This may be difficult to follow, but bear with me.
Today I sent the following email to a colleague:
"We can't expect the supplier to pay for $1 million insurance. They are only providing $300k in services. "
My email is effectively saying:
1. I am selling my customer a car and you are my steering wheel supplier.
2. No matter what the problem is, if the car doesn't work I need to replace it.
3. However, if the problem is the steering wheel then I still need to replace it but will recover these costs back from you.
My colleague took my advice, played with it a bit and sent the following email to our supplier:
"Hearing form you about the INSURANCE value, we need back to back with client us$ 1M.
understanding that it is not fair for you, the min of BID BOND is based on our spending to you.
That is Min requirement but we expect you accept us$ 1M. Pls be advice? thanks"
If it wasn't incomprehensible it would be ridiculous. Effectively, my dear friend has told our supplier that.
1. If the entire car doesn't work, we have to replace the whole thing.
2. In all fairness, the maximum we could really ask you to replace is the steering wheel. I mean, we know you just supply the steering wheels ...
3. However, we are just wondering if you wouldn't mind just paying for the whole car to be replaced, even if it's not your fault. Is that ok?"
