Copier Dispute

What is the name of your state?WA

My company didn't want copier "A" - which was getting very old. We contacted a local copier company to help us find another copier. They offered copier "B", which we liked at first, and as an incentive, they offered to pay us the balance of the remaining lease payments for copier "A" if we decided to lease copier "B".

After a couple of months, we realized that "B" didn't do what we wanted to do, so we contacted the same copier company for one that met our needs. They proposed copier "C", which we quickly found out was exactly what we needed. Our intent was to replace "B" with "C" and we informed the copier salesman this many times. They gave us a proposal with two options #1, lease "C" in addition to "B" for X amount or #2, we could lease "C" for an additional amount and they would release us from the lease for "A"(this is the point of contention - this lease had already been released when we leased "B"). However, this wasn't caught before the agreement for "C" was signed and now we're stuck with the payments for both copiers - we only want the one copier.

We have documents and information that shows that "A" was already released. Is there anything that we can do? We felt like we were totally deceived - The problem is that they have the paperwork that I signed

Please help!!!

"Is there anything that we can do?"
*** Obviously, without reviewing the FULL documents that apply, no one can answer your question. Have a local attorney review the agreement(s).

"We felt like we were totally deceived"
*** In reading your own post, I only see that someone was 'sloppy' in reviewing the agreements BEFORE they were signed.

"The problem is that they have the paperwork that I signed"
*** Then simply ask them for a full copy of the documents.

Thanks for your reply...

The salesman is now saying that he thought that there were still some remaining lease payments left on the old lease for copier "A". He knew there wasn't. The amount of the check, which he calculated with us and approved with his copier company to pay was exactly the amount that remained on the lease for copier "A". We have emails from him where we asked him when we would be receiving the check that represented that amount and he would reply with his answer...So he knew it was over.

On the proposal, one problem from my perspective being the finance guy, was that I didn't know the specific models involved - which in this case, copier "A" was a CANON, and copier "B" & "C" were sharps. Because I knew that the Canon copier lease had already been settled months before and shipped back to the Canon provider, it never even crossed my mind that this would be an issue. I knew we had two copiers, now both "B" and "C", and that the intent was to replace B with C. I made a "Good Faith" agreement, without reading that it stated "releasing us from the CANON", even though that had already been released.

The options were, as they were exactly on the proposal:

#1 Pay 488/month for copier "C" in addition to paying for copier "B" which was 450 a month

# 2 Pay 680/month for copier "C" and they would release us from copier "A", the Canon, which, as already mentioned, had been released months ago.

Why would I agree to paying an additional 200/month for essentially the same thing. The only reason why I agreed to option #2, was that they would release from, what I thought, was copier "B" and we would just take on the 680/month charge.

and yes, I have requested for them to send a copy of the lease agreement back for copier C

What do you think?

gatorman said:

What do you think?

Click to expand...

*** I think you were 'negligent' in your misreading the agreements, and in NOT knowing (or confirming) the manufacturers and models of the specific copiers in question.
Now, the question becomes.... is your negligence going to cost the company.... or is the copier company going to somehow, out of their 'marketing savvy', going to allow you some leeway when they clearly do not have to??