Breakdown in Communications
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Sir,
The comments in the January Editorial referring to a firm in Huntingdon associated with Rolls-Royces should not be taken to impute our name. We have not, at any time, been invited, verbally or in writing, to submit a car for trial by MOTOR SPORT.
When the Editor first stated in this Journal that he had asked his Secretary to issue such an invitation to firms prominently associated with used Rolls-Royce cars, we had received no such request but we were compelled to write to a number of customers explaining that we had been excluded from his invitation. We sent a copy-letter to the Editor, together with our literature, which in itself makes our Policy abundantly clear. We are therefore most surprised that he should again implicate us in a nameless manner. We need hardly add that were we to receive a request from the Editor to look into our Services and try a car, we should in all probability agree and we should most certainly acknowledge it promptly and courteously.
J. B. M. ADAMS. Managing Director. Adams & Oliver Ltd.
Gt. Gidding, Hunts.
(We were delighted to receive the above letter and to discover that it was H.M. Post Office that is at fault and not Adams & Oliver Ltd. An invitation was certainly sent and we have never received a letter or any literature referred to. However, the last sentence gives us hope, and in a telephone conversation Mr. Adams has assured us of a used Rolls-Royce as normally supplied by him, for test. We hope now also to hear from the three other used Rolls-Royce dealers.)