RE: Re: Clipsal Ulti

["michael.furlong" <ukha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nigel

=20

4 week delivery time would put me out of business.

=20

Cashflow doesn=92t allow me to place orders 4 weeks in advance of the
requi=
red
date.

=20

It doesn=92t matter how you structure the payments on a job the client will
always leave payment until the last possible minute and then will try and
delay it further.=20

=20

On new builds we have to fit in with the other trades and jobs can easily
b=
e
delayed by weather and other occurrences. Job I am on at the moment has
bee=
n
delayed 4 weeks due to weather delaying completion of the roof. We are
doin=
g
first fix electrical on this job and I won=92t even be ordering the cable
until the day before we walk in the door. The idea of having to hold 10ks
worth of cbus in stock is just not on.

=20

Most small businesses don=92t have buckets of cash sitting around to pay
fo=
r
goods before they are required.

=20

Mick

=20

_____=20=20

From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Nigel Giddings
Sent: 28 March 2006 22:10
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: Clipsal Ulti

=20

Kwong,

I think we are both stating the same thing. It is legal for companies
outside of the EU to restrict availability of their product to channels
within the EU and Clipsal make full use of this.

I appreciate Clipsal are trying to establish a robust distribution
network in the UK and may wish to avoid the bad publicity that could be
caused by suppliers with less than perfect after sales. It would seem
clipsal are nervous of letting inexperienced people loose with their
product.

However, people will think twice about buying a product with a 50 - 100%
premium because of the manufacturers policies adopted in country.

I would suggest availability of this type of equipment 'ex-stock' is not
a high priority, a 4 week delivery time would be acceptable as most jobs
are planned far in excess of this. A quick repair/replacement process is
important but that is a different issue.

Nigel





There was a legal case a while ago of Levi vs Tesco. Tesco was importing
Levi jeans from official distributors and sometimes retailers in the USA
and were selling them at discounted prices. A court case, counter court
case and appeals ensued but Tesco eventually lost. The legal case
establishes that the Trademark Directive allows brand owners to restrict
access to their products, at least outside the EEA.

References:

Zino Davidoff SA vs. A&G Imports
Levi Strauss & Co and Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd vs. Tesco Stores and Tesco
plc
Levi Strauss & Co and Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd vs. Costco Wholesale UK Ltd
European Court of Justice (20 November, 2001)

That has nothing whatsoever to do with price fixing. Schneider Electric
have reorganised their distribution channels recently and imposing stock
conditions to enhance their product availability. Any company acting as
no
more than ordering points (ie. they don't hold any stock themselves)
would
find that their dealers' discounts are reduced proportionally.

If you had supported us with your business, you might have found that we
could probably supply your C-Bus requirements from stock.

Regards,

Kwong Li
li@xxxxxxx
Laser Business Systems Ltd.
HYPERLINK "http://www.laser.com"http://www.laser.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.cbus-shop.com"http://www.cbus-shop.com