered legal advice.

You must not rely on the information on this website as an alternative to legal advice from your attorney or other professional legal services provider. If you have any specific questions about any legal matter you should consult your attorney or other professional legal services provider. You should never delay seeking legal advice, disregard legal advice, or commence or discontinue any legal action because of information on this website.

I do have an open mind, the issue is you use "open mind when you want to mean one that does not work. I deal with two chair manufacturers. my low end manufacturer has simple models and options "I want XXX in charcoal premium leather with the optional electrical reclining and brushed aluminum cup holder in a straight 5 seat configuration ". But if we assume no options (which if we add then you are discussing specs) just a model and fabric and colour then 40k$ could be enough seats to fill up a small room in a multiplex. On the other hand I also deal with an other chair manufacturer and there it is completely different. There are no models. Looking at the web site, looking at posts by Erik, looking at posts by others, fortress appears to be that way. With that manufacturer, it is different in order to have a "model" you need to spec everything and you get a large alphanumeric code which you give them that code is comprised of your decisions xxx3021myystr where xxx is the back 30 describes the seat width 2 describes the type of "filler" 1 describes the firmness, m describes the motorized recliner yy is the two digit code for the handle s means a straight one t a thin one and r that you want a right arm.



Honestly, do you think you can call any theatre seat manufacturer and say "hey I want to know the price for a 5 seater and not hear a but of a chuckle before the click of the guy on the other end hanging up on you?

Hard to have a rational conversation with a fanboi. It's also odd you can't even spell his nic correctly even though it's repeatedly spelled correctly by most others.

No laws were broken, nobody has any legal case. I don't think anybody needs law school or even 15 minutes with a lawyer to figure that out but I appreciate the more detailed explanation from Jay. And he didn't even charge!

Every player had a rationale to do what they did and they acted on it. Things could have been handled differently and had a more positive outcome. Probably not a bonafide ethics violation but sketchy at the very least.

I would respect Fortress if they told Termul 'you're asking for the same quote one of our dealers has already worked up and put the time into. Buy the seats through them.' I have little doubt Termul would have respected that and seriously considered that avenue. It would then be his choice to say 'OK cool' or 'No really, I want to become a real dealer and consider a real relationship.' Fortress could then take the consideration seriously, or tell Termul 'great, we'd love to talk about you being a dealer. Do this project through our existing dealer and we'll continue the conversation on the back side.'

The Fortress salesman made an assumption based on cynicism, shined on Termul, then called the existing dealer to inform him of Termul's efforts. Then the existing dealer called the ID and offered 5% off.

It's a little douchey. Of course no client or ID would see anything wrong in any of this as they're getting 5% off. They profit off the scrum.

As I said before, it's a little short sighted and/or ham fisted, forest vs the trees. The exceptionalist assertions of 'protecting the dealer,' while noble in intent, overshadowed these factors.

Ha! Proof.

no, you are ASSuming that. How do you know? where you privy to the conversation? Let me ask you this when was the last time that you went to a seat manufacturers website and saw black, brown, beige and not some obnoxious over complicated colour name like Charcoal/midnight black or cappuccino/Mocha or egg shale/espresso mousse? I can almost understand you making this post after the first post (assuming you took for granted what he said and did not use your brain when he said " the ID picked something from the website" and did not check the web site enough to say "hmm there is no info there") But the guy at fortress would have definitely known what was said and definitely known if it was simple info that was on the website and public.

I only came on Sat morning, so there was a lot more info. But it is not an unreasonable assumption in part from the get go. Think about it, he said he called and they called the original CI. He either had to give enough info on a unique enough set of chairs (so that the fortress guy knew who to call based on the project) or that he was looking at getting the chairs just ordered by the other CI firm but he did not know what they want. Either way it had to be enough info for them to deduce where the original bid came from.


A call with "hi, I am a dealer and my clients ID saw the xxxx on your website in YYYY but wants that config in black, can I become a vendor for it" would have been enough? maybe if he was ordering those cow chairs as is. But anything generic would not really work.

We can all take several things from this story and from our reactions to it.

1. We are quite ready to state what another person feels or intends when he acts, yet all we really can know is what he does. All the actors in this little play thought they were doing the right thing. Nobody woke up and said "how can I do the wrong thing today?" nor thought that at the moment they acted.

2. People can rationalize crummy behavior, their own much better than that of others. (Actually, I think people can rationalize anything.)

3. Sleaze is easily recognizable by some; not considered sleaze by others; easily justified by the sleazy; and in all cases completely different from actionable and even further from illegal. Illegal things are usually sleazy but not the other way round.