Be Careful !!! ..

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Reminds me of:

"Is there a lawyer in the room?"

(Billy-Ray Valentine)

 

Serious, my gut feeling as a layman is in agreemet with Andy: one deal.

 

So maybe get them to get you a chrome 35Lux asap.

Pretty soon they'll be able (MkII)

Of cause you'll have to pay the difference between the agreed price for the chancelled deal and the list price when the new jewel comes out.

You'll be the first to have one in Torino, if

a) it comes out in chrome, too

you're willing to pay that much.

 

Ciao, tifoso! And best regards from Francoforte

Simone

[azzo]

Ivan,

 

to bring a little bit structure into your question from a legal/lawyer's point of view (although this is no legal advice!) the following is decisive:

 

1. Applicable law: Depends where you and/or the dealer are located (Malta?) and/or which forum was agreed upon. If this question is not sorted out all opinions given can not be more than guessing.

 

2. As you described the "deat" it is an exchange provided not agreed expressly otherwise. In many jurisdictions the laws of sale apply to exchange analogous.

 

3. If the laws of a sale apply the question must be answerd which party bears the risk of loss during delivery (I guess the 35mm got lost during delivery to you). Answer depends on the jurisdiction but according to many laws if you asked for delivery you have to bear the risk (but only the normal risk of loss and only if the other party has complied with the delivery method agreed with you).

 

4. If you ultimately bear the delivery risk your lenses are gone. However, you are entitled to get assigned all rights and claims your counterpart may have against the delivery company or any third party responsible for the loss.

 

5. If you do not bear the delivery risk the other side has to pay you damages for not being able to deliver the 35mm (which might give rise to interesting questions of how to calculate these damages).

 

BUT as a said at the beginning: as it is not clear which jurisdiction will apply all these "considerations" are not mot than GUESSING. But nevertheless I hope it helps!

 

Hermann

 

Hermann,

 

First of all, thank you for your time and that is very much appreciated.

 

The dealer and I are located in different countries.

I never approached this dealer to sell my 2 lenses. This 'supposed deal' began when from them, I got to know that a Chrome 35mm Summilux came in their shop.

As I mentioned before, I had been wanting this lens for quite some time and the deal began.

As I had a mint Chrome 35mm Summicron and I was about to finally acquire a Summilux, it was obvious that the 'cron had to go. The other lens was a 50mm of which I had two. I decided to do away with one of them.

So, 2 of my lenses plus cash for this 35 chrome 'lux. No, I did not want or need any other lens but the 35 'lux in chrome.

The amount they gave for my lenses was not that good but that is understood as they have to sell and with a profit. Since I was getting a chrome 'lux, I went along with the deal even though I knew I could have got more money for my lenses. I couldn't ask them to give me time to sell elsewhere obviously.

As far as I know, it is the person/dealer/shipper who is sending that bears the responsability until the item is delivered to its proper destination. How can I be held responsible?

I mean, I sent my 2 lenses with Insurance paid on them and they were delivered safely.

 

Bottom line is, they get both my lenses. Sell them at a profit. And get paid by the Insurance for the 'lost' lens.

I get back the amount of money I paid by Visa as the two lenses were not enough for this 35 chrome Summilux plus the amount of money they had given me for my 2 lenses in the deal.

 

I had no intention to just sell my 2 lenses. I would not have sold for that amount of money!

The deal was on a part-exchange basis. Nothing more.

[azzo]

Simone (tri),

 

Thank you.

[poptart]

Azzo, thanks for the post on this subject, and if you are not satisfied with the end result, I would appreciate your posting who this company is. I am no lawyer so I do not know the legality of this transaction, but it really doesn't matter, IMO. The deal was an exchange of two lenses plus cash for one lens. You should have received your two lenses back as well as the cash. PERIOD. The shop will get the insurance money for the lost lens,

To me, this is the fair way to handle the situation. As a consumer, I would not want to deal with a shop that did otherwise, whether they were legally correct or not.

I hope the chrome 35 shows up for your sake!

[andybarton]

If they do not sort this out for Azzo, their reputation will be damaged much more than the cost of a couple of mint second hand lenses...

[azzo]

Azzo, thanks for the post on this subject, and if you are not satisfied with the end result, I would appreciate your posting who this company is. I am no lawyer so I do not know the legality of this transaction, but it really doesn't matter, IMO. The deal was an exchange of two lenses plus cash for one lens. You should have received your two lenses back as well as the cash. PERIOD. The shop will get the insurance money for the lost lens,

To me, this is the fair way to handle the situation. As a consumer, I would not want to deal with a shop that did otherwise, whether they were legally correct or not.

I hope the chrome 35 shows up for your sake!

 

poptart,

 

Thank you.

[azzo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If they do not sort this out for Azzo, their reputation will be damaged much more than the cost of a couple of mint second hand lenses...

 

It is a shame for this shop/company with such a repute to even try outdoing a customer big or small !

 

As the saying goes ... "All that glitters is not gold !

[scsambrook]

This is one of those nightmare situations where the customer is unlikely ever to be happy, and I have much sympathy for Azzo. There seems to be some confusion of how the dealer is required to deal with the situation ... It's a long time since I ran a photo-retail business here in the UK, but the law hasn't changed since I left the trade and IF he did the deal in the UK then the position is this:

 

There are TWO transactions - the purchase of his lenses by the dealer AND the sale of the new lens by the dealer. So far as the UK is concerned, under VAT (= Sales Tax) regulations, there is no such thing as a 'part exchange'. Even though the transaction seems to be one seamless process, it is actually two wholly separate things. There would be a purchase invoice issued by the shop for the customer's lenses and a sales invoice for the new lens, which may show payment as being made by cash/credit card/cheque or whatever, plus a credit amount from the purchase invoice.

 

With a mail-order transaction where the terms of the deal include insurance for goods in transit, if the item is not delivered then the dealer has to refund the buyer's purchase price plus the costs paid for posting and insurance. Let's pretend the price was 1000 Dubloons, paid for by money of 500 Dubloons + the credit from the sale of lenses to the dealer of 500 dubloons. So, the refund is 1000 Dubloons (plus shipping charges). The buyer has no claim in law against the dealer for the potential profit in the value of the lenses traded IF they have been sold. Nor can he demand they be returned to him if they're still in stock.

 

That's how it would be in the UK. But my own policy would have been to unpick as much of the deal as possible simply to be FAIR to the upset buyer. Easy if I still had both lenses - just send them back, nicely packed and fully insured, with a refund for the money paid as well. But that would be impossible if I'd sold both of them, and problematical if one had been sold and one was still in stock. Problematical, but at least the customer would get one of them back and I would have agreed terms about the value of the one sold.

 

If this were indeed a UK transaction and the customer's lenses had been sold by the time the loss of the parcel was recognised, then it's time to stop denouncing the dealer. If he'd packaged and adressed the parcel correctly, the loss would not be his fault. If he's refunded the entire purchase price, what more can he do? Well, maybe try to find another example of the missing item, that would be sensible, but if one cannot be had, it's an impasse. Azzo is unhappy and I doubt anything can be said - or done - to make things better. The only consolation is that he should have the funds in his bank to cover the purchase of another lens, albeit probably not in the finish he first wanted. We can all understand how he feels.

 

A rotten situation for the customer, one which I've faced in the past and I'm thankful that I'll never to have to deal with again.

[wattsy]

The more I think about this the more I think Azzo has a legitimate grievance. It seems clear that, whatever the legal standing of the transaction(s) and the transfer of title, etc., it should be obvious to both parties that the deal was conditional upon Azzo getting the chrome Summilux. As he didn't, the honourable thing (if not legal obligation) is for the dealer to at least make an effort to put things right beyond the simple refund of the Summilux value.

 

Incidentally, my assumption is that the dealer concerned is a well known UK one. If so, I can probably guess who it is.

[azzo]

The more I think about this the more I think Azzo has a legitimate grievance. It seems clear that, whatever the legal standing of the transaction(s) and the transfer of title, etc., it should be obvious to both parties that the deal was conditional upon Azzo getting the chrome Summilux. As he didn't, the honourable thing (if not legal obligation) is for the dealer to at least make an effort to put things right beyond the simple refund of the Summilux value.

 

Incidentally, my assumption is that the dealer concerned is a well known UK one. If so, I can probably guess who it is.

 

Ian,

 

Thank you again.

 

About this dealer - No, they're not based in the UK.

[poptart]

If this is truly what the law says, then it isn't very fair. Azzo went with the deal in good faith, yet he lost out on the full sale value of his lenses and he did not receive the item he purchased. The shop made a profit at his expense. Perhaps the shop could at least pay him what they made on the sale of his lenses. Not perhaps required by the law but at least everyone ends on a level playing field.

[azzo]

If this is truly what the law says, then it isn't very fair. Azzo went with the deal in good faith, yet he lost out on the full sale value of his lenses and he did not receive the item he purchased. The shop made a profit at his expense. Perhaps the shop could at least pay him what they made on the sale of his lenses. Not perhaps required by the law but at least everyone ends on a level playing field.

 

That is what I asked of them as I explained that it is unfair what you did to me but, to no avail ! ..

They're happy with the profit they made from the sale of my 2 lenses and with the money coming from the Insurance.

 

It was I who got the short end of the stick.

[azzo]

This is one of those nightmare situations where the customer is unlikely ever to be happy, and I have much sympathy for Azzo. There seems to be some confusion of how the dealer is required to deal with the situation ... It's a long time since I ran a photo-retail business here in the UK, but the law hasn't changed since I left the trade and IF he did the deal in the UK then the position is this:

 

There are TWO transactions - the purchase of his lenses by the dealer AND the sale of the new lens by the dealer. So far as the UK is concerned, under VAT (= Sales Tax) regulations, there is no such thing as a 'part exchange'. Even though the transaction seems to be one seamless process, it is actually two wholly separate things. There would be a purchase invoice issued by the shop for the customer's lenses and a sales invoice for the new lens, which may show payment as being made by cash/credit card/cheque or whatever, plus a credit amount from the purchase invoice.

 

With a mail-order transaction where the terms of the deal include insurance for goods in transit, if the item is not delivered then the dealer has to refund the buyer's purchase price plus the costs paid for posting and insurance. Let's pretend the price was 1000 Dubloons, paid for by money of 500 Dubloons + the credit from the sale of lenses to the dealer of 500 dubloons. So, the refund is 1000 Dubloons (plus shipping charges). The buyer has no claim in law against the dealer for the potential profit in the value of the lenses traded IF they have been sold. Nor can he demand they be returned to him if they're still in stock.

 

That's how it would be in the UK. But my own policy would have been to unpick as much of the deal as possible simply to be FAIR to the upset buyer. Easy if I still had both lenses - just send them back, nicely packed and fully insured, with a refund for the money paid as well. But that would be impossible if I'd sold both of them, and problematical if one had been sold and one was still in stock. Problematical, but at least the customer would get one of them back and I would have agreed terms about the value of the one sold.

 

If this were indeed a UK transaction and the customer's lenses had been sold by the time the loss of the parcel was recognised, then it's time to stop denouncing the dealer. If he'd packaged and adressed the parcel correctly, the loss would not be his fault. If he's refunded the entire purchase price, what more can he do? Well, maybe try to find another example of the missing item, that would be sensible, but if one cannot be had, it's an impasse. Azzo is unhappy and I doubt anything can be said - or done - to make things better. The only consolation is that he should have the funds in his bank to cover the purchase of another lens, albeit probably not in the finish he first wanted. We can all understand how he feels.

 

A rotten situation for the customer, one which I've faced in the past and I'm thankful that I'll never to have to deal with again.

 

scsambrook,

 

Thank you.

Any decent person would have done what I highlighted in your post.

[Guest]

Ivan,

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Tried to cheer you up,

but this is impossible, since presently you don't want any a new and soon available article, that the dealer could obtain for you ahead of the waiting list or an article in stock there, that they could discount for you somehow.

 

I would suggest that you make (one of) your next purchase(s) with the same company again, because as you said they have a high reputation and they know they owe you. But I would only let their manager handle the deal.

 

With your expertise (=number of posts), your special interests and your pacience they can ill afford to lose you (specially in this economy). So imo having our support und understanding and dealing with them should run on parallel tracks, one of them to only be disclosed (to us) when you are a satisfied customer again.

 

Unless of cause, if they keep responding with foolish irresponsability.

 

Best wishes,

Simone

[pgk]

Although it may not help in this case, nor may it be easily enforceable, it might be worth noting that when I import equipment (not Leicas!) from an EU based business which I deal with, their invoices state: 'The seller remains owner of the goods until full payment is received... . Any dispute which arises must be settled in (the country where the seller is based).'. For future reference when dealing in such a way, it might be worth adding this to the covering letter with the equipment being traded in. How easily enforceable this might be is something else, but at least it is stated and any reputable dealer receiving traded in equipment with such a statement enclosed, should take note and track the item they are selling carefully, as well as holding off from reselling the traded in items! I think it really is name and shame time.

[Guest]

I think it really is name and shame time.

 

Pardon my disagreement to this, but I think you know best when and how to proceed.

[azzo]

Ivan,

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Tried to cheer you up,

but this is impossible, since presently you don't want any a new and soon available article, that the dealer could obtain for you ahead of the waiting list or an article in stock there, that they could discount for you somehow.

 

I would suggest that you make (one of) your next purchase(s) with the same company again, because as you said they have a high reputation and they know they owe you. But I would only let their manager handle the deal.

 

With your expertise (=number of posts), your special interests and your pacience they can ill afford to lose you (specially in this economy). So imo having our support und understanding and dealing with them should run on parallel tracks, one of them to only be disclosed (to us) when you are a satisfied customer again.

 

Unless of cause, if they keep responding with foolish irresponsability.

 

Best wishes,

Simone

 

No no Simone, I understood you perfectly and I appreciate the fact that you did your best to cheer me up.

 

btw, I am now (until 3 days ago or so) dealing or tried to rather, with the actual owner.

[cbretteville]

Ivan, it doesn't help much, I know, but I'm really sorry to read this sad story. Your advise to get things in writing is a very good one. I hope you get a better end result yhan what it looks like now.

Cheers,

Carl

[UliWer]

Azzo, do you allow me to make a proposal?

 

Ask the dealer if he would offer you another chrome 35mm Summilux for exactly the price you were refunded by him.

 

If the dealer says "yes, but I don't know if and when I get another and if it has the same quality, but I shall offer you one for the price we agreed upon originally if I get another. In the meantime you keep the money."

 

Then I'd say: fair enough and no reason to blame the dealer at all.

 

But if the dealer said "NO!" to your proposal I shall change my attitude and shall think that he want's to make some unfair profit out of the situation caused by the loss of the first Summilux.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[azzo]

Ivan, it doesn't help much, I know, but I'm really sorry to read this sad story. Your advise to get things in writing is a very good one. I hope you get a better end result yhan what it looks like now.

Cheers,

Carl

 

Carl,

 

Thank you.

Yes, the main reason for this post was to warn fellow members here that such things even though remote, can in fact happen.

Honestly, I do not wish to read another similar post from anyone on board this Forum.

 

Thank you all for your support.