From "Diane Hofstetter" <dianepianotuner@hotmail.com>
Terry,
All of our appraisals take us a lot of time to look the piano over very
carefully and to discuss in detail with the client exactly what their
wants are in connection with the piano they are inquiring about. The
written reports are detailed and with appropriate disclaimers. The fee
is the same as for a tuning because it takes the same amount of time
and at least as much effort what with preparing the papers and all.
Appraisals for insurance companies are even costlier as they
frequently require a lot of interaction with the insurance company
later. (ie. 7:00am. phone calls from adjusters who want verbal
justifications for what your report detailed.)
I am currently working on making modules in a word processor in my
laptop to be able to assemble as the need arises. Thus the process of
writing the letter should be substantially shortened. Estimates for
repairs and rebuilding are already in my bookkeeping system in modular
form.
I remember once, years ago, when we were still new, a customer found a
piano and wanted our opinion. The deal he found was _so good_ that we
didn't want to sound too enthusiastic and cause the seller to up the
price or any such thing. So, as we were leaving, letting the two
parties alone to make their deal, our customer followed us out and said
that he had told the seller he would think it over.
I told him, "Andy, go back and buy it!" Later he told us that the
seller told him he could see what we were doing and wondered why he
didn't buy it right off! Probably if we had had papers in those days
it might have helped him understand better.
Diane
>From: "Farrell"
>Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
>To:
>Subject: Pre-Purchase Inspection Liability
>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:31:07 -0400
>
>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
>
__________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at [1]http://explorer.msn.com
References
1. http://explorer.msn.com/