OT - Video Card Question(s)

...or he's got some profit built into the price.

Not that I think there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

Well, if the contract is "at cost", then there =is= something wrong with
it, especially since Jay's serving as a billboard for him.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
...or he's got some profit built into the price.

Not that I think there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

Well, if the contract is "at cost", then there =is= something wrong with
it, especially since Jay's serving as a billboard for him.

What contract? I doubt anyone's signing papers here.

The point is that as long as Jay understands that the "at cost" number is
equivalent to buying the parts retail, and as long as he's okay with that, I
don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the situation. It's between Jay
and his vendor.

Pete

What contract? I doubt anyone's signing papers here.

A contract doesn't require papers. Would the guy be justifiably upset
if Jay decided... "no contract, I'll just take the ads off the system"?

as long as Jay understands that the "at cost" number is
equivalent to buying the parts retail

I would not have understood that to be the case, unless =his= cost is
retail.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
news
What contract? I doubt anyone's signing papers here.

A contract doesn't require papers. Would the guy be justifiably upset if
Jay decided... "no contract, I'll just take the ads off the system"?

A verbal contract is extremely hard to contest. Not impossible, granted,
but nearly so. In any case, the point is that my interpretation of the
situation is that this is a gentleman's agreement between two local
businessmen. The exact nature of the arrangement is fluid, but as long as
each individual understands exactly what's going on, I don't think it's
critically important that "at cost" has to really mean just the cost of the
parts (who knows...perhaps the vendor is treating his own time as part of
the cost).

I doubt either party thinks that there's any well-stated contract, and they
probably both understand that if the other reneges on the deal, there's
little avenue for recourse.

The fact is, there are still people who trust each other well enough to
enter into such agreements with little or no legal protection. And it
doesn't just happen in cow towns like Iowa City.

as long as Jay understands that the "at cost" number is equivalent to
buying the parts retail

I would not have understood that to be the case, unless =his= cost is
retail.

Like I said, it depends on how the vendor is interpreting "cost". But
regardless, my point is that the deal is fair as long as Jay understands
what the retail costs of the parts is. Especially given the customer. It's
not like Jay is going to go out and buy the parts himself and put the thing
together. You think these tech-related threads he starts are long now, just
imagine us trying to talk him to the construction of a computer.

Pete

The fact is, there are still people who trust each other well enough to
enter into such agreements with little or no legal protection. And it
doesn't just happen in cow towns like Iowa City.

"Cow town"? Look, when I lived in Wisconsin, that was applicable.
Here in Iowa, this is PIG country -- get it right, dammit.

;-)

Now, as to whether or not I'm getting this machine "at cost" or not.
This is a gentleman's agreement, little more than a "Hey, that's a cool
idea -- I can help" kind of thing. There's no implied contract (other
than the fact that I'm paying him "x", and he's agreed -- in writing --
to deliver "y") for anything.

If I don't put signs up touting his business, he has no recourse. If
he sells me parts at retail (instead of wholesale), I have no recourse.


Neither of us cares. Both of us are happy. Both will profit. That's
the way we do things in Iowa.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Cow town"? Look, when I lived in Wisconsin, that was applicable.
Here in Iowa, this is PIG country -- get it right, dammit.

Okay, my bad. We have both pigs *and* cows here in the Pacific Northwest,
so I'm unaccustomed to the specialization in livestock that exists
elsewhere.

[...]
Neither of us cares. Both of us are happy. Both will profit. That's
the way we do things in Iowa.

That's pretty much what I figured. And for the record, it's not unique to
Iowa, or even to rural areas. I'm sure that, just as here in a more urban
setting we still engage in informal agreements like the one in this thread,
in Iowa people still use legal contracts for a variety of other business
agreements.

Pete

On 22 Nov 2006 04:34:17 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:
"Cow town"? Look, when I lived in Wisconsin, that was applicable.
Here in Iowa, this is PIG country -- get it right, dammit.

One of the reasons that you can't find real BBQ in Iowa also...