"strange customer"

[Cantabrigian]

Example: I represent a tailor suing a customer who is a confidence man. The customer gets the tailor's confidence and friendship, orders a great amount of clothing using the most expensive cloths, and runs up a big bill which goes unpaid. This particular customer did this to another tailor, and he is probably on the prowl for more victims.

What does the 'customer' get out of ordering a large amount of clothing that he never receives?

It's obvious how this harms the tailor but not clear to me how it benefits him.

[novice]

I do, however, wonder why it seems that some aren't able to build a local client base in their homeland to cover overhead and the other basic costs of doing business before venturing off to the "promised land" where clients abound and liquid gold flows gushingly through the streets. I feel deeply that there is a certain arrogance to this concept. "Not good enough to make it on the Row? Then venture forth and fleece a few Yanks - they're easy marks." Moreover, there is no policing of this practice. Given that is the standard operating procedure of most of the travelling U.K. tailors, one would think that they would long ago have organized some sort of governing body. It is a rather sad thought to consider that the business practices of the owner of S-R dot com represent the Row itself, yet in two years none of the "Row Firms" have banded together to put a halt to it. emphasis added

It is not uncommon for persons of professions and trade in London, indeed the United Kingdom, to have such self-regulation of training, standards, and mode of conduct vis a vis the public. Such self-regulation, as I am sure most of us know, takes the form of guilds, associations and the like. It is indeed something of a surprise to me on learning from Alex Kabbaz'z post that there isn't one such organisation with respect to Savile Row or more generally British bespoke tailors. The question then for the "curious mind" is why such an organisation hasn't come about.

[AlexanderKabbaz]

Alex, I respectfully urge that your suggestion is not workable and unnecessary in that 99% of visiting tailors and shirtmakers are honest and deliver excellent products. With the exception of the master tailor of Kingley Street, the old firms and the recent start-ups are not hit and run artists.

Once burned ...

Having been in the unadmirable position of seemingly endorsing the rapscallion, I am probably overly sensitive on this issue. The recent post which sparked this thread was unwarranted, unnecessary, and its implications untrue. I saw an ugly head beginning to rear and feared a repeat of sorts.

I shall bow to your much greater knowledge in the 'workability' arena and leave my thoughts as just that ... an idea which has, hopefully, some merit.

But on to the more interesting ... I don't suppose you can reveal your client's adversary without skirting the defamation laws. Nonetheless, thanks for the warning.

[Mark Seitelman]

To Cantabrigian: The customer in issue received loads of finished goods from one tailor. The other tailor delivered finished goods and had unfinished goods waiting in the shop.

It is unfortunate because tailor # 1 is a one man band and could ill afford the theft. Theft or "shrinkage" is an unfortunate cost of doing business.

I only mention this because although there is a danger that a customer can be duped by a visiting artisan who never delivers, the vendor faces greater losses.

[manton]

There is the Federation of Merchant Tailors. That is a trade association of sorts. I don't know if, or to what extent, it "polices" the trade, however.

[dopey]

. . . I only mention this because although there is a danger that a customer can be duped by a visiting artisan who never delivers, the vendor faces greater losses.

It is hard to say that this is always true. A vendor who is stiffed is out the cost of goods (materials and out-of-pocket labor costs). A customer that receives no or inadequate goods is out his 50% deposit. My guess is that in the circumstances I described the customer is out more money. I am ignoring, in both cases, the cost of invested time, which is probably more time for the tailor than the client but a court may value them differently. Also, most SR houses don’t take deposits from their regular customers.

Still, I don’t think you can make a categorical statement of whose losses will be greater.

[AlexanderKabbaz]

I am ignoring, in both cases, the cost of invested time, which is probably more time for the tailor than the client but a court may value them differently.

On what premise would a Court likely value whose time higher?

[dopey]

Both parties will have invested time in a non-transaction. The value of that time might be computed based on the revenue that could have been generated during that time (or that will be lost by having to start over).

[Concordia]

I would imagine that even if the client were out a lot of money-- perhaps more than the tailor put in on an hourly basis-- the tailor could risk disruptions of his business with the threat of severe loss of future income.

[dopey]

Yep. Figuring out who suffers more damage - a customer from a bum tailor or a tailor from a bum customer - in the abstract, is difficult.

I have no idea and could not possibly know without knowing the customer, the tailor, what was ordered, the financial arrangements and lots more about each of them.

[Mark Seitelman]

In a litigation over unpaid goods, both sides are losers. It's all a matter of minimizing losses.

For example:

1. Under the "American rule" each side is responsible for its own costs of litigation. The winner does not get reimbursed for its legal costs except for some minor costs allowable by statute, such as the court filing fees, etc. In comparison, the "English rule" allows the winner to get back a good portion, if not all, of his legal costs from the loser.

2. The law makes no allowance for time lost and inconvenience for either side. The buyer cannot recoup for six hours of travel and fitting time. He cannot collect for not getting a lovely flannel suit and having to spend hours trying to chase down the tailor. He also cannot sue for the difference in cost in going to Huntsman to get a suit versus the price that he paid at the unreliable, cheap Charlie tailor. The tailor cannot collect for so-called lost opportunities, such as either missing or foregoing work which would have paid in full.

3. The calculation of damages is easy. The damages for a finished, delivered suit is the purchase price and associated costs, such as shipping, bounced check fee, etc. The damages for a half finished garment could be the full price of the garment unless the buyer could prove that there could have been a mitigation of damages, such as selling the suit at a sharp discount to another customer. The seller is entitled to 9% interest from the date that the contract is breached.

In sum, Abraham Lincoln said that a lawyer should discourage litigation whenever possible. The time, effort, and cost of litigation may overwhelm the potential recovery. Encourage settlement.

Cheers.

[dopey]

In a litigation over unpaid goods, both sides are losers. It's all a matter of minimizing losses.
. . .

Speculation is much more fun, but every once in a while, it is nice to hear from someone who knows.

Thanks, Mark.