Charging extra on service for non-locally purchased RVs

I get a customer discount as well.

...of course who is to say they don't just work an extra 10% into the total before discounting.

mowermech wrote:
"As to constantly 'rubbing it in your face' about the 10% discount: My answer would be, "..Well, thats all fine and dandy, but if you keep rubbing that 10% discount in my face, you will lose 100% of my business, 'cause I'll go somewhere else." If enough people say that (and start doing it), I bet they'll knock that routine off."

My sentiments exactly!
But then, I tend to carry grudges against businesses until they die of old age, then I take them to a taxidermist, get them mounted, and hang them on the wall for future reference.
For instance, the local Jeep dealer. The service manager refused to tell the "technician" to use a torque wrench when mounting my aluminum wheels, stating "The torque stick and impact wrench system is all we ever use!" Sorry, Mr. Service Manager, it is MY way or I hit the highway. I have never been back!
All it would take would be the service writer at that RV dealership to make that statement to me about twice, and he would never see me again! What, I should trade my RV in to THEM, spend several thousand dollars on one I don't want, to get their piddly little 10% discount?
Sorry, no, there are other dealers in town that will give me a 10% Retired Military discount or Senior Citizen Discount, or a discount because of where DW works, and I don't have to buy ANYTHING from them!

You know...I agree. I don't care what anyone else pays. But if I feel I am paying too much, then I'll not be back. And your company is dead to me.

I got an discount card from my RV dealer when I purchased my RV there that is good for service and at the accessories store. It is just a way to thank a customer and nothing else.

When I saw this thread I thought it was about something more like this - We priced a new RV at a dealer who said to us, if you don't buy from us we will not do warranty service on any RV that we don't sell to you. That sent me directly to another dealer.

"As to constantly 'rubbing it in your face' about the 10% discount: My answer would be, "..Well, thats all fine and dandy, but if you keep rubbing that 10% discount in my face, you will lose 100% of my business, 'cause I'll go somewhere else." If enough people say that (and start doing it), I bet they'll knock that routine off."

My sentiments exactly!
But then, I tend to carry grudges against businesses until they die of old age, then I take them to a taxidermist, get them mounted, and hang them on the wall for future reference.
For instance, the local Jeep dealer. The service manager refused to tell the "technician" to use a torque wrench when mounting my aluminum wheels, stating "The torque stick and impact wrench system is all we ever use!" Sorry, Mr. Service Manager, it is MY way or I hit the highway. I have never been back!
All it would take would be the service writer at that RV dealership to make that statement to me about twice, and he would never see me again! What, I should trade my RV in to THEM, spend several thousand dollars on one I don't want, to get their piddly little 10% discount?
Sorry, no, there are other dealers in town that will give me a 10% Retired Military discount or Senior Citizen Discount, or a discount because of where DW works, and I don't have to buy ANYTHING from them!

pnichols wrote:

Vulcaneer wrote:
Not sure the relevance between the Pitman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act, that I linked previously. Nor how the Pitman Act relates to this discussion.

I'll go out on limb here and add the any laws on the books regarding charging customers different amounts for the same services or products is probably/most likely addressing the legality of charging individuals different amounts versus the legality of charging classes of individuals different amounts.

What the OP was referring to is a whole class of individuals being able to pay a different amount for the same services or products - which makes logical sense (that is, if the law is ever logical) for this kind of practice to be legal ... In My Non-Legal Humble Opinion, of course.

What Vulcaneer is referring to is legislation that makes it illegal for a manufacturer or distributor to offer one price to a preferred distributor and another price to others "in the interest of creating a Monopoly". Both conditions must be met. The best example is Ford or GM cannot offer their cars to a preferred dealer group (say Auto Nation) at a lower price than their other franchisees IF their intent is to run all the other dealers out of business so that Auto Nation eventually will have a monopoly selling Chevys or Fords. They can offer that same group incentives and discounts if they are not designed to create unfair trade. It must also cross state lines, hence be interstate, not intrastate, commerce, so it falls under federal jurisdiction.

Vulcaneer wrote:
Not sure the relevance between the Pitman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act, that I linked previously. Nor how the Pitman Act relates to this discussion.

I'll go out on limb here and add the any laws on the books regarding charging customers different amounts for the same services or products is probably/most likely addressing the legality of charging individuals different amounts versus the legality of charging classes of individuals different amounts.

What the OP was referring to is a whole class of individuals being able to pay a different amount for the same services or products - which makes logical sense (that is, if the law is ever logical) for this kind of practice to be legal ... In My Non-Legal Humble Opinion, of course.

Some dealers. Do not want to even service you. If you did not by from them.
Ran into this with our FW MH.

memilanuk wrote:
I'm curious... is this a 'normal' policy in most parts of the country?

It was from the Winnebago dealership in Annapolis, MD. It's a car storage lot now. Oh, well.....

I had a college buddy that was an Estate/Trust Attorney. He told me that if I ever needed a criminal trial attorney he would be happy to refer me to a good one, and that it would be first time either one of us attended a criminal trial. The law is just too broad a discipline for somebody to be good at every aspect of it.

Vulcaneer wrote:

rockportrocket wrote:
Price discrimination occurs when a business charges a different price to different groups of consumers for the same good or service, for reasons not associated with costs.

If for instance Ford has their oil change special on for 20 bucks, and they then give a 10% discount if you bought you car there, they would be guilty. If you can prove you paid 10% more for the exact same service , you have a case. I don't care what wpo says.

If for instance Ford has their oil change special on for 20 bucks, and they then give a 10% discount if you bought you car there, they would be guilty.

I don't think so. That dealers customers are one set of customer group. His non customers are in a different group.

If you are referring to the Robinson-Patman act, this also regards sales to distributors that cross state lines. And in the interest to create a monopoly.

Besides that it's going to take a lot more than that to initiate an anti-trust lawsuit. Even if you somehow do prevail, what do you expect the punitive reward to be for all the plaintiff's. Then tell me if it was worth it.

Bottom line...it's a NON-issue. Whether right or wrong. You are better off forgetting about it and getting on with your life. If you don't like a company's policy...go somewhere else. It is a public policy. They are not hiding it. They are publicly announcing their preferred customer group. They are not guilty.

rockportrocket wrote:
Vulcaneer, you are correct, it is against the law to charge one customer one price, then another a different price for the same services. The Pitman act alone states that in the supreme court case. Again you are correct that in the act of whether the return on risk for the lawsuit is minor compared to the cost.

I will state again, what the OP said is illegal, if taken to court.

Note to WPO, I made pretty good living for 40 years as an attorney, I don't try to tell you how to run a rv park and you should do the same.

Not sure the relevance between the Pitman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act, that I linked previously. Nor how the Pitman Act relates to this discussion. Maybe you can help clarify that for us. Or do we need to send you a healthy retainer before we can get that information from such an experienced high "valued" attorney. Not that I care all that much. But that is the problem with info from the internet, by all us self proclaimed pseudo experts.