What is the right decision to make in this case?

[Dubai]

Let me call our attention to a fight I saw online. Basically what happened is that, a lady does and package small chops for sale at a fixed price, however, there is a woman who buys this small chops and then she proceeds to remove the label of the original maker of the small chop and imprint her own on the package and then goes ahead to sell for a higher amount. The original owner/maker of the small chops found out and fought the woman over this. However this event generated a lot of mixed reaction among people, some said she shouldn't be angry, that the woman is just a customer, while others expressed their displeasure and discontent at the customer who resells the small chops. Which side are you on?

The original maker of the small chops has every right to be angry and sad at what happened. She should involve the police as the customer is trying to steal are production rights even if she has bought it from the original maker.

 

[Emma Aneni]

The woman that repackage the product is definitely wrong, that is piracy, if the owner had reported it to the police, the woman will surely be arrested, it is just that the law in Nigeria is not been enforced but she can only be prosecuted if the woman that sells it to her has her business registered already.

 

[abubakar3141]

Between all the options that seem to be the right one for the person, organization, country or for the world at large, the correct decision-making quotes pick a choice. Not as impactful as few are all the right decisions. To expand the company, few correct decisions are taken.

 

[Mave24]

The customer can be sued for piracy because she did not asked permission from the seller that she would be rebranding it to market it for a higher price. I believed both of them have their lapses though if the seller don't even have a business permit.

 

[Trexxxy]

I have known and read of many similar cases. If the lady "makes" a product for sale and it is registered, she can sue the customer who is changing the price of her product and also remove the original label. Since it is a product that she "should" be registered and patented. I speak of "product" because I do not understand what you mean by "chops"

Lol, snacks.

 

[Ibrahim1]

As for me its not right for the woman to fight her and there's no cause of alam because even the woman who owns the business can't do without the customers or else she's going to eat it up and do whatever they want to do with it but it's less of her business

 

[Hdre3m3n]

This is the reason why every companies usually have a copy right and preserved copy and any person that copy or re shape everything in the book then such person will be persecuted.
Actually what the customer do is wrong because he called himself consumer and not a retailer or wholesaler.

 

[Prettyjanie]

My take on this is, the woman who has produced these products has made use of her intellectual property, her personal skill. The woman who switched the labels to make it look like it's her work has done what is unlawful and can be sued.

 

[Adventurer]

Let me call our attention to a fight I saw online. Basically what happened is that, a lady does and package small chops for sale at a fixed price, however, there is a woman who buys this small chops and then she proceeds to remove the label of the original maker of the small chop and imprint her own on the package and then goes ahead to sell for a higher amount. The original owner/maker of the small chops found out and fought the woman over this. However this event generated a lot of mixed reaction among people, some said she shouldn't be angry, that the woman is just a customer, while others expressed their displeasure and discontent at the customer who resells the small chops. Which side are you on?

I'm on the side that sees nothing wrong in it, these days this is a common practice among lots of business owners, there is a woman who sells pastries like chin chin and coated peanuts she sells them unbranded and encourages buyer's to rebrand and sell.

 

[Chibson]

This is a confusing scenario. I understand the anger of the original maker of the chops, it pains to see someone using your idea to shine while you don't.
Even at that, she shouldn't have fought the woman who repackaged the chops to sale at higher price.
In this case scenario, i really don't know who to blame.

 

[unhappy triad]

the customer or consumer did an illegal at by removing the woman's trademark. If she registered it. She could take her to court for copyright, punishable offence by law. Though the way she approached the issue may seem wrong. Anyone supporting the customer lacks good moral sense of judgement

 

[Abu4exel]

The customer who resell the small chops doesn't have any blame, she has already buy the small chops at the said amount the original maker sold it for her and if she now decides to resell it, there is no problem. For example, if I buy a Toyota car and decided to remove the logo and design my own on it, and resell it, will Toyota company come and arrest me for that? No.

 

[EMMANUEL]

I think that is an act of plagiarism, Copywrite, the fact still remains that it is totally wrong for you to make such a decision someone else product, but to make a stand and provide a solution based on my own idea, i will say the victim to both come into agreement about the price of the product in particular or take a court reaction against it. Because with this reasons now that shows that the product can go contrary.

 

[Eodine]

Rebranding and packaging is a concept in accounting but the customer infringed on the sellers right, she should have asked for permission but nonetheless there should have been no issues since the owner was getting paid and I'm sure the customer made a lot of sales for her they should have just found a basis for better arrangements between themselves.

 

[Mostee501]

The woman that sells the small chop is to be blame reason being that,the woman that buys the small chops pays the seller her money,i don't see reason why the seller would harass the buyer,after buying her products, whatever she does with it is none of the sellers business.

 

[Alexandoy]

My understanding is that the 2 women are both in business of selling. The first woman sells her chops to which the 2nd woman buys. But the 2nd woman sells the chops that she bought at a higher price. So what is the problem of the first woman if the 2nd woman had paid her purchase of the product? Even if the 2nd woman would sell the product for 1 million per package the 1st woman cannot care about it. I guess the issue here is the 1st woman and not the 2nd woman who is just trying to do business with the chops.

 

[Samuel77]

According to my own point of view it's all business the woman who resell was also doing business just like the woman who first of all sold to her the only way the first woman is to be angry is when the woman resell so I won't customer but if the woman resell to a different person entirely she has no right to be angry

 

[Richard92]

What that lady did was a very big offence and she needs to be punished for that, for me I will take her to the station and arrest her for committing such offence, that is a business theft for me after taking her to the police station I will sue her to a law Court and she will pay for damages.

 

[Greatguy1]

Let me call our attention to a fight I saw online. Basically what happened is that, a lady does and package small chops for sale at a fixed price, however, there is a woman who buys this small chops and then she proceeds to remove the label of the original maker of the small chop and imprint her own on the package and then goes ahead to sell for a higher amount. The original owner/maker of the small chops found out and fought the woman over this. However this event generated a lot of mixed reaction among people, some said she shouldn't be angry, that the woman is just a customer, while others expressed their displeasure and discontent at the customer who resells the small chops. Which side are you on?

I'm on the side of the woman who packages it and sells for a higher amount. The business transaction has already been concluded as long as she has paid for the goods she bought from the original owner. By repackaging and reselling, she has done a rebranding of the product and has added an extra cost for the efforts of repackaging.

 

[Tariq Nazir]

Original producer of these small chops is displeased as to how her customer handles her product then she ought to just stop supplying that particular customer or better still, she could also inflate the price for her too since shes making higher profits. Its just business, sometimes in business a loss is like a blessing in disguise, just like this scenario. To me its a blessing in disguise!.