Thursday, December 15, 2011

Getting What You Paid For

A British philosopher of some renown once wrote: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes, you get what you need.” I’ve always felt that he had a point, at least as far as life in general is concerned, but in business the distinction is usually between what you want and what you have actually contracted to buy – and if what is specified by your contract isn’t what you want, it’s no one’s fault except your own. But what happens when you did specify what you expected, and ended up with something unacceptable anyway? For example, what if you tell your caterer that your guests include a large percentage of practicing Muslims, and therefore it is critically important that nothing on the menu include pork – and you end up with large quantities of pork anyway?

Well, before you answer that, you might want to consider a case that appeared on the Consumerist website last week, about a couple who had exactly that experience. In planning for their wedding, the bride and groom told the wedding coordinator that it was vital that nothing with pork in it be served at the reception, but in the event, almost everything on the menu did end up with the offending substances. This is a real problem when a large number of the guests are practicing Muslims, and according to the online account, this resulted in some hard feelings (and expressions of offense) from various in-laws. When the couple in our story complained (repeatedly), the facility with which they were doing business changed its story repeatedly, and then offered them 30% off on the food bill (or about 18% on the overall price of the wedding package). The organization also failed to provide replacements for the unusable food…

Now, a lot of the people who commented on the story pointed out that the couple should have written this provision into their contract, and insisted on sampling anything that was going to be on the menu well in advance of the event; they would then be able to sue without any further discussion, and might even be able to use anyone who attended the food tasting as a witness. I think we are justified in questioning how useful that would have been, however. A successful day in court will not replace a successful wedding day, nor will it mend fences with any of the family members who feel that they have been intentionally insulted by this incident. And even if it would, a contract does not quite guarantee that everything would have gone smoothly; it only ensures that the court case will be easier to try if the vendor doesn’t comply…

I felt that an ever better point that could be drawn from this story is the ways in which a contract can protect the vendor. The couple in this story seem reasonable enough, but not all people are going to be rational about their wedding preparations, and a signed contract would keep someone who didn’t specify “no pork” from suing over the inclusion of pork – or, for that matter, keep someone who didn’t specify anything about meal from suing over a minor detail of it being “wrong.” All too often in my working life I’ve seen people avoid formal agreements and written contracts because they want to “keep things casual” and “avoid bad feelings” between the parties, and wind up with a lawsuit because each party remembers the agreement differently and is therefore convinced that the other party is trying to screw them…

An American poet of an earlier period once wrote that “Good fences make good neighbors,” and while this is almost certainly correct, it’s amazing to me how even people who should know better will ignore that advice. Of course, this event is also an example in how not to handle a customer complaint – the facility is going to be sued over this, at a cost that will almost certainly exceed any profit they could possibly have made on the event. If the court approves punitive damages, this simple case of bone-headed carelessness could cost the organization dozens of times what they could possibly have made on the transaction, and that doesn’t even consider what the bad publicity and public relations may end up costing them. It also doesn’t consider the even more serious charges of racism and deliberate malfeasance which could be brought against them (serving pork to Muslims really IS a vicious cultural insult), possibly even resulting in criminal charges – but that’s a story for another day…

No comments: