4 ms·

>Realizing that the solar company was in quite the pickle insofar as repossessing the panels would require costly legal actions on top of paying people to take

>Realizing that the solar company was in quite the pickle insofar as repossessing the panels would require costly legal actions on top of paying people to take out the system, I just waited on the payment. They would contact me periodically asking me to make payment and offering to help me get approved for a new loan. But I just ignored all of that. Seems pretty unethical tbh. The solar company delivered, but now this guy is going to refuse to pay? Sure he did later, but not without blackmailing them for $5k discount.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pizza234 4y ago
Based on his explanation, the company has at least some level of fault: > my non-payment would not be a default because default is defined by a breach of contract and no such contract existed. Indeed, if anyone breached the contract, it was the solar company by not installing in the six-month period.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  but they did install it in the 7th month, and we see no real hardship applied to the author, perhaps save for $200 per month lost opportunity for savings (less interest applied, would have to think that through more) ...
__derek__ 4y ago
IIRC, the author is part of the so-called "dirt-bag left" so that's just connecting theory and praxis.
throwaquestion5 4y ago
They took 7 months to install the panels. I'm sure times during all that the OP thought if they forgot about him, called them to ask for a installation date, etc. As a way to curb any thought about undue wait time, the company made a contract guaranteeing installation between 6 month after signing. They didn't comply and the loan lapsed. Now the company needed to negotiate a new contract with OP or go for the legal route. There is nothing unethical about this. The company had everything to lose going the the legal option, with all the long terms procedures, paying money for a pay back that may never come. They are probably grateful that OP just asked for a discount instead.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > There is nothing unethical about this. I dont consider strong arming someone due to your now advantageous position against something you previously agreed upon and reasonably similarly delivered (7 months instead of 6, we're not talking about multiple years later here). A similar ethical framework would allow someone in marriage say "I quit my job, can get alimony from you, better do as I say or I'm filing for divorce" -- It's all legal. Still unethical.
  - EricE 4y ago
    > (7 months instead of 6, we're not talking about multiple years later here) So? Do you seriously think the solar company was ignorant of the loan terms? Was this their first job and they just didn't realize it?
  - throwaquestion5 4y ago
    OP wasn't planning a devious plan here. The 6 month contract seems standard from the company side. They shoot themselves on the foot and the loan just got voided. OP would be paying the company for nothing without a new loan > (7 months instead of 6, we're not talking about multiple years later here) Maybe this is a disagreement based on past experiences, but the most infuriating thing when working with home contractors is chasing them around so they do they finish their job. I get if this were business to business transaction that are used to year long delays, but as a person I find having a half finished ceiling to by a big disruption in my daily life. Being fair OP didn't say anything about having to fix their roof before installing the solar panels, but having to put up with business delays in your home projects isn't the most pleasant experience. If we go to the ethical side of things, in this case the company installed something without doing proper diligence in their part. This could have been solved if they presented a new contract in OP home when they went to install the panels. Paying without a loan would have been foolish from OP side, same if he paid it at the more expensive 2022 prices. In fact OP would probably be forced to do if they asked him about it before installing the panels. This would be unethical from the company side: delaying 6+ months the installation and proposing a more expensive loan before installation. Let's not skip the company trying to swindle OP to pay without a proper contract by scaring him. Some of us may be used to this kind of threats. Doesn't mean they are ethical at all. They should have been upfront with the problem from the beginning, not bullying people with scary letters.
dml2135 4y ago
From my read, the solar company delivered late, causing the original loan to fall through and requiring the homeowner to refinance at a higher rate. Since that delay cost money it does seem fair that the company should bear the cost.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
  Going from, say, 3% to 4% on a $20k 10-year loan would cost him about $1100. He squeezed them for $5k.
  - webinvest 4y ago
    Interest rates increased by 4 basis points from Dec 2021 to Dec 2022.[1] So a 3% loan then would be a 7% loan now or a 5% loan then would be a 9% loan now. The starting rate would depend on your credit score or other factors. Citation: [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDSLa https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDSLa
    - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
      1) A basis point is 0.01%. 2) We should count the rate increase from the contracted delivery date to actual delivery date, i.e. one month instead of 12 months.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    Ok, so adding in another $200 a month lost opportunity (say for 7 months. We're now at $2500... So I guess these details are adding up, still not $5k, but the case for a discount is definitely growing.
mdorazio 4y ago
Author definitely took advantage of the situation to force a larger discount on the company, which I also consider a dick move. However, the situation was complicated. The solar company failed to install within the original timeline, so when they did, the original approval on the loan was no longer valid. It seems the interest rate went up during that time as well so the author’s new loan would have been more expensive to him/her. The solar company messed up by not getting a new confirmation of loan approval prior to installation, and the author then leveraged that into a fat discount.
xenadu02 4y ago
The solar installer wanted him to eat the rate change due to their own delay. The discount was to offset that rate change.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pizza234 4y ago

Based on his explanation, the company has at least some level of fault: > my non-payment would not be a default because default is defined by a breach of contract and no such contract existed. Indeed, if anyone breached the contract, it was the solar company by not installing in the six-month period.

maerF0x0 4y ago
but they did install it in the 7th month, and we see no real hardship applied to the author, perhaps save for $200 per month lost opportunity for savings (less interest applied, would have to think that through more) ...

__derek__ 4y ago

IIRC, the author is part of the so-called "dirt-bag left" so that's just connecting theory and praxis.

throwaquestion5 4y ago

They took 7 months to install the panels. I'm sure times during all that the OP thought if they forgot about him, called them to ask for a installation date, etc. As a way to curb any thought about undue wait time, the company made a contract guaranteeing installation between 6 month after signing. They didn't comply and the loan lapsed. Now the company needed to negotiate a new contract with OP or go for the legal route. There is nothing unethical about this. The company had everything to lose going the the legal option, with all the long terms procedures, paying money for a pay back that may never come. They are probably grateful that OP just asked for a discount instead.

maerF0x0 4y ago
> There is nothing unethical about this. I dont consider strong arming someone due to your now advantageous position against something you previously agreed upon and reasonably similarly delivered (7 months instead of 6, we're not talking about multiple years later here). A similar ethical framework would allow someone in marriage say "I quit my job, can get alimony from you, better do as I say or I'm filing for divorce" -- It's all legal. Still unethical.
- EricE 4y ago
  > (7 months instead of 6, we're not talking about multiple years later here) So? Do you seriously think the solar company was ignorant of the loan terms? Was this their first job and they just didn't realize it?
- throwaquestion5 4y ago
  OP wasn't planning a devious plan here. The 6 month contract seems standard from the company side. They shoot themselves on the foot and the loan just got voided. OP would be paying the company for nothing without a new loan > (7 months instead of 6, we're not talking about multiple years later here) Maybe this is a disagreement based on past experiences, but the most infuriating thing when working with home contractors is chasing them around so they do they finish their job. I get if this were business to business transaction that are used to year long delays, but as a person I find having a half finished ceiling to by a big disruption in my daily life. Being fair OP didn't say anything about having to fix their roof before installing the solar panels, but having to put up with business delays in your home projects isn't the most pleasant experience. If we go to the ethical side of things, in this case the company installed something without doing proper diligence in their part. This could have been solved if they presented a new contract in OP home when they went to install the panels. Paying without a loan would have been foolish from OP side, same if he paid it at the more expensive 2022 prices. In fact OP would probably be forced to do if they asked him about it before installing the panels. This would be unethical from the company side: delaying 6+ months the installation and proposing a more expensive loan before installation. Let's not skip the company trying to swindle OP to pay without a proper contract by scaring him. Some of us may be used to this kind of threats. Doesn't mean they are ethical at all. They should have been upfront with the problem from the beginning, not bullying people with scary letters.

dml2135 4y ago

From my read, the solar company delivered late, causing the original loan to fall through and requiring the homeowner to refinance at a higher rate. Since that delay cost money it does seem fair that the company should bear the cost.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
Going from, say, 3% to 4% on a $20k 10-year loan would cost him about $1100. He squeezed them for $5k.
- webinvest 4y ago
  Interest rates increased by 4 basis points from Dec 2021 to Dec 2022.[1] So a 3% loan then would be a 7% loan now or a 5% loan then would be a 9% loan now. The starting rate would depend on your credit score or other factors. Citation: [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDSLa https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDSLa
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
    1) A basis point is 0.01%. 2) We should count the rate increase from the contracted delivery date to actual delivery date, i.e. one month instead of 12 months.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  Ok, so adding in another $200 a month lost opportunity (say for 7 months. We're now at $2500... So I guess these details are adding up, still not $5k, but the case for a discount is definitely growing.

mdorazio 4y ago

Author definitely took advantage of the situation to force a larger discount on the company, which I also consider a dick move. However, the situation was complicated. The solar company failed to install within the original timeline, so when they did, the original approval on the loan was no longer valid. It seems the interest rate went up during that time as well so the author’s new loan would have been more expensive to him/her. The solar company messed up by not getting a new confirmation of loan approval prior to installation, and the author then leveraged that into a fat discount.

xenadu02 4y ago

The solar installer wanted him to eat the rate change due to their own delay. The discount was to offset that rate change.