Be Careful !!! ..

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The whole point is that, I did not sell my 2 lenses for cash but to get this 35mm Summilux. I sacrificed 2 good lenses for a little bit of money considering I could have sold them for more. I would not have sold these lenses for that amount of money but I was okay with the Deal as I wanted this 35mm Summilux.!

Azzo

 

I can see both sides of the story. For a dealer to put 2 lenses on a shelf until you had received the Summilux may dent cash flow these days and depending on how long it is before you were likely to receive the Summilux means that they have in stock sellable items which they can't sell - no dealer would like this situation and most I would suspect would aim and like to sell items as fast as possible.

 

On the other hand, given the situation, I would have thought that they would have tried to locate a replacement chrome Summilux in the same condition as the one you were buying, and supplied this to you. It might mean less profit and some more work but would certainly be the best option given that no-one wants items to disappear in transit, however it happens. Why not get back to them and explain your disappointment and irritation and suggest this as a potential solution - if, of course, you are happy with the idea. I accept that chrome 35 Summiluxes are not that easy to source.....

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[azzo]

Then I don't see a reason to blame the shop. The money for the two lenses plus the amount you paid on top was their price to sell the summilux. You got that back. The fact that you might have got more if you had sold the lenses elsewhere doesn't really count. You cannot exspect them paying more for your lenses just because the Summilux got lost.

If they had insured the Summilux you would not get more.

 

They should have waited for the lens to be recieved by their customer before selling his goods IMO !

 

Sorry, but I do not agree with you.

No, I'm not happy with the amount of money they gave for my lenses because I did not want to sell but to trade. I was only okay with that amount simply because I was supposed to get what I wanted, and that is the 35 Summilux.

 

Hope, that is clear enough.

[Rolo]

Ivan, my only experience is with Red Dot & Stephens ( and I know you didn't trade with them) and they will give you an offer that will remain for some time after the delivery of the purchased lens. A month has been my experience.

 

If you are paying retail price for the new and accepting a trade-in price for the old, why wouldn't any dealer do that? If you're not paying retail, I can see this becoming difficult, but you saw this online, so there was a starting price.

 

I appreciate this will do nothing for your deal. I do think that the dealer should feel obliged to supply a similar item in a very short time.

[azzo]

Azzo

 

I can see both sides of the story. For a dealer to put 2 lenses on a shelf until you had received the Summilux may dent cash flow these days and depending on how long it is before you were likely to receive the Summilux means that they have in stock sellable items which they can't sell - no dealer would like this situation and most I would suspect would aim and like to sell items as fast as possible.

 

On the other hand, given the situation, I would have thought that they would have tried to locate a replacement chrome Summilux in the same condition as the one you were buying, and supplied this to you. It might mean less profit and some more work but would certainly be the best option given that no-one wants items to disappear in transit, however it happens. Why not get back to them and explain your disappointment and irritation and suggest this as a potential solution - if, of course, you are happy with the idea. I accept that chrome 35 Summiluxes are not that easy to source.....

 

I have been on their waiting list for this lens for approx 2 years.

[wattsy]

No, I'm not happy with the amount of money they gave for my lenses because I did not want to sell but to trade. I was only okay with that amount simply because I was supposed to get what I wanted

 

I understand your frustration but I'm not sure it is correct to view a part-exchange deal as some kind of glorified swapsy. Your dealer essentially bought your lenses (at what now seems an absurdly low value) and credited that amount against the cost of the Summilux.

[delander †]

A very unfortunate experience I can see both sides of the argument. Those who are saying that it was two transactions are they saying that you cant make such an exchange deal which is lawfully binding?

 

Surely you need to ask a lawyer. Does the shop have terms and conditions under which they enter into such exchanges?

 

Jeff

[aesop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I understand your frustration but I'm not sure it is correct to view a part-exchange deal as some kind of glorified swapsy. Your dealer essentially bought your lenses (at what now seems an absurdly low value) and credited that amount against the cost of the Summilux.

 

 

...this is precisely what I tried to point out at the beginning of this thread.

 

There are two transactions - first, the sale of the Azzo's two lenses to the shop (at an *agreed* price), and then, with the proceeds of that sale (and some extra cash), the purchase of the desired lens from the shop. This is the reality of a part-exchange deal.

 

It is worth noting that Azzo could have, if he so wished, used the proceeds from the sale of his two lenses to purchase some other item(s) from the shop. In essence, the two transactions are separate but not unconnected. IMHO.

[azzo]

 

My 2 lenses plus cash for the 35mm Summilux in Chrome finish or nothing !

[andybarton]

Then I don't see a reason to blame the shop. The money for the two lenses plus the amount you paid on top was their price to sell the summilux. You got that back. The fact that you might have got more if you had sold the lenses elsewhere doesn't really count. You cannot exspect them paying more for your lenses just because the Summilux got lost.

If they had insured the Summilux you would not get more.

 

Azzo is out of pocket through no fault if his own, but the fault of the shop. They have a moral and probably legal obligation to put that right

 

they have made a profit on the sake of his lenses and they have no doubt claimed the insurance on the lost lens. The only person who has lost out is Azzo.

 

this is very underhand behaviour by a reputable well known Leica dealer.

 

I will most definitely never do business with them if this is the way that they treat their customers. It's downright criminal. Solms should be told too, if they don't put this right pronto, IMHO

[aesop]

Azzo is out of pocket through no fault if his own, but the fault of the shop. They have a moral and probably legal obligation to put that right

 

they have made a profit on the sake of his lenses and they have no doubt claimed the insurance on the lost lens. The only person who has lost out is Azzo.

 

this is very underhand behaviour by a reputable well known Leica dealer.

 

I will most definitely never do business with them if this is the way that they treat their customers. It's downright criminal. Solms should be told too, if they don't put this right pronto, IMHO

 

 

...Andy, we need to be careful here - Azzo agreed on a value for his two lenses and has been fully recompensed for that value. Unless I am missing something here, this sounds equitable to me.

[andybarton]

But he didn't just sell them to the shop, did he? Azzo agreed the price of his two lenses only against the value of the Summilux, in one transaction. He never saw "the money for them" this was one transaction dealt with in the shop. He would never have sold them to this outfit for that price if he wasn't going to get a Summilux in exchange (I suspect) - why would he?

 

They have treated him very, very badly indeed. He has lost a lot of money and they are sitting pretty with the profit from the sale of his lenses, and the insurance.

 

I wonder if he paid the difference via his credit card?

[azzo]

...Andy, we need to be careful here - Azzo agreed on a value for his two lenses and has been fully recompensed for that value. Unless I am missing something here, this sounds equitable to me.

 

ONLY on a part exchange basis with the 35 Summilux and not as an outright sale. ..

 

That is my point.

Had I wanted to sell my 2 lenses, I would have done so/tried to in other places !

[azzo]

But he didn't just sell them to the shop, did he? Azzo agreed the price of his two lenses only against the value of the Summilux, in one transaction. He never saw "the money for them" this was one transaction dealt with in then shop. He would never have sold them to this outfit for that price if he wasn't going to get a Summilux in exchange (I suspect) - why would he?

 

Right on Andy!

 

 

They have treated him very, very badly indeed. He has lost a lot of money and they are sitting pretty with the profit from the sale of his lenses, and the insurance.

 

Right on again !

 

I wonder if he paid the difference via his credit card?

... I did !

[andybarton]

Might be worth speaking with them if the amount you paid was over €150

[pgk]

I have been on their waiting list for this lens for approx 2 years.

Wow! In that case the shop will have a hard time persuading Leica (or another dealer) to supply them with one, but IMHO this is the route that they should go down because clearly, from your posts,any other route will not be satisfactory.

[azzo]

Paul,

 

It has been approx 2 years because I wanted a chrome finish and this is no longer in production.

[wattsy]

They have a moral and probably legal obligation to put that right

 

I won't argue about the morals but I'd be interested to know where the legal obligation might be coming from. You will need to consider when and how title to goods gets changed during a part exchange transaction. My feeling is that it is one of those unfortunate situations where the OP is shit out of luck and has no legal recourse. A bit like the sour taste that results when an insurance company writes off your car after an accident that wasn't your fault and you end up with a cheque for the book value of the car. Seems unfair but there is bugger all you can do about it.

[earleygallery]

Azzo, sorry to hear of your lost lenses.

 

It's a difficult one - I'm assuming the new lens was lost or stolen en route to you? Is there any chance it may yet turn up?

 

As Andy pointed out insurance should restore you to a position as if the insured event had not happened (within limits of indemnity of the given policy) but the insurance in this situation would have been against the new lens only.

 

One fundamental point of contract law is that it should be fair to all parties - here there's the fact that the dealer has made a profit on the trade in lenses and the new lens, and you have an effective loss = not fair.

 

Do speak to the credit card co and raise a dispute with them. You could also get some free advice from the citizens advice bureaux in the UK (they deal with consumer issues regularly).

 

Obviously your old lenses are sold so you need to think about what you will be prepared to accept. A black summilux? Replacements for the traded in lenses at the same prices?

 

Good luck!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wattsy]

He never saw "the money for them" this was one transaction dealt with in the shop.

 

I don't think this makes any difference. What matters is whether title to Azzo's lenses passed to the dealer (in exchange for monetary value) prior to Azzo buying the Summilux. I know that the deal is seen as one transaction but the legalities of buying and selling are often more complex and sometimes rely on a legal fiction (akin to a sleight of hand) to work.

[Ruderwind]

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