Vintage tool dealer problems (slight rant)

Re: I'll add one...

Tony Zaffuto

>John,

Can you elaborate a bit on the type of plane, description and price range? This seems a rather egregious action to do such a blatant substitution without notifying you. Have you bought from this dealer since then? Regardless if you notified the dealer or not, his action was wrong.

Changing directions a bit, I would add a very reputable name to the list: Clarence and the Fine Tool Journal. They have tools for sale with each magazine publication (quarterly) and an absentee bid auction. I have bought a few items and have found prices and descriptions to be very fair.

T.Z.

Re: I'll add one...

John in New Mexico

>The problem is that he knew I'm a user rather than collector, and thus not likely to care much about makers marks and such as long as the plane was servicable. And that is correct. The polite thing would have been to sent me an email, explaining why he was sending a different plane than pictured, and giving me an oportunity to refuse. So I really consider it more a matter of rudeness than dishonesty. In all fairness to the dealer, I didn't notice for a couple months! -- Shows you where my head is!

Condition was ok. Pitted iron, and not quite ground to profile, but neither is unusual. My only substantial complaint is that the mouth is wider than is usual with professionally made planes IMHO, and I think it should have cost a bit less as a result. But bottom line is, I still would have bought that profile in that size, and prefer to have one that works ok, than none at all.

John

Yes But

Frank D. in Montreal

>HI BB,

I agree with you about lack of context, but does withholding the name or a description of what happened really compensate for that? I think it's up to readers to be able to judge whether one complaint is too small a sample. Not talking about it is simply withholding info, no more, no less, IMO.

Naaaa...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>There inside his coffin collection!

Yabbut......

Wiley Horne--So. Cal.

>Hi Frank,

The problem I'm having with portions of this thread (overall it's very good), is that the complaints we have heard do not appear to have been taken to the dealers in question. The dealer(s) have had no chance to figure out what happened, and either make right, or explain where and how to look for the makers mark. This is a good-enough reason for the guys with complaints not to be drawn into a discussion of personalities.

I can think of some simple explanations for what we have heard, that do not involve a dealer making a switch. Why assume the worst? It's the most unlikely scenario of all. I'm in favor of folks not casting even veiled aspersions, if the dealer has not been contacted and told, "Hey, I'm so and so, I bought such and such, and it doesn't like what I've received is what I ordered." Surely that should be the first step.

Wiley

Maybe the laws aren't as tough where you live... *LINK*

Mark Harrison - Brisbane, Australia

>In Australia we have very tough anti-defamation laws. It doesn't matter where the publication was either.

If I were I to write something about an Australian that was deemed by the courts to be defamatory on this website, it would still be actionable in Australian courts. There is legal precedent for this in Gutnick V Dow. The same applies to any individual or corporation of basically anywhere but there are obvious limitations. That is, you have to be worth pursuing :-)

In brief, Dow published something on their US website that was judged to be defamatory to Mr Gutnick. This has been confirmed on appeal as far as the High Court of Australia, which is equivalent to the Supreme Court in the United States. That is, it is the last avenue of appeal.

If you're interested, read the linked paper on this judgment. It is considered a landmark decision with far far reaching potential.

In case you are all wondering, no, I'm not a lawyer but this was just a breathtaking extension of the law that it got my interest. If you are a lawyer, you should definitely have a read of this paper.


http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer113.html

Re: Maybe the laws aren't as tough where you live.

Paul Kierstead

>Well, in that case, the dependent made some very serious statements that weren't entirely factual in nature, notably he said that the fellow suing him "was masquerading as a reputable citizen when he was a tax evader who had laundered large amounts of money through Goldberg, and bought his silence".

There is a vast difference to saying some one is -- for example -- a "dishonest lying bastard" and saying "here is a picture of what I ordered, here is what I received".

Disclaimer: IANAL, but I get pretty ticked off at them.

Re: Maybe the laws aren't as tough where you live.

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I agree with Wiley that the buyer should give the vendor a chance to make it right (btw, shipping it back at my cost is not a right solution); but assuming that's happened, a buyer has every right to properly state a transaction's situation. Several times here someone has complained about a particular vendor and the majority of responses have been positive for the vendor; but usually I see a lot of self-censoring for no good reason.

From Merriam-Webster defamation is: 1 archaic : DISGRACE

2 : to harm the reputation of by libel or slander

3 archaic : ACCUSE

I assume that your laws apply to only definition 2; but libel or slander can only be accused when the statement of transaction is untrue. If the complaint is a true statement, there can be no successful suit. Granted, it's a bother and potentially expensive in upfront costs to defend against a spurious suit, but in this case costs can be recovered.

Pam

Re: Maybe the laws aren't as tough where you live.

Mark Harrison - Brisbane, Australia

>Even if you win, you have already lost. Lost years off your life in stress. Lost income (which isn't compensated in costs) defending the action. I'm sure if I thought about it longer, I could add to that brief list.

I seriously considered suing a former client for defamation (a widely circulated email by an employee that was highly slanderous) but I decided against the action for several reasons. Not least of which is that I already had more than enough stress on my plate!!!! Even though I was certain to win buckets of money (according to a friend who is a lawyer), I still felt better off without the stress.

Re: Maybe the laws aren't as tough where you live.

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Hey, we agree on the desirability of spending a life in court; however, better to do that than to self-censor on important issues. I think a bad vendor is such an issue, since s/he will otherwise be allowed to steal left and right with impunity until someone stands up and says sit down.

Pam

you are correct!

Ernie Miller

>some one does not have a problem with a dealer untill they have brought it to the attention of the dealer. if they are any kind of dealer at all they will make some sort of attempt to take care of the issue. If there is a seller on e-Bay and they have twp pages or paragraphs of leagle mombo jumbo I just keep on going because it tells me yes I sell crap and once you buy it it is your crap to deal with. With any person you come into contact in life if you have a problem with them tell them and most will work with you to make everyones life better.

Since I more or less started this mess....

John in NM

>I will state, again, and for the last time.

1. The dealer did not steal from me. I decided that I would have purchased the delivered plane, at the price I paid, even if it were the one described and pictured. Though it may not be considered the smartest decision by others, I can at least claim the intellectual honesty to see my motivations for what they are. Not buying from the guy anymore is akin to not buying from Harbor Frieght -- I don't trust them either.

2. The motivation for relating my experience is to encourage dilligence when buying tools, used or new. Mistakes may be made, people may attempt to cheat, whatever. But one should make sure they got what they were expecting, even from dealers with sterling reputations. Its just prudence.

3. Though you may disapprove of "self-censoring", its not your decision to make. In this case I thought it best to balance #2 with the desire to not create a little flame-fest for the moderators to deal with. If I were able to do it over, I would just leave the whole thread alone.

If your more recent comments are intended to be taken more theoretically, then I apologize for assuming they are in response to the branch of this thread I've instigated. I'm again balancing the benifits of leaving this thread alone with the benifits of further explaining earlier comments -- which shouldn't have been necessary had I been clearer at the outset.

Re: Since I more or less started this mess....

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>We're well beyond your problem/non-problem, John, now talking about the deficiencies/advisability of continuing the current modus operandi.

Pam

Let's let that be the last word

Wiley Horne--So. Cal.

>We've all said our piece, and it's still civil. Good place to quit.

Wiley

Sorry Todd that was my money order

Ernie Miller

>and it was for the mint #1 you had for sale a while back.

Re: Maybe the laws aren't as tough where you live.

Peter Evans

>Pam, in Australia and some other countries, truth is _only_ a defence if there is public interest in the defamation. So if you publish that so-and-so is an adulterer, and this is true; you better be able to _prove_ that outing the person serves the public interest. Helpful if you slander a restaurant in Australia on your next visit.

Cheers, Peter in Sydney

Re: Maybe the laws aren't as tough where you live.

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I see, thanks, Peter.

Pam