Pre-Purchase Inspection Liability

[Joseph Garrett]

Terry,
Write the details on PAPER! That's really a no-brainer. AND CHARGE MORE! For
the most part, all technicians do not charge what they are worth! It's high
time we all quit under-selling ourselves.
Regards, Joe Garrett
----- Original Message -----
From: Farrell <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 4:31 AM
Subject: Pre-Purchase Inspection Liability


> I had a near collision with a pre-purchase inspection I did 2-1/2 years
ago
> yesterday. I'm wondering what other's experience has been and whether you
> folks take any special precautions to reduce your liability.
>
> My client bought a 1920 George Steck 5' 6" grand in 1998 for $2500. The
> piano is all original except for the keytops and black lacquer finish.
> Everything functioned, but no better than any other non-maintained 80 year
> old piano. At the time I told him that nothing appeared broken on the
piano,
> but that it needed (at a minimum) a full action refurbishing to make it
work
> acceptably for a young student.
>
> They bought the piano and a week later I did a pitch raise and tuning.
After
> 2-1/2 years and four reminder cards, I guess they figured the piano should
> be tuned again. So I tuned it yesterday. While tuning, I noticed that the
> dip was way shallow (averaging about 5/16"), hammers were missing strings,
> dampers were leaking BIG time, etc. Mom mentioned that the
daughter/student
> said that the piano did not play right - it did not play like the
teacher's.
> No doubt. Then she told me that her daughter has been taking lessons for
ten
> years, is very serious about the piano, and will likely continue for years
> to come! So then I immediately launched into my lecture about the
> performance one can expect from an non-maintained 80 year old piano (can
you
> say zip?). And I talked about either sinking a few thousand into their
piano
> and end up with something that is still not all that great, or look for a
> new/newer piano that will better meet their daughter's needs.
>
> What I did not realize at the time (but I sure did after DAD got home and
> joined in the conversation), was that I was telling them that they had a
bad
> piano, even though two years ago "I told them it was a good piano". My
> recollection of the inspection day was that I told them it needed some
work
> to function properly, there were no major problems with the piano (except
> for 80 years worth of wear), and that $2500 was a fair market value for
the
> instrument. He indicated that he did not want to spend more than that
> amount. I'm not really sure what else I might have said at that time
> regarding how appropriate the instrument was for a student. I know that
> today, I would address that topic in detail.
>
> Anyway, I think the awkward situation is clear. In their mind I
"recommended
> the piano", and in my mind I told them that $2500 was a fair market value
> for the instrument, that there were no major problems with the piano, and
> that they really need to spend around $1,500 to make the piano function at
a
> minimally acceptable level. Take this situation just one step further and
> you could find somebody suing someone else.
>
> It seems to me that a written report would be required to minimize such
> situations from arising. I hate written reports. I would have to up my
> inspection fee. How do you'all address this potential danger?
>
> Terry Farrell
> Piano Tuning & Service
> Tampa, Florida
> mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com
>