No eyeglasses; no fortune cookie, either!

Call me curious!

During the second week of May, I walked into my local eyeglasses place
("Eye DRx") and ordered replacement of scratched tinted lenses. Off
went the glasses to Texas headquarters of Eye Care Centers of America,
Inc., the parent company (er...not exactly!).

Now, after more than two months and numerous visits to the store -
AND STILL NO GLASSES - I've decided to find out a little more about
ECCA, my tormentor.

For one thing, they are one of America's largest retailers of
eyeglasses. There are 15 Eye DRx locations in my state, New Jersey, and
there are 360 other stores in 32 other states. Some of the local chains
operate under such names as "EyeMasters," "Visionworks," "Vision
World," "Doctor's VisionWorks," "Dr. Bizer's VisionWorld," "Dr. Bizer's
ValuVision," "Doctor's ValuVision," "Hour Eyes," "Stein Optical" and
"Binyon's."

What is ECCA? From what I can tell, it's a bunch of suits that do
BIDNIZ in San Antonio.

Actually, the controlling owner of ECCA is a shaky Hong Kong company,
Moulin,
(International Herald Tribune: "Fall of Hong Kong firm is a shock to
investors." Full article:
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.ph...ney/moulin.php)
Frames come from Asia and lenses are jobbed out to various independent
labs.

Standard and Poor's and Moody's in the past two months had rather
chilly warnings about ECCA.

Till now I've been dropping into the store once a week to badger my
salesperson, Martha, and her manager, Audrey, about the delay. They
dutifully, in my presence, have called Texas HQ and pleaded for the
glasses. Promises...but still no glasses. Since lenses are farmed out,
would they even know?

Wish I'd gotten curious a little earlier. I'd have driven another
two miles and gotten them within a week and a lot cheaper. (Oh, yes. I
had to prepay at ECCA.)

You'll find some interesting press releases on the ECCA corporate
website:
http://www.ecca.com/investor_relatio..._releases.aspx

And Google has lots of lethal info pertaining to ECCA and its troubled
Chinese parent.

Gene

(E-Mail Removed) wrote in news:1122312459.322623.107190
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Till now I've been dropping into the store once a week to badger my
> salesperson, Martha, and her manager, Audrey, about the delay.

The store you handed the glasses to, not some big multinational
corporation, owes you glasses. Go in one last time, be polite, but quite
insistant that you would like your glasses. Let them know that you hold
them responsible, not the "home company", and you would like your glasses,
a replacement, or a refund, or you will file suit in small claims court.
Remind them that the cost of your exam and replacement glasses is less than
the fee of the lawyer that the business is required to have represent them
in court.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

William Stacy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:vCbFe.393$kk6.279
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> Is that true in all states? I'm a Californian and I thought neither
> party could use an attorney in SMC, or is that for corporations only???
>
> w.stacy, o.d.
>
>

I know it's true in NY (and fairly certain about NY) with respect to
corporations (and how many retail points are not corporations??), but
apparently there are some states where it's actually not the case. In
CA, it seems like an officer or employee is required to represent the
corporation. Seems kind of silly to me, as the best interests of an
officer might not be the best interests of the corporation, plus the last
thing the average joe plaintiff needs in small claims is a huge
discussion about whether the representative of the defendant has any
standing to defend.

Makes little difference here. I suspect that the glasses or a
replacement will miraculously appear when the retailer is threatened with
a small claims suit, and if not, they'll be more than cooperative when
handed the papers, especially if they can make the problem go away for
less than $200 of actual expenses.

As a last note, unless the tint were something really special, why would
an optical shop need to send frames halfway across the country to get
lenses placed in them? Whole thing sounds really fishy. Even then,
unless the frames are lost, the round trip shouldn't take two months.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns969EA9F9E8CC5scottseidmanmindspri@130.133. 1.4:

> (and fairly certain about NY)

Ooops, I meant NJ, the state in question.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:

>with respect to
>corporations (and how many retail points are not corporations??),
>
>

I don't much care to be called a retail point, but since most o.d.s
dispense eyewear (ok, you can say "sell glasses"), I guess we are
"retail points" , and while some are prof. corps. most are not, at least
around here. Anyway, you're right that at the first sounds of the
rustling of (legal) paper, most businesses are getting out the checkbook
and writing the refund...

w.stacy, o.d.

Scott Seidman wrote:
>
> William Stacy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Is that true in all states? I'm a Californian and I thought neither
> > party could use an attorney in SMC, or is that for corporations only???
>
> I know it's true in NY (and fairly certain about NY) with respect to
> corporations (and how many retail points are not corporations??), but
> apparently there are some states where it's actually not the case.

In California no lawyers are allowed in small claims court. If the
complainant loses, that's the end of it. If the complainant wins, the person
who lost can appeal and can then have a lawyer. Simple thing for a company is
to not show up in court, lose, file an appeal, and just let the captive
lawyers bleed the complainant to death.

Even so, I filed in small claims court and won against the woman who destroyed
my car and who brought her AAA insurance adjuster with her. They lost and AAA
sent me a check within a few days. I guess public relations counts.

> In
> CA, it seems like an officer or employee is required to represent the
> corporation. Seems kind of silly to me, as the best interests of an
> officer might not be the best interests of the corporation, plus the last
> thing the average joe plaintiff needs in small claims is a huge
> discussion about whether the representative of the defendant has any
> standing to defend.

Ask politely "Who in your organization is empowered to accept service?" and be
ready to write down the name and address. Sometimes that's enough to get
action. It has to be someone local since the offense happened locally. The
manager will probably be good enough.

> Makes little difference here. I suspect that the glasses or a
> replacement will miraculously appear when the retailer is threatened with
> a small claims suit, and if not, they'll be more than cooperative when
> handed the papers, especially if they can make the problem go away for
> less than $200 of actual expenses.
>
> As a last note, unless the tint were something really special, why would
> an optical shop need to send frames halfway across the country to get
> lenses placed in them? Whole thing sounds really fishy. Even then,
> unless the frames are lost, the round trip shouldn't take two months.

Whole thing sounds fishy. Somebody broke them or lost them and is covering
up, hoping you'll just go away.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ========
"The last thing you want is for somebody to commit suicide
before executing them."
-Gary Deland, former Utah director for corrections

On 25 Jul 2005 19:42:47 GMT, Scott Seidman
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote in news:1122312459.322623.107190
>@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Till now I've been dropping into the store once a week to badger my
>> salesperson, Martha, and her manager, Audrey, about the delay.
>
>The store you handed the glasses to, not some big multinational
>corporation, owes you glasses. Go in one last time, be polite, but quite
>insistant that you would like your glasses. Let them know that you hold
>them responsible, not the "home company", and you would like your glasses,
>a replacement, or a refund, or you will file suit in small claims court.
>Remind them that the cost of your exam and replacement glasses is less than
>the fee of the lawyer that the business is required to have represent them
>in court.

I wouldn't even give them one last chance. I'd go in and say that
I've waited long enough and now I'd like my money back. I can't
imagine waiting that long for glasses, two weeks would be plenty.

Tom