jangy

No. Point taken.

Vadim @ FD

Rick, I am asking you to call me and settle this issue.

Please do not have your secretary call me. She is cute and all and I like her, but it is between you and I.

I have not delivered as promised and you have changed your mind more often than I change my socks.

We are both at fault. I want to make you happy and I tried to do so as much as I can. So lets get the drama behind us and lets make your 63 and other MBs and AMGs as fast it possibly can be done. Because for both of us it is our goal.

Thank you for listening.

Vadim.

MB_Forever

Rick, can you just have her call me instead

But seriously, I think this is a very good opportunity to resolve this issue especially after so long

I hope you guys reach a resolution and move on

bassn_07

+1

V12Godspeed

A+ for efforts Vadim. Hope you guys come to a resolution.

rarfinancial

Vadim I have called you and PM'd you many many times. It is my theft and recovery department that has called you. They are well trained and do a great job. I will no longer call you as I have stated to you in PM's and as the department also has told you. You left me no choice. I did not change my mind. Vadim you know what you are doing here. Now, you want to settle this PAY ME MY MONEY It's that easy Step up man let get this high school game over
before it gets real ugly..

benz_addict

Maybe he doesn't have 4k

AMGfan

Man...I really hate to see this happening to everyone involved. It gives credence to not always being the first is a good thing or being the test bed for something that has not been done before (i.e. supercharger for NA 6.2 AMG engine) a project best done with extremely open eyes and a solid contract outlining realistic cost adjustments and timelines.

Too many things can go wrong, costs escalate, deadlines broken, miscommunication, frustrated owner, frustrated tuner...which leads to what we have now.

Guys like Marko and Havoc have got some ***** and patience to go through this type of R&D rollercoaster...Not only are you guys testing your patience but also your pocket books since your economies of scale are nill.

Rick...I feel for you and hope it works out. I would suggest that you try and deal with Vadim personally. Your intermediaries may be good at their job, but you might get farther doing it personally. It might lead to a resolution that neither of you might get full satisfaction but it may be something. If you don't get the satisfaction you think is fair and you have done it on a personal level (I know you may have tried previously to do this personally but it's already out there that Vadim is willing to talk one on one now...if he doesn't pick up the phone now then he should now the forum will turn on him) then it is within your rights to do what you feel you need to do.

Vadim...sorry to have this happen now of all times. I've talked to you in the past and you have always been helpful with my questions. I hope this matter is settled and you can move on...

Still sad to see this...

MarkoCL65

You will post here but won't speak to him? I guess you just want your money back. Fair enough I guess.

I hope you guys resolve this as the gentlemen that you both are. In my opinion, having your "recovery department" contact a person who is willing to speak to/work with you doesn't lend itself very well to an amicable resolution.

JT55

I still think it HAS to be ANDYS fault - He should pay regardless.

MarkoCL65

komp55

I've been following this, but have refrained from commenting until now.

Based on my personal experience of engaging the services of a highly qualified vendor (none this Board is familiar with) to work with me in developing a set of true equal length shorty headers for the E55, I went into the project KNOWING a few things: 1) there was a decent possibility that the design objectives couldn't be met; 2) it was going to cost me money whether the project worked out or not; and 3) I needed to know when to pull the plug on the project, from a cost standpoint, when it looked like it wouldn't work out.

Needless to say, I abandoned the project after the initial model of the prototype headers didn't fit correctly. I did it for cost reasons. I could have thrown more money at it and have no doubt could have perfected the design, but decided not to. And I NEVER considered for a moment trying to stiff the vendor I worked with. He got paid for his expertise, time and materials, and I ended up with nothing other than a learning experience because that was a possible outcome when I undertook the project.

Based on what I've read here, some basic contract principles of law apply. There's a concept known as "unjust enrichment" and it is applicable here unless the parties involved had a written agreement that said the party doing all of the R&D work was responsible for all costs unless a finished and accepted product was received. I highly doubt that's the case here.

So if I enter into a contract, and the other party expends time and money for my benefit, but ultimately doesn't deliver a final product, I am, under equity principles of law, not entitled to full recovery because to do so would unjustly enrich me. The only real issue here is how much compensation the vendor is entitled to for his efforts to date. It's completely unreasonable and lacking basis in law to expect that a full refund is due anyone based on the facts revealed in this thread unless the purchaser can prove that the vendor, in fact, expended no time and effort, and purchased no materials related to the project.

Hope these guys can arrive at a reasonable settlement.

AMGfan

+1...I was trying to get to your point but couldn't eloquently do it as well as you...

CWW

Not trying to start anything, but in the interests of complete fairness, do you think he's entitled to keep anything at all to cover his costs?

He may have dropped the ball, but if you canned the project after you originally ordered it, then he almost certainly has some expenses. That's probably the point of contention here. If you guys go to court, he'd probably be entitled to the costs of his performance on your project, if it turns out you ordered and then canceled it, regardless of Vadim's delays. Then you'd be entitled to something for the delays and loss of use, as well as a refund for whatever amount is left over and above his costs out of your original deposit.

But my point is, neither one of you is going to get 100% of what you want if you go to the mat. If he was just going to stroke you a check for a full refund and eat all of his costs, he would already have done it. He clearly wants to talk with you about something, I don't see the harm in giving him a call and seeing if you can't reach an agreement.

speedpeddler

Not to change the subject and hijack the thread, but it is common practice to get deposits to cover the cost of expensive or custom parts and fabrication to avoid having to eat them when the customer changes their mind. Which occurs often.

Timeless

Perfectly stated.

CWW

+1

The concept you're talking about's called "detrimental reliance". Your analysis is 100% spot-on.

komp55

Detrimental reliance is an element of a promissory estoppel cause of action, while unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy, and both appear to be valid theories of recovery for the vendor in this situation based on the information disclosed thus far.

Again, these parties need to reach a fair settlement as to the value of the time, efforts and materials provided by the vendor and move on.

CWW

Right, but unjust enrichment won't fly, because the customer didn't receive anything of value. The project was never finished. I think the correct theory of recovery would be DR. But nothing wrong with throwing everything into the complaint I suppose.

komp55

I prefer promissory estoppel (detrimental reliance) too as a primary cause of action, but unjust enrichment still flies because it doesn't require that the defendant comes into possession of money or property, but simply that he be unjustly enriched by obtaining some financial advantage of the plaintiff. The concept of unjust enrichment is premised upon the principle that a party cannot induce, accept, or encourage another to furnish or render something of value to such party and avoid payment for the value received (which in this case is the value of the vendor's time and outlay for R&D related to the project). I think we can agree that the vendor here is entitled to some amount of remuneration.

Only in MBWorld.org Forums - you can talk cars and 1L contract issues.

CWW

I get what you're saying. But in this case, I'm assuming Vadim's probably keeping any parts and whatnot that he bought for the project, right? I'm also assuming he's probably keeping the benefit of any fabrication work, and keeping whatever designs he came up with, too. I can't imagine him turning any of this over to the customer, as it's proprietary.

So what we really have here is an order for a product that was never filled. I'm going way back to Contracts I here, but wouldn't the product, or at the very least some portion of it, have to actually be delivered before the customer receives any benefit that would qualify as unjust enrichment?

Vadim's performance, e.g. his labor and costs towards completing the project, is certainly calculable as detrimental reliance, but it doesn't directly enrich the customer. The customer only receives the benefit of the bargain when the product he ordered (or some portion thereof) is actually delivered. Everything Vadim did in the meantime, while necessary to completing the order, doesn't enrich the customer in any way.

Let me put it this way, if a client walks into your office and asks you to draft a will, and you draft half of it, but never give it to the client, then are you saying he's been unjustly enriched by your labor? What about if you drafted the whole will, but never gave it to him? Has he been enriched through your labor? I doubt it. I think he would actually have to receive some benefit beyond just your labor behind the scenes, when you're dealing with a product/delivery type of situation. Some benefit has to actually be conferred, no? I think you're right, though, in certain situations. Like if I hired someone to cut my grass, and fired him halfway through. I've been enriched by his partial performance, so I see your point there.

I dunno, I guess it can go both ways. I kind of agree with you now, why risk it? It probably is better to just plead both like you said.

Rock

Will you lawyers give it a rest. All the big words confuse me.

Jakpro1

I got one way to settle this......MATCH UP!!!!

Ricks 63 on the juice VS VadimsTT600. Best 2 outta 3

Winner gets 4K/ keeps the 4k. Maybe we could all throw in a bit extra to make it interesting.

Just trying to setlle down a pretty heated little arguement.

Hope you guys get it worked out. So many Bimmers and Lambos out there to be hatin on.

komp55

In rest mode now. Some of the applicable legal concepts have now been fleshed out - maybe better understanding those concepts will help the parties resolve their dispute.

Vic55

All I remember from school is:

Tort- a civil wrong.





Then I went to sales and the rest is history.