Proving alexander forbes' theft attempt

Only getting 1 star because i cannot give zero.

Here is my email response

Good day

Allow me to point out the major flaws in your justification:

-"If one considers that the motorcycle was bought at R8500 in 2012 – it is reasonable to say that the motorcycle’s value would have depreciated on an annual basis, as is the case with all vehicles." This is flawed for 2 reasons: i) How much I purchased the vehicle for is irrelevant to you. I could have purchased it from a third party for market value. I could have purchased it from a friend for next to nothing. I could have done my homework and gotten the best deal possible (which is what happened). All of this is completely thrown out of the window with your flawed logic. ii) And even greater an asset depreciates to a value that it can be sold for. Do you know the 2 factors driving price? They are Supply and demand; Now without giving you a lesson in Economics, when supply decreases (or stops all together as is the case with honda) the price increases. I have proven to you already that the price has increased.

-"Should one have calculated the depreciation using an average of 10% per year for six years (which is not overstated)" ...Completely irrelevant when you consider the bike to have not been in production anymore. Try convincing a business man that his collectible 1960's car is worth nothing due to depreciation, and will you win? No! Why not? Because the supply stopped and hence the price is high

-"I also need to reiterate that settlement is not based on market value as mentioned in the complaint, but on retail value. Market value would normally be the average between trade and retail, and as such would be even lower." Perfect then. Let us agree to settle on retail value. I am 100% Happy with that. Why? Because you are blatantly lying trying to tell me what retail value is. Again know that I am an accountant and will NOT let you walk over me. I challenge you right now: Google "Retail value definition" the very first thing that comes up (which agree to the definition in English) is this: 'The retail value which is a higher value than market value - and the highest value you can insure your vehicle for, is the average price a dealer would sell the vehicle for - taking its age, condition and mileage into account'

-"In this case the retail value is available from a reputable source, and I have attached such – confirming the current retail value which is what our offer was based on."

Your Definition of "reputable source" is far from the truth. Even if we put aside the fact that I have already sent you the only honda estorms I could find still selling all of which had much higher prices, I can prove it another way.

On page 2 of your "reputable Source" document it says that the New price is R13 499.00 It also says that the "retail price is R5900.00"

So Again I'll give you the opportunity to PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. I now increase my offer. I will give R2000 to the person who can show me where I can either purchase a new one for R13499 or a "retail one" (whatever that means as previously demonstrated your definition is incorrect) for R5900.

Oh an also, I will post this response on facebook and hello peter too. I'm sure you won't mind though, because of course if you are in face being fair, then you don't mind the world seeing the way you treat customers fairly.

I look forward to your response. Like really... I wonder how you can dig yourself out of this.

Alexi kalamoudacos