ebay - a cautionary tale

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi There

Well, I gave the seller a ring this afternoon-he said he would check it out and get back to me, and he duly did. He has checked where the lens came from (another shop) and has said that he will give me a full refund through paypal - of course, I don't have it yet, but it's sounding good.

 

Thanks everyone for the help and concern, I'll keep you posted

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Now we just need to find you another 35mm Cron. I'm looking

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Hi There

Well, I gave the seller a ring this afternoon-he said he would check it out and get back to me, and he duly did. He has checked where the lens came from (another shop) and has said that he will give me a full refund through paypal - of course, I don't have it yet, but it's sounding good.

 

Thanks everyone for the help and concern, I'll keep you posted

 

 

Sounds like an excellent dealer. No harm in giving him some free publicity here....

[Eoin]

Jono, Delighted to hear there is some light at the end of the bottomless pit you were looking into yesterday.

 

If and when the refund happens, well done the nameless dealer.

[Rolo]

Now we just need to find you another 35mm Cron. I'm looking

 

I have one 35mm Asph available in near mint condition with boxes !!

 

Rolo

[pklein]

Jono: I've been following your story with interest/horror. I'm so glad that at least you won't be left with a financial loss.

 

The 35mm 4th Gen. 'Cron is worth the effort to find. I love mine.

 

--Peter

[London Lad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi There

Are you sure about the 'good title' - it seems to me that I would have good title in this case (where, it appears there is at least one other middleman). However, the goods are now certainly going to be restored to their original owner (rightly in my opinion).

 

Still, it would seem that the dealer IS going to give me my money back - which is excellent.

Thanks for your post.

 

Yes I am sure but of course the original owner will also have good title (unless he signed it away to an insurance company) and what happened in practice would always be up to the court to decide.

 

If the dealer is doing the right thing and refunding you then alls well that ends well. I just don't think it was up to Leica to put you in a weakened position from day one.

[starwatcher]

As Guy already mentioned: before you buy always better to checkup with Leicas database of stolen equipment. That is no 100% guarantee but might help (as it would have had in this case).

Before Leica changed their webdesign last year you could even check serialnumbers online - that feature unfortunately has vanished (although promised t o be reinstalled...).

But if one sends an email or drops a call this can be handled shorthand - highly recommended.

In addition we have dealers in Germany which also maintain their own databases. So if one intends to buy, drop a short notice in the German forum or send a PM to one of the moderators and we will gladly assist to check (at least I will but I assume I can speak for my collegues as well).

 

best - Klaus

[GMB]

In the UK an innocent purchaser (this could include the dealer and jono) CAN acquire good title to the goods. The stolen goods can in fact loose their 'taint' in the hands of an innocent purchaser.

 

....

 

Now if Barry then reads in the newspaper about the theft, realises that he has the camera involved and then sells it to Jane, Barry would then commit handling stolen goods as the camera would re-acquire its taint in his hands. (he would also commit 'obtaining by deception')

 

I don’t think that is correct (although, as mentioned, I am not a UK lawyer).

 

First, you there is a difference between the general possibility to obtain title in good faith, and the possibility to obtaining title in good faith if the good is stolen.

 

For example, if Bill gives his Noctilux to Joe for shooting at wedding. If Joe then sells it to Mike who has no reason to believe that Joe is not the owner of the lens, Mike obtains title.

 

On the other hand, if Karl, while visiting Henry, steals the Henry’s Noctilux from Henry’s photo bag and then sells the lens to David, David cannot obtain title, even if he purchases in good faith.

 

The rational for the distinction between these two cases, which may on first sight look similar, is that Bill deliberately gave the lens to Joe. Thus, he, and not Mike, should bear the risk that Joe sells the lens although he is not entitled. Henry, however, did not give his lens away and therefore enjoys better protection than Bill.

 

Second, once you have obtained title in good faith, you have title. End of story. You do not lose title, even if you later learn that the person who sold you the good was not the owner. And because you have title, i.e., are the legitimate owner, you also can transfer title.

 

Thus, if in the example above, Joe confesses to Bill that he sold the Noctilux to Mike, and if Bill then confronts Mike with these facts, Mike’s title is unaffected. If Mike later concludes that he does not like the Noctilux and sells it to Freddy, Freddy obtains title, even if Freddy knows the whole story. Otherwise, one would end up with the absurd result that Mike could keep the lens (because he bought it in good faith) but cannot sell it.

 

Also bear in mind that these cases normally turn sour where Karl or Joe have disappeared or insufficient funds to compensate Bill or Henry or where the stolen item is unique and cannot be compensated with cash. Luckily, none of this should apply to in Jono’s case.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

As Guy already mentioned: before you buy always better to checkup with Leicas database of stolen equipment. That is no 100% guarantee but might help (as it would have had in this case).

Before Leica changed their webdesign last year you could even check serialnumbers online - that feature unfortunately has vanished (although promised t o be reinstalled...).

But if one sends an email or drops a call this can be handled shorthand - highly recommended.

In addition we have dealers in Germany which also maintain their own databases. So if one intends to buy, drop a short notice in the German forum or send a PM to one of the moderators and we will gladly assist to check (at least I will but I assume I can speak for my collegues as well).

 

best - Klaus

 

Thanks Klaus , I am going to send Stefan a note about this , maybe there is a public way to access these stolen serial numbers, be really handy for folks when they make a e-bay , or other site like mine to just double check.

 

 

Done, just sent a e-mail . Hopefully they can get back to me on this

[jonoslack]

Now we just need to find you another 35mm Cron. I'm looking

Found one!

Hi there - I've managed to find a new 35 'cron (chrome one) at a sensible sort of a price from the wonderful Robert White - he'll get it to me by lunchtime tomorrow, so I'll have time to put it through it's paces before the shoot. It will have cost me £250 more than the secondhand one (after it had been coded); a lot to pay, but at least I'll have the passport warranty, and I rather fancy a chrome one (sexy with a black body:) )

 

It will also allow me to test out the 'chrome focus shift' theory!

 

And if the guy changes his mind, then I'm bankrupt!

[jonoslack]

 

Also bear in mind that these cases normally turn sour where Karl or Joe have disappeared or insufficient funds to compensate Bill or Henry or where the stolen item is unique and cannot be compensated with cash. Luckily, none of this should apply to in Jono’s case.

 

Hi George - interesting and sensible (I guess). As you say, it should be okay, I lose my cheap lens, the dealer loses his margin etc. but at least it's not a major loss.

[J_Brittenson]

The bottom line with paypal to keep in mind, the buyer is always right to them and tracking information will not help you in a dispute.

I can attest that this is not correct. A buyer tried to scam me on a $5000 item by claiming it never arrived 30 days later -- despite not having asked about it, having signed for it on delivery, and having left positive feedback on ebay. Is that obvious or what? The buyer kept insisting I save money by shipping it USPS, which in hindsight should have been a red flag. Of course I didn't, I shipped it fedex air and made sure the bank account I tie to paypal doesn't have enough money for a fraudulent chargeback to succeed. Paypal accepted the fedex tracking record and online digitized signature and either disputed or sucked it up for me. (I don't know and don't really care.)

 

By not following any due process I think the credit card companies are making themselves accessory to fraud. They're basically driving the getaway car here while claiming to be a private taxi.

[wparsonsgisnet]

I had a problem with an eBay seller a few years ago -- but I was a little suspicious at the beginning and used postal orders to pay him..

 

They were, of course, cashed with a different signature and so on. He said he never got the money.

 

When he heard from the USPS fraud investigator, he called me and said, "I guess I should send you your money back." I got it the same day and all was well (just a delay). There are circumstances when the USPS can help in this area.

 

Unfortunately, these crooks are everywhere.

[starwatcher]

Thanks Klaus , I am going to send Stefan a note about this , maybe there is a public way to access these stolen serial numbers, be really handy for folks when they make a e-bay , or other site like mine to just double check.

 

 

Done, just sent a e-mail . Hopefully they can get back to me on this

 

thanks, Guy! Pls keep us posted on progress...

 

best - Klaus

[Guest guy_mancuso]

As we are talking about delays and such , I have been pretty lucky but just today i traded Adam a 39 for a 49 filter and I got mine last week and he has not recieved his yet and it maybe almost 10 ten days or so now i think of it and yet no delivery to Adam who is extremely patient waiting for this, so today I sent him paypal money to go buy one at B&H but it really just makes you mad that you send something and just never gets there. Frankly I'm not to fond of our mail system. I usually do everything UPS but for a envelope stuff just the mail. Now watch it will show tommorow . LOL

 

 

Klaus if Stefan answers my e-mail with something i will certainly post it for all.

 

Jono glad you found another 35 cron. there out there, just saw one for almost 1700 at Camera West and he had some others but not sure if ASPH or not

[London Lad]

I don’t think that is correct (although, as mentioned, I am not a UK lawyer).

 

First, you there is a difference between the general possibility to obtain title in good faith, and the possibility to obtaining title in good faith if the good is stolen.

 

For example, if Bill gives his Noctilux to Joe for shooting at wedding. If Joe then sells it to Mike who has no reason to believe that Joe is not the owner of the lens, Mike obtains title.

 

On the other hand, if Karl, while visiting Henry, steals the Henry’s Noctilux from Henry’s photo bag and then sells the lens to David, David cannot obtain title, even if he purchases in good faith.

 

The rational for the distinction between these two cases, which may on first sight look similar, is that Bill deliberately gave the lens to Joe. Thus, he, and not Mike, should bear the risk that Joe sells the lens although he is not entitled. Henry, however, did not give his lens away and therefore enjoys better protection than Bill.

 

Second, once you have obtained title in good faith, you have title. End of story. You do not lose title, even if you later learn that the person who sold you the good was not the owner. And because you have title, i.e., are the legitimate owner, you also can transfer title.

 

Thus, if in the example above, Joe confesses to Bill that he sold the Noctilux to Mike, and if Bill then confronts Mike with these facts, Mike’s title is unaffected. If Mike later concludes that he does not like the Noctilux and sells it to Freddy, Freddy obtains title, even if Freddy knows the whole story. Otherwise, one would end up with the absurd result that Mike could keep the lens (because he bought it in good faith) but cannot sell it.

 

Also bear in mind that these cases normally turn sour where Karl or Joe have disappeared or insufficient funds to compensate Bill or Henry or where the stolen item is unique and cannot be compensated with cash. Luckily, none of this should apply to in Jono’s case.

 

We have to agree to differ but my experience is in UK criminal and not civil law and is also 10 years out of date

[topoxforddoc]

Jono,

 

I'm sorry to hear your sorry tale. I was victim of a burglary about a year ago when I had my R9/DMR and a couple of lenses stolen. I got called by the Police to say that they had apprehended and charged the offending culprit today!!!

 

In UK Law, I believe if the original owner had already received compensation from his/her insurance company, title belongs to the insurance company. If, not then title belongs to the original owner.

 

When I had my items stolen, I reported them by email the next day to Leica UK as well as to the Police. That is probably how 'your' lens' serial number was known precisely.

 

If you bought the lens off a UK dealer trading on ebay, then I think you still have redress against them under the Sale of Goods Act. Hope that helps.

 

Best wishes,

 

Charlie

[wlaidlaw]

I don’t think that is correct (although, as mentioned, I am not a UK lawyer).

 

First, you there is a difference between the general possibility to obtain title in good faith, and the possibility to obtaining title in good faith if the good is stolen.

 

For example, if Bill gives his Noctilux to Joe for shooting at wedding. If Joe then sells it to Mike who has no reason to believe that Joe is not the owner of the lens, Mike obtains title.

 

On the other hand, if Karl, while visiting Henry, steals the Henry’s Noctilux from Henry’s photo bag and then sells the lens to David, David cannot obtain title, even if he purchases in good faith.

 

The rational for the distinction between these two cases, which may on first sight look similar, is that Bill deliberately gave the lens to Joe. Thus, he, and not Mike, should bear the risk that Joe sells the lens although he is not entitled. Henry, however, did not give his lens away and therefore enjoys better protection than Bill.

 

Second, once you have obtained title in good faith, you have title. End of story. You do not lose title, even if you later learn that the person who sold you the good was not the owner. And because you have title, i.e., are the legitimate owner, you also can transfer title.

 

Thus, if in the example above, Joe confesses to Bill that he sold the Noctilux to Mike, and if Bill then confronts Mike with these facts, Mike’s title is unaffected. If Mike later concludes that he does not like the Noctilux and sells it to Freddy, Freddy obtains title, even if Freddy knows the whole story. Otherwise, one would end up with the absurd result that Mike could keep the lens (because he bought it in good faith) but cannot sell it.

 

Also bear in mind that these cases normally turn sour where Karl or Joe have disappeared or insufficient funds to compensate Bill or Henry or where the stolen item is unique and cannot be compensated with cash. Luckily, none of this should apply to in Jono’s case.

 

Weird as it may seem London Lad is right - hence the English proverb - "Possession is nine points of the law". Do remember that English law is on the basis of 1000+ years of precedent and tort not a written constitution. This gives rise to all sorts of odd quirks. Apparently it is still legal to shoot Scotsmen on sight in the Isle of Man! Delighted to hear the dealer is doing the decent thing. I think they deserve a pat on the back and positive publicity once the refund arrives on Paypal.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

Weird as it may seem London Lad is right - hence the English proverb - "Possession is nine points of the law". Do remember that English law is on the basis of 1000+ years of precedent and tort not a written constitution. This gives rise to all sorts of odd quirks. Apparently it is still legal to shoot Scotsmen on sight in the Isle of Man! Delighted to hear the dealer is doing the decent thing. I think they deserve a pat on the back and positive publicity once the refund arrives on Paypal.

 

Wilson

Hi Wilson

Thanks for the reply - it's all really interesting. But it seems that both the original owner and I would have legal rights to the lens - so, if one went to court on that basis, presumably the court would decide that the original owner owned it (I would).

 

The police made it pretty clear that I couldn't be considered as a criminal, but keeping the lens? Oh No! Do you mean that I could have created a legal argument for keeping the lens?

 

Of course, the reality is that £800 or not, the time involved in defending such a position would be an absolute no-no.