[Leica] in the matter of Theken v Lowi

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

Hey, Don, I didn't read that description in Brian's post. I think we
should avoid discussion of what was clearly a misunderstanding and
unfortunate incident and look at the bigger picture.

While it's true someone could violate policy and delist, most business
on this list is done by regular members. And having rules would just
make folks feel a little more secure, and, hopefully, avoid future
misunderstandings. If, for instance, there was a "10 days and then it's
yours," there'd be no question of later returning merchandise, and of
misunderstandings about it. Nor would there be any misunderstandings
about reasons for returning merchandise within the 10 days - there
wouldn't have to be any reasons.

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Don Dory
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:05 PM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] in the matter of Theken v Lowi


B.D.,
A written policy doesn't count for squat if the seller decides to
de-list and run away.  In the case that brought this exchange, a seller
made a good faith sale but the merchandise was not as advertised and the
buyer got stuck with something that wasn't worth what was paid for it.
In the end, the seller was not able to accept the return and refund the
money.  Now both people are off the list, so what good are some
electronic guidelines?

Don't spend more than you can afford to lose, only deal with people you
respect/trust, require a return period for inspection, know somebody
that admires Guido and can travel.

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf
Of B. D. Colen
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:50 PM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] in the matter of Theken v Lowi

All true Don, but...
I just wonder if it might not make sense to have a set of LUG "rules"
for transactions - as in unquestioned 10 day return right? No cashing of
checks for the 10 days? Perhaps buyer automatically pays shipping on
returns? Just some ideas.

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Don Dory
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:47 PM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] in the matter of Theken v Lowi


All,
In the matter of buying used equipment, it is whatever the buyer and
seller agree to.  If you are going to buy items sight unseen, then
either know that the seller is reputable and has a known return policy,
or negotiate a price that allows the worst to happen.

No written policy is going to help you if the seller doesn't buy into
the buyers request; then the seller is not going to be happy.  In this
pretty large world, anyone can disappear after a transaction.  Do I
sound pessimistic about online transactions-why, yes I am.

Buying online is about like going to Las Vegas: don't spend more than
you can afford to lose.

Last, I understand that there have been many, many good transactions on
this list.  I am not in any way trying to bad mouth the members of this
list, most of whom I would buy something sight unseen.  I just would not
spend more than I could afford to throw away.

0.02

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf
Of B. D. Colen
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:14 AM
To: 'Leica Users Group'
Subject: RE: [Leica] in the matter of Theken v Lowi

Thank you, Brian, Elder Statesman, and Camera Store Owner -

There is no question that reputations were unfairly besmirched in the
exchange, and your obviously trying, voluntary effort should go a long
way to undue whatever damage was done.

And, yes, standard policies would make a great deal of sense.

B. D.

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Reid
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:39 AM
To: LUG@leica-users.org
Subject: [Leica] in the matter of Theken v Lowi


On February 27, Mark Theken posted to the LUG a charge that he had been
defrauded in a camera-sale transaction by another member of the LUG. Its
subject was

    FS: Buyer Beware! an open letter

and you can read the message here:

    http://leica-users.org/v26/msg10016.html

While that message did not identify the seller, subsequent conversations
brought out that the seller was Emmanuel Lowi. Both parties have since
unsubscribed from the LUG.

While the hubbub about this charge has died down on the LUG, the work to
resolve it has not. One of the Elder Statesmen of the LUG has taken
responsibility for mediating this dispute, and an experienced and
respected camera store owner (not necessarily a member of the LUG) has
reviewed all of the materials and talked to both parties.

All three of us (the Elder Statesman, the camera store owner, and I),
having reviewed everything, believe that no fraud took place, nor was
there intent of fraud, and that neither party acted in bad faith.


Whether Mr Lowi continues to think that Mr Theken acted in bad faith, or
vice versa, is entirely a private matter and should not be further aired
on the LUG. It is the finding of your listowner that this case is about
the wisdom of buying expensive things from private sellers, or selling
expensive things to private buyers, and not about actual fraud.

The sale of high-priced items like automobiles and houses and boats has
for many years had a formal paperwork process attached to it, in which
there are official documents that help certify these expensive items. In
other markets, such as fine art, antiques, stud bulls, and personal
services, it is entirely up to the buyer to validate the transaction.
There is a wide range of reasonable expectations in global trade.

There is no established standard for the behavior of buyer and seller in
the global used-camera market. Everyone has a perception based on his or
her own background and culture. And when this much money is changing
hands, everyone's emotions are high.

I'm thinking that if we are going to allow advertising and trading on
the LUG, that we ought to have a written document defining the expected
behavior of both parties, so that we start out with agreement about what
is expected.

But as I said above, my opinion, based on the expert evaluations that I
mentioned above, is that in this case of Theken v Lowi, there were
mismatched expectations, mismatched cultural norms, and a lot of pride
and emotion, but no fraud nor intent of fraud.

Brian Reid
LUG listowner

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information