Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: GettRE: [Leica] re: interesting scam
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:03:03 -0400

Getting "past it" is one thing. Recognizing what was done as a terrifically
sleazy scam is another.


- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of
Summicron1@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1:47 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] re: interesting scam


you don't need a 10-page contract. I would think specifying that return can
only be made if the camera is not as represented, or only for mechanical
defect, would be sufficient. People don't buy Leicas on spec. And my final
point still stands -- he agreed to the original deal, he got his camera back
in the same condition he sent it, so ultimately he has no beef. Tell him to
get past it, sell it again and be more careful.

ctrentelman
ogden



In a message dated 4/18/0 12:04:56 AM, you wrote:

>How much 'crap' should one have to protect ones self from for trying to be
>honest?  I don't believe one needs a 10 page contract if a little common
>sense (and common decency) is applied, and this goes against any common
>sense, and is certainly an abuse of the privilege offered by the seller.
>
>I guess common sense (and decency) is not so common...
>
>------------------------------