4 ms·

Yes, that is right. I'm not saying that the OP was blameless. I don't understand why the first thing they did after the discovering the issue was to hound the

Yes, that is right. I'm not saying that the OP was blameless. I don't understand why the first thing they did after the discovering the issue was to hound the distributor and try to renegotiate payment terms. I believe the worst would have been to loose 6000 bags, which wouldn't have been too traumatic. Edit: I haven't seen the specific order. Maybe it was written in a way that priced by bag but somehow requested UNITS in a way that the total order volume in USD wasn't clear. The story surely paints OP in a better light than the other side would, so maybe there is more to this than meets the eye. For sure, a good learning experience for those guys.

irjustin 4y ago
> Maybe it was written in a way that priced by bag but somehow requested UNITS in a way that the total order volume in USD wasn't clear. If the price was listed per bag as $6.83/bag (assuming 6 bags/case) and the PO said 6,000-units, that's the "best light" scenario for the OP I can come up. There are literally zero other numbers (no totals, no total dollar value) and the only difference is in the "units" which could be overlooked. But what kind of PO doesn't have some sort of total which shows how much money the contract is expected to be worth. I don't believe this scenario exists.
- golem14 4y ago
  I'm with you all the way – but I would still like to understand how they could get it so wrong.
  - golem14 4y ago
    Actually, I now know what seemed so weird to me. If they had planned to sell a bag for $x (41 or 41/case_size) retail, but now realized that was per case not per bag, this would have reduced their profitability by a lot or completely killed it. Since there is no mention of this in the story (it was only a bout the size of the order), I'm still believing that they thought their per-bag profit was unchanged by the now larger order (otherwise they would have mentioned it or immediately renegotiated the deal). I guess we'll never know unless we see the order details...

irjustin 4y ago

> Maybe it was written in a way that priced by bag but somehow requested UNITS in a way that the total order volume in USD wasn't clear. If the price was listed per bag as $6.83/bag (assuming 6 bags/case) and the PO said 6,000-units, that's the "best light" scenario for the OP I can come up. There are literally zero other numbers (no totals, no total dollar value) and the only difference is in the "units" which could be overlooked. But what kind of PO doesn't have some sort of total which shows how much money the contract is expected to be worth. I don't believe this scenario exists.

golem14 4y ago
I'm with you all the way – but I would still like to understand how they could get it so wrong.
- golem14 4y ago
  Actually, I now know what seemed so weird to me. If they had planned to sell a bag for $x (41 or 41/case_size) retail, but now realized that was per case not per bag, this would have reduced their profitability by a lot or completely killed it. Since there is no mention of this in the story (it was only a bout the size of the order), I'm still believing that they thought their per-bag profit was unchanged by the now larger order (otherwise they would have mentioned it or immediately renegotiated the deal). I guess we'll never know unless we see the order details...