What is the right decision to make in this case?

[Alexandoy]

Why get angry when she paid the price you wanted, no doubt she would feel cheated thats our humans are but either she increases her price which would be unfair to the other woman, I see no reason why she should fight over that

Sometimes a fight occurs when the transaction has an issue with the pricing. But I have noticed that those fights are not really about the price but more of the principle. I get annoyed when I buy something that I feel shortchanged like yesterday my wife bought a kilo of fruits that when I used the scale at home it was only 0.8 of a kilo. It is the principle that matters most.

 

[Kelly5]

The second lady who bought this small chops from the first lady that sold it to her has every right to do whatever she pleases with her small chops she bought. Itnusna normal thing when rights of ownership for goods have changed hands

 

[Richard92]

Well, I see no cause for alarm in such cases and there is absolutely no reason to be angry with her. Besides the original owner business owner is just to sell the small cops to her customers. Whatever they do with it, eat it or resell it is non of her business any more. Hence, she should safe herself the stress.

The right decision is to quit the business and start another business because when you know that the business is not favorable for you and you have seen the future of the business you have to stop.

 

[Ezekiel]

Though what the customer did was really wrong the woman shouldn't have fought with her,it is very wrong to fight but I feel they should have try to settle amicable, though her actions is very wrong to resell someone's else product

 

[Kunkun]

Well, I see no cause for alarm in such cases and there is absolutely no reason to be angry with her. Besides the original owner business owner is just to sell the small cops to her customers. Whatever they do with it, eat it or resell it is non of her business any more. Hence, she should safe herself the stress.

Exactly because it's just olain business and definitely no reason for alarm or be angry since the First seller made her decision herself and would have included profits same thing the second seller did

 

[Setho]

The best thing that can happen is for them to go into a partnership because when is clearly good in production and the other is good in packaging and selling.

 

[Shigobad20201]

The second lady who bought this small chops from the first lady that sold it to her has every right to do whatever she pleases with her small chops she bought. Itnusna normal thing when rights of ownership for goods have changed hands

I believe since she has bought it with her hard eaened money , she has every right to repackage and resell it however she wants because it's her property since she has paid for it,

 

[eLdavis]

I believe since she has bought it with her hard eaened money , she has every right to repackage and resell it however she wants because it's her property since she has paid for it,

Of cause, she has bought and paid for it with her own money, so logically speaking, ownership has changed hands, so what ever she does with it, is her right. Unless there where terms and conditions given to her before paying for it.

 

[Ezekiel]

What's so ever anyone does as long as it is not yours then I feel if you want to do something else you should,take permission from the real owner

 

[Sotherefore]

Personally I do not see anything wrong with what the second lady is doing because the second lady is trying to market its own product which she boughts bought from people ,after buying products from you, you do not have the right over that product again.

 

[Kubiat-Abasi]

From the explanation you gave, the original seller of the small chops doesn't have a trademark. It is very important and pertinent for a business owner to have a trademark if you do not want anybody to plagiarize!

 

[Dagm1]

It is preferable to obtain relevant knowledge that is directly related to the situation when making smart decisions. This will assist you in better understanding what has to be done in order to solve the problem, as well as generating ideas for a possible solution.

 

[jay]

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"

Chops are like fried small donuts. Now on the matter, I don't think there is anything that's like breaching patent law or anything even if the woman registered the chops.

The chops maker have already made her chops, sold it and took her money. For the customer to have broken any law, she must have produced another chop and used the chop makers label to sell the new chop.

On her right, whatever she choose to do with the chops she purchased is her business. Removing a label and using a new label to resell what she already paid for is not against any rule as she never forced the chop maker to sell at any price she choose to sell.

It's like when you buy a Toyota car and decide to mod the car by removing some logo on it and use another logo to resell your car.. So Toyota will come and sue you?

 

[Sariana23]

Chops are like fried small donuts. Now on the matter, I don't think there is anything that's like breaching patent law or anything even if the woman registered the chops.

The chops maker have already made her chops, sold it and took her money. For the customer to have broken any law, she must have produced another chop and used the chop makers label to sell the new chop.

On her right, whatever she choose to do with the chops she purchased is her business. Removing a label and using a new label to resell what she already paid for is not against any rule as she never forced the chop maker to sell at any price she choose to sell.

It's like when you buy a Toyota car and decide to mod the car by removing some logo on it and use another logo to resell your car.. So Toyota will come and sue you?

I respect your way of thinking and how you value the situation @CeeJase, I also consider that in your country apparently the rules are different, for me and in my country that is plagiarism, as it is deceiving customers, offering products that are supposed to be prepared by him, and it is not true. Taking your example of Toyota, it is like buying a Toyota to remove the brand and sell it as a BMW.

 

[Godspower]

It is the fault of the buyer to repackage another person's product as hers. If the original seller stops supplying her the chops, it will be difficult for her to get the same quality of product from another person.

 

[Laurentta]

I'm on the sellers side. It's totally wrong of the customer to remove the label from the sellers product and replace it with hers. The seller shouldnt have fought the customer though.

 

[Kane]

You can buy from someone and sell it for higher price. That is perfectly normal. However, what is not normal in this case is the seller is removing the label and using her own label. This is a case of trade rights infringement

 

[Ononivami1]

It's not a good idea to repackage to sell someone else's product without her consent. The customer is at fault here, because it's totally against the business laws. I think she should have discussed this with the woman in the first place and they must have reached an agreement.

 

[Lens]

The customer has infringed on the right of the business owner. On no account should you repackage the business that isn't yours. The best the customer could do is to seek for go ahead on her intentions. I am very sure that it would be ironed our amicably and there wouldn't be any disagreement.

 

[akinlolu99]

Well first of all, I'm on costumers side. What she did is only a promoting technique. She have her own procedure. However long she pays it prior to exchanging it, it generally approves of the merchant. Showcasing is significant.