Leffot + EG complaint

[jrd617]



I don't think Leffot broke any laws or anything, but their move was extremely petty. Why did they have to interfere with OP's arrangement with EG? They did it so that OP couldn't enjoy those navy cordovan shoes. It's not like he's going to turn around and buy them from Leffot now. They should have told EG to make this guys shoes and fulfill their bargain but to stop making similar pairs in the future. They should have then contacted OP and explained that they would let this one episode slide but that it's in violation of their exclusive arrangement. That would have been the classy move. As it stands, nobody wins.

How can we know that Leffot intervened? You think Leffot has access to EG's order logs and actively monitors them? Sounds unlikely.

It's more likely that someone at EG realized that they were about to breach an exclusivity contract with Leffot. Hence why the OP's order was cancelled.

 

[sellahi22]



How can we know that Leffot intervened? You think they monitor/have access to EG's order logs?

It's more likely that someone at EG realized that they were about to breach an exclusivity contract with Leffot. Hence why the OP's order was cancelled.

I suggest you reread the OP

 

[jrd617]



I suggest you reread the OP

You don't think that EG was under contract for said 3rd Anniversary shoe?

 

[Nicola]



I don't think Leffot broke any laws or anything, but their move was extremely petty. Why did they have to interfere with OP's arrangement with EG? They did it so that OP couldn't enjoy those navy cordovan shoes. It's not like he's going to turn around and buy them from Leffot now. They should have told EG to make this guys shoes and fulfill their bargain but to stop making similar pairs in the future. They should have then contacted OP and explained that they would let this one episode slide but that it's in violation of their exclusive arrangement. That would have been the classy move. As it stands, nobody wins.

Why did the OP interfere with Leffots agreement with EG? Why shouldn't Leffot stop stocking EG shoes if EG is going to compete with a retailer? Why should ANY retailer stock EG shoes if EG is going to undercut retailers on any product? This is even worse. This was supposedly an exclusive run. It's quite possible that EG would NEVER have made those shoes if somebody like Leffot hadn't made the commitment to the run. How many shoes did Leffot have to commit to buying? At what risk/cost to the company? I'm guessing in one week Leffot buys more shoes then the OP will buy in two lifetimes. So EG treats retailers like this?

EG was in the position of pure profit. Leffot ordered a run. Taking all the risk. EG had no worries if the market would buy the shoes. No worries of left over product needing to dumped at a loss.

The next time you can't find a retailer near you stocking a brand you can thank people like EG.

 

[sellahi22]



You don't think that EG was under contract for said 3rd Anniversary shoe?

You doubted that Leffot interfered with the OP's transaction with EG. THat's why I referred you to the OP.

Why did the OP interfere with Leffots agreement with EG? Why shouldn't Leffot stop stocking EG shoes if EG is going to compete with a retailer? Why should ANY retailer stock EG shoes if EG is going to undercut retailers on any product? This is even worse. This was supposedly an exclusive run. It's quite possible that EG would NEVER have made those shoes if somebody like Leffot hadn't made the commitment to the run. How many shoes did Leffot have to commit to buying? At what risk/cost to the company? I'm guessing in one week Leffot buys more shoes then the OP will buy in two lifetimes. So EG treats retailers like this?

EG was in the position of pure profit. Leffot ordered a run. Taking all the risk. EG had no worries if the market would buy the shoes. No worries of left over product needing to dumped at a loss.

The next time you can't find a retailer near you stocking a brand you can thank people like EG.

OP didn't interfere with anything, he was not in a position to know about the exclusivity arrangement. If EG had told him up front that they wouldn't reproduce the design, that would be fair enough. It was petty for Leffot to tell EG to cancel this guy's order well after EG had accepted it. No one wins in that scenario, whereas if they had played it with more tact, OP would be able to enjoy the shoes, Leffot would enjoy their huge profits on future special orders markups, and OP would have a positive impression of Leffot.

The part about Leffot being known for huge markups is tangential. There's nothing technically wrong with Leffot arranging for special makeups and then marking them up by hundreds of dollars, though it is kind of an annoying practice.

 

[jrd617]



Leffot accepted the cancellation.

They didn't have to. If they hadn't been nice about it and accepted the cancellation, OP would have been breaking a contract.

 

[TheWGP]



For clarification, the EG price was for (and I have this in writing) "cordovan navy blue Westminster in the 888 last UK 11.).

In addition, Leffot does charge a 50% deposit on all custom orders. However, I canceled the order before it was entered and I was charged. If they would have chosen to not let me cancel the order, then I would have just purchased the shoes from them as that would have been my contract.

Instead, they let me cancel my order and EG let me place an order.

Since Leffot doesn't post the price of these shoes, I'll do it for them: $1775.

Also, the whole thing about Leffot offers personal service is moot (damn tapatalk) as I live in Philly an my order was taken over the phone. If they were local to me, I would understand that argument and be willing to pay for it.

Quoted this post to make sure it survives (with the Leffot price included) in case Leffot does reach out to OP and bribe him to edit/delete his posts.

OP: nothing personal, just think it's relevant information for later readers, and I have no dog in this fight as I'm not in NYC and will almost certainly never visit or purchase from Leffot.

 

[Nicola]



OP didn't interfere with anything, he was not in a position to know about the exclusivity arrangement.

Yes he did. He may have not known he was but he did.

 

[sellahi22]



They didn't have to. If they hadn't been nice about it and accepted the cancellation, OP would have been breaking a contract.

Or maybe OP wouldn't have placed the order in the first place if the shop's policy didn't permit for cancellation within a reasonable amount of time.

I don't know why everyone is getting so legalistic. This is simply a story about poor customer service.

Yes he did. He may have not known he was but he did.

Ok fine, he didn't *knowingly* or *intentionally* interfere.

 

[clee1982]



They didn't have to. If they hadn't been nice about it and accepted the cancellation, OP would have been breaking a contract.

Leffot didn't have to, but Leffot did already, so I don't see much point on this part (OP explain the process in a thread much afterwards, said something about you need to pay 50% deposit prior to custom order, it was before order went through, thus order was cancelled before deposit were never taken). OP explained in the thread he would have taken the order if he was not able to cancel it. Now that is his words, so no idea what that is worth, though since 50% deposit were (I would assume) non refundable at that point, the OP probably would have gone through.

The guy who might have breach any contract here is most likely EG, as we all assumed Leffot had exclusivity to this design for US based customer (whether retail to US or sold directly to US). Now, EG might not have signed an exclusivity with Leffot, but they probably didn't want to piss off one their distributor either.

 

[cdmoore1855]

None of this would have happened had their been price parity. This is an ongoing issue not only with EG but also other brands when prices differ, EG need to be selling shoes at the same price as their distributers and not selling for less, or they must tell their distributers to stick to a RRP if its a case of the retailer tacking on too much profit their end,

Won't be the last time this will happened and each time something like this happens its strains the relationship between the shoe company and the retailer. Sometimes a poor ending

 

[Nicola]



Or maybe OP wouldn't have placed the order in the first place if the shop's policy didn't permit for cancellation within a reasonable amount of time.

I don't know why everyone is getting so legalistic. This is simply a story about poor customer service.


.

Yes and Leffot is the customer who is getting screwed over.

 

[Dib]

I'm with the OP on this one.

EG are completely in the wrong here. Firstly, they sent an email to the OP expressly confirming they could make the shoe on an MTO basis, and then took a deposit to secure the order (I'm not sure which jurisdiction's law governed this transaction, but in certain jurisdictions that would be enough to constitute a binding contract). For EG to then subsequently back out of the order (after such a long period of time and having taken the OP's money) is inappropriate, to put it mildly. A number of people have said this is no worse than the OP cancelling his order with Leffot, this is not the case - the OP had not paid any money to Leffot and cancelled the order in an incredibly short period of time (24 hours), and Leffot agreed to permit the cancellation. Further, the OP has said they would have continued the order with Leffot had Leffot not been agreeable to the cancellation.

Much has been said about the "exclusivity arrangement" in place between EG and Leffot. To be fair, none of us know the precise terms of such arrangement (or, indeed, whether there is actually one in place). Even if there is a binding arrangement in place between EG and Leffot, it is EG's responsibility to ensure they are aware of its terms and abide by it, they should not now penalise the OP because they accepted an order without first checking whether it contravened their arrangements with Leffot (if any).

I also think Leffot's conduct is disappointing. They are charging a huge mark-up for this shoe, is it really surprising someone will order it directly from the manufacturer if it is almost $500 cheaper to do so? Whilst they may be within their rights to ask EG to cease producing the shoe for the OP (again, assuming an exclusivity agreement is in place), it does make them look petty.

I also don't buy the argument that it's fair for Leffot to charge such a high mark-up because they were involved in creating the shoe, contributed there vision etc. Leffot did no more than any of us do when we order a pair of MTOs (choose the last, choose the colour etc from a limited list of options in a catalogue). When I order a pair of MTO's from any maker, I certainly don't try and pass it off as some sort of masterpiece I have created and which everyone else should be forbidden from using!

 

[mzmart]

I just don't know why would-be classy operations (Leffot, EG whoever) don't conduct themselves in a classy way. Its all part of the illusion (see the Charvet story). However, I'm still happy to buy from Leffot if the price is right. I also appreciate the effort they put into their website.

 

[Blackhood]

To me the issue seems to be being missed. A B&M store snooped a customer on the internet for the purposes of revenge!

How is that a normal or acceptable behaviour for someone charging $1000+ per purchase?!?

Leffot should have sent OP an e-mail along the lines of "We noticed you posted a price comparison on-line. EG technically should not have accepted your order due to a distribution contract, rather than asking EG to cancel the order we would be obliged if you could remove your price review. Kind regards blah blah blah"

Instead Leffot goes online, checks the name Patek and all associated details to ensure that it is the correct customer, then calls EG in England saying "Some ***** is posting that you beat our price online. I want you to cancel his order!"

If Leffot were smart they would have simply asked EG to pay the difference and asked Patek for a redaction post; thus rendering all parties happy (with the exception of EG who were at fault anyway).