DIYrich
Solar Wizard
That's illegal in the USA. MSRP is one thing. "agreeing" to a price is a whole different ball game.stayed within agreed upon pricing structures,
That's illegal in the USA. MSRP is one thing. "agreeing" to a price is a whole different ball game.stayed within agreed upon pricing structures,
This is about warranty and support not price. If somebody uses a channel for this there is nothing to stop them but they will not get reliable supply and support. You cannot compel a company to service a product evenly with uneven commitment.Price Fixing
A naked agreement among competitors to fix prices is almost always illegal, whether prices are specified at a minimum, maximum, or within some range. Illegal price fixing occurs whenever two or more competitors agree to take actions to raise, lower, maintain, or stabilize the price of any product or service.
MAP pricing in this case. Agree is the wrong word, I should have chosen that more carefully.That's illegal in the USA. MSRP is one thing. "agreeing" to a price is a whole different ball game.
Yes, as I alluded to before, the FTC might have something to say about the matter. This is getting interesting.That's illegal in the USA. MSRP is one thing. "agreeing" to a price is a whole different ball game.
We sell under MAP all the time. There is no fixed limit. If you pick up the phone with us or any dealer all cards are on the table based on volume and other parts added. (We even have a battery deal). Competition is restricted, advertising is not.MAP pricing in this case. Agree is the wrong word, I should have chosen that more carefully.
Here is what I see from just reading here and what limited information I can muster.Everybody needs a reasonable margin to maintain a system working properly. As I said earlier, we already did our best to set the best friendly price we thought for selling to end users, then balance each role in this business to have a reasonable margin to keep serving the customers. If today someone can sell any price without respecting others, someday later someone can do even cheaper... eventually it will become like something in the flea market, users will take their own risk on buying the things, don't even expect the product will be improved or with a warranty guaranteed after couple years. I personally wonder, what "other brands" will do with this matter. and I am sorry, I really have tried my best to explain our position and why we consider it as "malicious competition". If you still cannot understand, I respect your opinion but I have nothing further to help a better understanding. Thank you.
And the FTC has stated SS & Luxpower are perfectly in their right to withhold warranty and support from unauthorized distributors but also ruled that the first sale doctrine gives them every right to purchase them and turn around and sell them.This is about warranty and support not price. If somebody uses a channel for this there is nothing to stop them but they will not get reliable supply and support. You cannot compel a company to service a product evenly with uneven commitment.
I think you mean the other way around. You are restricted on advertising a price, but you can agree to sell at any price you want on the phone or in person ("competition"). "add to cart to see price"Competition is restricted, advertising is not.
please tell us more about your 100%, fully legal, agreed upon pricing structures.I think where a great deal of the confusion with the Watts 24/7 situation is coming in is that there is no way he could have adequate stock to fill orders, he doesn't have the ability to honor the warranty as he claims, and he has no way to assist in commissioning or monitoring end user systems. Current Connected on the other hand does have the ability to do all of these things. The Current Connected team has gone through the proper channels, stayed within agreed upon pricing structures, and has done training to be able to troubleshoot and commission the systems. Signature Solar is the distributor where these companies would get their product. We can verify that CC has access to stock and can support sales. Watts 24/7 on the other hand is selling imaginary stock at this point. It's possible that they could have 1 or 2 units, but people are going to be buying things that don't actually exist and it is going to be damaging to everyone's reputation. Not cool at all.
I've heard nothing but good things about Watt24/7 and want to give the benefit of the doubt on this, but soymething is truly not adding up.
it looks like that's what's going on.Here is what I see from just reading here and what limited information I can muster.
You (Eddie) are an importer here in the US and have an arrangement with Signature Solar. You purchase and import units from Lux.
Ian on the other hand seems to be purchasing units outside of your importing business.
You (Eddie) and Signature Solar have an "agreed" price to sell units, while Ian can price units at what he thinks is a fair margin.
You (Eddie) and Signature Solar are now claiming this is malicious, however, the FTC will tell you unless Ian is dumping on the market at a price below his purchase price, then it is not malicious.
That is how I see it.
Msrp was the point. That doesn't really change the issue we have on the lack of support or stockplease tell us more about your agreed upon pricing structures.
s
in a manner of speaking yes, I meant from a legal angle.I think you mean the other way around. You are restricted on advertising a price, but you can agree to sell at any price you want on the phone or in person ("competition"). "add to cart to see price"
Eddie has no importing business, he works for lux in china and they all have no idea who Ian isit looks like that's what's going on.
Here is what I see from just reading here and what limited information I can muster.
You (Eddie) are an importer here in the US and have an arrangement with Signature Solar. You purchase and import units from Lux.
Ian on the other hand seems to be purchasing units outside of your importing business.
You (Eddie) and Signature Solar have an "agreed" price to sell units, while Ian can price units at what he thinks is a fair margin.
You (Eddie) and Signature Solar are now claiming this is malicious, however, the FTC will tell you unless Ian is dumping on the market at a price below his purchase price, then it is not malicious.
That is how I see it.
Ok...then what ... this response seems incomplete ...Eddie has no importing business, he works for lux in china and they all have no idea who Ian is
Suppose I list half-price iPhones tomorrow and offer to sell on a waitlist, without even having a supply agreement with Apple.
Eddie has no importing business, he works for lux in china and they all have no idea who Ian is
You could, or you could purchase phones from Apple like Ian purchased inverters from Lux and sell them at what you want for a margin.Suppose I list half-price iPhones tomorrow and offer to sell on a waitlist, without even having a supply agreement with Apple.
Well, bud I and several others were in HQ in Shenzhen last week. And know Eddie personally since he was hired by lux on day one. if Lux did it Eddie did it.I'm not certain that is what is happening. Obviously Eddie had no idea that Lux would sell to someone else. The inverters Ian has came from somewhere and it appears from Lux.
Except watts247in a manner of speaking yes, I meant from a legal angle.
We tried beating the Victron MAP because the markup was too high, and they shut down our cart discount as well, you can negotiate a deal with us on price any day though.
We are the strongest proponent of lower prices in this industry bar none. We do not like high priced products, we also don't like cut-and-run brokers who can't invest in improving the products.
It sure seems you don't know everything......Well, bud I and several others were in HQ in Shenzhen last week. And know Eddie personally since he was hired by lux on day one. if Lux did it Eddie did it.
MPP 6548 for $900 with no warranty when the firmware got tough.Except watts247
As far as cut and run, where's the proof that watts 247 is guilty of this.
Not insinuation like that you acuse @robby of, but proof.