Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I agree with this, but I'm not sure it's really a challenge to h.g's point. I think he was arguing that it's naive for one party to a deal, to expect the other party to act against their own interests in favour of that party. It suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of business, and to mix that up with ethics is naive.I disagree with this. I think it's possible to be straight and honest with people and still make profit. I buy and sell turntables, usually damaged or faulty ones which I fix, and I tell people the truth. Sometimes people do walk away when you tell them you bought the until faulty and fixed it to sell on but the most common reaction is 'I appreciate your honesty'. If you make a bit of money on the sale and the buyer saves money, what's wrong with that?. Last turntable I sold I made about £90 on it and the buyer saved £140 on list. Both happy.
When I buy a car I expect to get money off but I'm not unreasonable about it. If the car is already a good price I don't try and screw the dealer too far, I recognise they have to make a profit and want them to give me good service and look forward to selling me another car!
If you resent the fact that a dealer makes profit from you then I can see how you might not be happy with this idea but if not then it's perfectly possible to deal with people honestly.
Your point is a little different. You could argue that honesty is in your interests, given the nature of your business, because not telling somebody about a bit of history they may discover later would, in the longer term, undermine your reputation and harm your business. Better to lose a sale, short term, than prejudice your longer term prospects. When you're selling a new product, there's no such 'history' to be discovered (though if the dealer knew, say, that the box had been dropped from a height, albeit everything seemed fine, I'd expect them to be honest about that and reflect it in the price).