Nikon Digital SLR guidance

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Neil Jones, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:28:32 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 8/4/2011 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >>>>
    >>>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >>>>
    >>>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>>> way unhappy.
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.

    >>
    >> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >> dissatisfied.
    >>
    >> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >It's not that clear to me that Bruce made the disclosure. His posting
    >came after he learned here about the fault.


    Well, he said he did, and he's never given me reason to doubt him. He
    could have called the customer between the first post and his
    follow-up.

    Also, he admitted that he screwed up. How often do you see that here?

    >I agree with you though, that if it really happened I would definitely
    >be a loyal customer. When I purchased my 60-400 from local place the
    >price well below the street price. I asked him if it was gray market. He
    >told me it was used. That lens was in mint condition and still had the
    >warranty slips. I give first priority to him on all my photo purchases.


    How a store handles problems determines if I'll buy from that store
    again. Several years ago I purchased a ZIP drive from Best Buy that
    was dead out-of-the-box. Best Buy wouldn't exchange it, and insisted
    that it had to be returned to the manufacturer before I'd get credit.

    Another time I purchased an external hard drive from CompUSA that made
    a funny whining sound when I plugged it in. CompUSA's return desk
    didn't even take the unit out of the box; they just told me to get
    another unit off the shelf or they would credit the amount against the
    purchase of another brand.

    I've never purchased anything from Best Buy since that incident, but I
    do buy from CompUSA. (Now part of Tiger Direct)

    All Best Buys and CompUSAs may not be the same. Sometimes the local
    management sets the store policy.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Neil Jones

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    : > Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : >
    : >> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    : >> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    : >> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    : >> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    : >
    : >
    : > No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    : > for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    : > the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    : > accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    : > selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    : > especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    : >
    : > The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    : > less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    : > him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    : > dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    : >
    : > He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    : > didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    : > work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    : > and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    : > an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    : > way unhappy.

    Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
    might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
    you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
    functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
    lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
    camera).

    : > Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    : > particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    : > If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    : > for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    : >
    :
    : Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.

    To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
    camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
    place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
    in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
    camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
    it or not.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 5, 2011
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/5/2011 11:27 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:28:32 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/4/2011 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>>>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>>>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>>>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>>>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>>>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>>>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>>>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>>>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>>>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>>>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>>>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>>>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>>>> way unhappy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>>>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>>>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>>>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>>
    >>> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >>> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >>> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >>> dissatisfied.
    >>>
    >>> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >>> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >>> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >>> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >>> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's not that clear to me that Bruce made the disclosure. His posting
    >> came after he learned here about the fault.

    >
    > Well, he said he did, and he's never given me reason to doubt him. He
    > could have called the customer between the first post and his
    > follow-up.
    >
    > Also, he admitted that he screwed up. How often do you see that here?
    >
    >> I agree with you though, that if it really happened I would definitely
    >> be a loyal customer. When I purchased my 60-400 from local place the
    >> price well below the street price. I asked him if it was gray market. He
    >> told me it was used. That lens was in mint condition and still had the
    >> warranty slips. I give first priority to him on all my photo purchases.

    >
    > How a store handles problems determines if I'll buy from that store
    > again. Several years ago I purchased a ZIP drive from Best Buy that
    > was dead out-of-the-box. Best Buy wouldn't exchange it, and insisted
    > that it had to be returned to the manufacturer before I'd get credit.
    >
    > Another time I purchased an external hard drive from CompUSA that made
    > a funny whining sound when I plugged it in. CompUSA's return desk
    > didn't even take the unit out of the box; they just told me to get
    > another unit off the shelf or they would credit the amount against the
    > purchase of another brand.
    >
    > I've never purchased anything from Best Buy since that incident, but I
    > do buy from CompUSA. (Now part of Tiger Direct)
    >
    > All Best Buys and CompUSAs may not be the same. Sometimes the local
    > management sets the store policy.


    Those policies are usually set by national management. CompUSA is
    essentially out of business in New York.
    the local place I was talking about is a small family owned store.
    During the summer they are open four days a week. but, if you call they
    will open the store, off hours, if you need something. the owner is so
    nice to deal with, that I almost feel guilty if he doesn't have what I want.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 5, 2011
    #43
  4. Neil Jones

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:13:03 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    : >> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    : >>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    : >>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    : >>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    : >>
    : >>
    : >> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    : >> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    : >> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    : >> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    : >> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    : >> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    : >>
    : >> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    : >> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    : >> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    : >> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    : >>
    : >> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    : >> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    : >> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    : >> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    : >> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    : >> way unhappy.
    : >>
    : >> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    : >> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    : >> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    : >> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    : >>
    : >
    : >Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    :
    : You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    : manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    : he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    : dissatisfied.
    :
    : If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    : Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    : that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    : mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    : wrong deserves my loyalty, though.

    Quite right. Bruce's intentions were honorable, and he made sure the customer
    didn't feel cheated. But sometimes appearances are (for legal or other
    reasons) at least as important as reality. And I'm not sure that what was done
    addressed the appearance issue sufficiently.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 5, 2011
    #44
  5. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/5/2011 11:42 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN<>
    > wrote:
    > : On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    > :> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > :>
    > :>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    > :>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    > :>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    > :>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    > :>
    > :>
    > :> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    > :> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    > :> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    > :> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    > :> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    > :> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    > :>
    > :> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    > :> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    > :> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    > :> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    > :>
    > :> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    > :> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    > :> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    > :> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    > :> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    > :> way unhappy.
    >
    > Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
    > might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
    > you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
    > functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
    > lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
    > camera).
    >
    > :> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    > :> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    > :> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    > :> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    > :>
    > :
    > : Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >
    > To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
    > camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
    > place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
    > in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
    > camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
    > it or not.
    >
    > Bob


    Agreed, almost. While Bruce is an individual, according to him, he is in
    the business of selling used cameras. That takes him outside the rule of
    a casual sale between laymen.

    In NY the rule is if the seller "knew, or reasonably should have known."
    Clearly, Bruce could have taken the trouble to look on the website, but
    didn't, for whatever reason. As a consumer I have a right to rely on
    experts. An exception is made where the merchandise is clearly marked:
    "AS IS," and the bill of sale reflects that fact.

    A few years ago




    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 5, 2011
    #45
  6. Neil Jones

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:06:32 -0700, Paul Furman <> wrote:
    : Neil Harrington wrote:
    : > Bruce wrote:
    : >> "Neil Harrington"<> wrote:
    : >>> All that is true. But the D50 reportedly had some improvements over
    : >>> the D70/D70s in other areas, though I think they were minor. AF was
    : >>> touched up a little I think, and some other things.
    : >>
    : >>
    : >> They weren't so minor.
    : >>
    : >> The D50 had an in-body AF drive motor so could focus all AF Nikkors;
    : >> with the D70(s) you needed to focus non-AF-S Nikkors manually.
    : >
    : > That's not true. The D70/D70s had the same in-body AF motor all previous AF
    : > Nikons had.
    : >
    : > The first Nikon body that did *not* have the AF motor was the D40, and
    : > likewise all the small-body Nikons that followed it (D40X, D60, D3000,
    : > etc.).
    : >
    : >> The
    : >> D50 offered uncompressed raw (NEF) files, wider flash coverage, USB
    : >> 2.0, a better viewfinder and was smaller and lighter than the D70(s).
    : >
    : > I don't think it was much smaller or lighter than the D70/s, being built on
    : > an essentially similar body.
    :
    : The D50 is noticably smaller, dpreview scales those comparison photos to
    : fill the slot on the web page, I wish they didn't.

    Doing it that way presents as much detail as the space allows. What they could
    do, in all cases, is photograph the camera with a ruler beside it.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 5, 2011
    #46
  7. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/5/2011 11:27 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:28:32 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/4/2011 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>>>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>>>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>>>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>>>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>>>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>>>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>>>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>>>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>>>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>>>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>>>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>>>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>>>> way unhappy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>>>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>>>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>>>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>>
    >>> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >>> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >>> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >>> dissatisfied.
    >>>
    >>> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >>> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >>> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >>> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >>> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's not that clear to me that Bruce made the disclosure. His posting
    >> came after he learned here about the fault.

    >
    > Well, he said he did, and he's never given me reason to doubt him. He
    > could have called the customer between the first post and his
    > follow-up.
    >
    > Also, he admitted that he screwed up. How often do you see that here?
    >


    He was caught cold and could not wiggle out. Sorry, but I could be
    letting my feelings about his blustering enter my evaluation.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 5, 2011
    #47
  8. Neil Jones

    nospam Guest

    In article <4e3c1286$0$12485$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > Agreed, almost. While Bruce is an individual, according to him, he is in
    > the business of selling used cameras. That takes him outside the rule of
    > a casual sale between laymen.
    >
    > In NY the rule is if the seller "knew, or reasonably should have known."
    > Clearly, Bruce could have taken the trouble to look on the website, but
    > didn't, for whatever reason. As a consumer I have a right to rely on
    > experts. An exception is made where the merchandise is clearly marked:
    > "AS IS," and the bill of sale reflects that fact.


    anyone in the business of buying and selling cameras, as any camera
    store would be, should have known exactly what the capabilities of a
    nikon d70s was. claiming he didn't notice is simply not credible.
     
    nospam, Aug 5, 2011
    #48
  9. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:45:23 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 8/5/2011 11:27 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:28:32 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 8/4/2011 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>>>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>>>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>>>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>>>>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>>>>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>>>>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>>>>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>>>>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>>>>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>>>>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>>>>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>>>>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>>>>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>>>>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>>>>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>>>>> way unhappy.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>>>>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>>>>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>>>>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>>>
    >>>> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >>>> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >>>> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >>>> dissatisfied.
    >>>>
    >>>> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >>>> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >>>> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >>>> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >>>> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It's not that clear to me that Bruce made the disclosure. His posting
    >>> came after he learned here about the fault.

    >>
    >> Well, he said he did, and he's never given me reason to doubt him. He
    >> could have called the customer between the first post and his
    >> follow-up.
    >>
    >> Also, he admitted that he screwed up. How often do you see that here?
    >>
    >>> I agree with you though, that if it really happened I would definitely
    >>> be a loyal customer. When I purchased my 60-400 from local place the
    >>> price well below the street price. I asked him if it was gray market. He
    >>> told me it was used. That lens was in mint condition and still had the
    >>> warranty slips. I give first priority to him on all my photo purchases.

    >>
    >> How a store handles problems determines if I'll buy from that store
    >> again. Several years ago I purchased a ZIP drive from Best Buy that
    >> was dead out-of-the-box. Best Buy wouldn't exchange it, and insisted
    >> that it had to be returned to the manufacturer before I'd get credit.
    >>
    >> Another time I purchased an external hard drive from CompUSA that made
    >> a funny whining sound when I plugged it in. CompUSA's return desk
    >> didn't even take the unit out of the box; they just told me to get
    >> another unit off the shelf or they would credit the amount against the
    >> purchase of another brand.
    >>
    >> I've never purchased anything from Best Buy since that incident, but I
    >> do buy from CompUSA. (Now part of Tiger Direct)
    >>
    >> All Best Buys and CompUSAs may not be the same. Sometimes the local
    >> management sets the store policy.

    >
    >Those policies are usually set by national management. CompUSA is
    >essentially out of business in New York.


    I'm not sure how rigid that is. I think store managers have more
    leeway than you think to set store policy.

    For example, the CompUSA people haven't bothered to take more than a
    cursory glance at anything I've returned for credit. They just make
    sure that the contents are there.

    Another manager in another store may require that the unit be tested
    rather than just take the customer's word for it.

    I like the local store's policy because I don't have to wait for them
    to dick around with what I know is a dead unit.

    The only problem with CompUSA is the availability of assistance. The
    clerks don't seem to have assigned sectors. Ask for help with a
    graphics card and you might get the guy who is good with mobile phone
    questions but doesn't know diddly-squat about graphics cards.

    >CompUSA is essentially out of business in New York.
    >the local place I was talking about is a small family owned store.


    We have a local outfit with three or four locations, but they carry a
    limited number of choices and too many "no name" generics that they
    push. They don't like returns and will try to fix a dead unit. If I
    buy something new, I want it to work out of the box.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #49
  10. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:27:10 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-08-05 08:45:23 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 8/5/2011 11:27 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:28:32 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 8/4/2011 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>>>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>>>>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>>>>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>>>>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>>>>>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>>>>>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>>>>>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>>>>>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>>>>>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>>>>>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>>>>>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>>>>>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>>>>>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>>>>>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>>>>>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>>>>>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>>>>>> way unhappy.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>>>>>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>>>>>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>>>>>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >>>>> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >>>>> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >>>>> dissatisfied.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >>>>> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >>>>> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >>>>> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >>>>> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It's not that clear to me that Bruce made the disclosure. His posting
    >>>> came after he learned here about the fault.
    >>>
    >>> Well, he said he did, and he's never given me reason to doubt him. He
    >>> could have called the customer between the first post and his
    >>> follow-up.
    >>>
    >>> Also, he admitted that he screwed up. How often do you see that here?
    >>>
    >>>> I agree with you though, that if it really happened I would definitely
    >>>> be a loyal customer. When I purchased my 60-400 from local place the
    >>>> price well below the street price. I asked him if it was gray market. He
    >>>> told me it was used. That lens was in mint condition and still had the
    >>>> warranty slips. I give first priority to him on all my photo purchases.
    >>>
    >>> How a store handles problems determines if I'll buy from that store
    >>> again. Several years ago I purchased a ZIP drive from Best Buy that
    >>> was dead out-of-the-box. Best Buy wouldn't exchange it, and insisted
    >>> that it had to be returned to the manufacturer before I'd get credit.
    >>>
    >>> Another time I purchased an external hard drive from CompUSA that made
    >>> a funny whining sound when I plugged it in. CompUSA's return desk
    >>> didn't even take the unit out of the box; they just told me to get
    >>> another unit off the shelf or they would credit the amount against the
    >>> purchase of another brand.
    >>>
    >>> I've never purchased anything from Best Buy since that incident, but I
    >>> do buy from CompUSA. (Now part of Tiger Direct)
    >>>
    >>> All Best Buys and CompUSAs may not be the same. Sometimes the local
    >>> management sets the store policy.

    >>
    >> Those policies are usually set by national management. CompUSA is
    >> essentially out of business in New York.
    >> the local place I was talking about is a small family owned store.
    >> During the summer they are open four days a week. but, if you call they
    >> will open the store, off hours, if you need something. the owner is so
    >> nice to deal with, that I almost feel guilty if he doesn't have what I
    >> want.


    >Hence the success of web stores Zappos < http://www.zappos.com/ > and
    >OWC < http://eshop.macsales.com/ > who provide exchange and credit
    >without question. Zappos even provides free 24 hour shipping and
    >includes a free return shipping label.


    My son bought something there and was pleased, but sometimes I'm too
    impatient to wait for something. I want to go and buy now.

    >Out here are only a handful of local bricks & mortar stores which have
    >developed the sort of pleasant customer/shopkeeper interaction the big
    >box stores never seem to attain. The best of them is my local gun
    >shop/gunsmith where everybody is treated like a friend, and nothing is
    >too much trouble.


    The most popular local gun store is also a range. There have been at
    least three suicides there in the last year. I may have missed
    reading about any more.

    One was a murder/suicide. The customer shot his father and then
    killed himself.

    I guess the suicides don't want to leave a mess for their family, so
    they leave a mess for the gun store to mop up.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #50
  11. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:13:03 -0400, tony cooper <>
    >wrote:
    >: On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >: <> wrote:
    >:
    >: >On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >: >> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >: >>
    >: >>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >: >>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >: >>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >: >>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >: >>
    >: >>
    >: >> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >: >> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >: >> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >: >> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >: >> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >: >> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >: >>
    >: >> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >: >> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >: >> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >: >> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >: >>
    >: >> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >: >> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >: >> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >: >> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >: >> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >: >> way unhappy.
    >: >>
    >: >> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >: >> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >: >> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >: >> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >: >>
    >: >
    >: >Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >:
    >: You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >: manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >: he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >: dissatisfied.
    >:
    >: If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >: Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >: that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >: mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >: wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >
    >Quite right. Bruce's intentions were honorable, and he made sure the customer
    >didn't feel cheated. But sometimes appearances are (for legal or other
    >reasons) at least as important as reality. And I'm not sure that what was done
    >addressed the appearance issue sufficiently.


    I don't see how a lawyer could be involved in any way. Sales of used
    merchandise between private parties, and usually between a store and a
    private party, are always "as is" in the US unless there's some
    specific warranty or unless there's deliberately fraudulent
    representation.

    A $10,000 sale of a used automobile between private parties is an "as
    is" sale unless there is a specific warranty or fraud. Why should a
    camera or lens be any different?

    Not knowing there was or was not auto-focus is not fraud.

    In US law, even "puffery" does not exclude the sale from being "as
    is". "It worked fine", or "I've never had a problem with it", or
    "It's as good as new" is "puffery" in the eyes of the law.

    eBay has some rules about statements of condition, but those are eBay
    rules for that venue.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #51
  12. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:42:21 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN <>
    >wrote:
    >: On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >: > Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >: >
    >: >> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >: >> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >: >> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >: >> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >: >
    >: >
    >: > No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >: > for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >: > the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >: > accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >: > selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >: > especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >: >
    >: > The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >: > less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >: > him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >: > dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >: >
    >: > He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >: > didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >: > work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >: > and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >: > an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >: > way unhappy.
    >
    >Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
    >might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
    >you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
    >functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
    >lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
    >camera).
    >
    >: > Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >: > particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >: > If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >: > for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >: >
    >:
    >: Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >
    >To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
    >camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
    >place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
    >in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
    >camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
    >it or not.
    >

    Bruce is in the UK, but that sale here would be "as is" and the
    customer would have no recourse no matter where the sale was made or
    who sold it as long as no warranty or fraud was involved. Fraud
    requires deliberate misrepresentation.

    Further, all the buyer can expect if a civil action is brought is to
    be "made whole". Punitive damages don't apply. By "made whole", the
    seller would have to refund the purchase price and take back the item.
    It's pretty difficult to overcome the "as is" aspect of used
    merchandise sales, though.

    Any seller can instigate their own rules and offer refunds, exchanges,
    or warranties, but they don't have to. Keh, for example, offers a 6
    month warranty on some cameras but sells some cameras "as is".

    Also, a venue like eBay can add requirements like payment dispute if
    PayPal is use.

    Buy a used camera from a private party, though, and you're SOL if the
    camera is a problem.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #52
  13. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:54:51 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 8/5/2011 11:42 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN<>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >> :> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> :>
    >> :>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >> :>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >> :>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >> :>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >> :>
    >> :>
    >> :> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >> :> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >> :> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >> :> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >> :> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >> :> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >> :>
    >> :> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >> :> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >> :> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >> :> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >> :>
    >> :> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >> :> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >> :> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >> :> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >> :> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >> :> way unhappy.
    >>
    >> Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
    >> might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
    >> you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
    >> functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
    >> lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
    >> camera).
    >>
    >> :> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >> :> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >> :> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >> :> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >> :>
    >> :
    >> : Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>
    >> To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
    >> camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
    >> place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
    >> in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
    >> camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
    >> it or not.
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    >Agreed, almost. While Bruce is an individual, according to him, he is in
    >the business of selling used cameras. That takes him outside the rule of
    >a casual sale between laymen.
    >
    >In NY the rule is if the seller "knew, or reasonably should have known."
    >Clearly, Bruce could have taken the trouble to look on the website, but
    >didn't, for whatever reason. As a consumer I have a right to rely on
    >experts. An exception is made where the merchandise is clearly marked:
    >"AS IS," and the bill of sale reflects that fact.
    >
    >A few years ago


    You're a lawyer, right? You should know, but as far as I know there
    is no requirement to write "as is" on any bill of sale. There is no
    legal requirement to even *provide* a bill of sale or even a receipt
    for most items. (Excluding vehicle and real property sales)

    I know state laws vary considerably, and New York may have some
    consumer protection laws I'm not aware of, but the sale of used
    merchandise is generally "as is" without any need for declaration of
    known problems and including puffery.

    Fraud is another matter, but that "knew, or reasonably should have
    known." isn't fraud in and by itself. Fraud is a deliberate action of
    misrepresentation.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #53
  14. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:42:21 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN <>
    >wrote:
    >: On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >: > Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >: >
    >: >> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >: >> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >: >> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >: >> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >: >
    >: >
    >: > No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >: > for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >: > the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >: > accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >: > selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >: > especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >: >
    >: > The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >: > less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >: > him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >: > dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >: >
    >: > He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >: > didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >: > work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >: > and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >: > an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >: > way unhappy.
    >
    >Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
    >might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
    >you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
    >functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
    >lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
    >camera).
    >
    >: > Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >: > particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >: > If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >: > for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >: >
    >:
    >: Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >
    >To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
    >camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
    >place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
    >in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
    >camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
    >it or not.
    >


    The largest camera store in this town - Colonial Photo & Hobby - has
    a similar deal with one of their employees. They take in trades, but
    do not sell used merchandise. One clerk - and about six work the
    counter each day - handles all of the used merchandise sales. He
    sells the used stuff privately but not in the store.

    I happen to know this because I was at a camera "yard sale" a few
    months back and talked to the Colonial employee. He had two tables
    of used stuff. You may remember the photos I took there:
    http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/2011-05-01-01.jpg

    I don't know what his arrangement is with the store as far as buying
    the trade-ins. That's not something I'd ask him about. I imagine
    they have a deal with the employee just to keep them out of the used
    market but still have a way to take in trades.

    The other major store in town accepts trades but has some deal with
    Keh where all used merchandise goes to Keh. In fact, they're running
    a deal now: http://www.harmonphoto.com/

    We also have Ritz Camera, but I never go there so I don't know what
    they do.






    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #54
  15. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:41:13 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-08-05 11:17:01 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:27:10 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2011-08-05 08:45:23 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 8/5/2011 11:27 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:28:32 -0400, PeterN
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 8/4/2011 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>>>>>>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>>>>>>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>>>>>>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>>>>>>>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>>>>>>>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>>>>>>>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>>>>>>>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>>>>>>>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>>>>>>>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>>>>>>>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>>>>>>>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>>>>>>>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>>>>>>>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>>>>>>>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>>>>>>>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>>>>>>>> way unhappy.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>>>>>>>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>>>>>>>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>>>>>>>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >>>>>>> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >>>>>>> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >>>>>>> dissatisfied.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >>>>>>> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >>>>>>> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >>>>>>> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >>>>>>> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It's not that clear to me that Bruce made the disclosure. His posting
    >>>>>> came after he learned here about the fault.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, he said he did, and he's never given me reason to doubt him. He
    >>>>> could have called the customer between the first post and his
    >>>>> follow-up.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Also, he admitted that he screwed up. How often do you see that here?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I agree with you though, that if it really happened I would definitely
    >>>>>> be a loyal customer. When I purchased my 60-400 from local place the
    >>>>>> price well below the street price. I asked him if it was gray market. He
    >>>>>> told me it was used. That lens was in mint condition and still had the
    >>>>>> warranty slips. I give first priority to him on all my photo purchases.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How a store handles problems determines if I'll buy from that store
    >>>>> again. Several years ago I purchased a ZIP drive from Best Buy that
    >>>>> was dead out-of-the-box. Best Buy wouldn't exchange it, and insisted
    >>>>> that it had to be returned to the manufacturer before I'd get credit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Another time I purchased an external hard drive from CompUSA that made
    >>>>> a funny whining sound when I plugged it in. CompUSA's return desk
    >>>>> didn't even take the unit out of the box; they just told me to get
    >>>>> another unit off the shelf or they would credit the amount against the
    >>>>> purchase of another brand.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I've never purchased anything from Best Buy since that incident, but I
    >>>>> do buy from CompUSA. (Now part of Tiger Direct)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> All Best Buys and CompUSAs may not be the same. Sometimes the local
    >>>>> management sets the store policy.
    >>>>
    >>>> Those policies are usually set by national management. CompUSA is
    >>>> essentially out of business in New York.
    >>>> the local place I was talking about is a small family owned store.
    >>>> During the summer they are open four days a week. but, if you call they
    >>>> will open the store, off hours, if you need something. the owner is so
    >>>> nice to deal with, that I almost feel guilty if he doesn't have what I
    >>>> want.

    >>
    >>> Hence the success of web stores Zappos < http://www.zappos.com/ > and
    >>> OWC < http://eshop.macsales.com/ > who provide exchange and credit
    >>> without question. Zappos even provides free 24 hour shipping and
    >>> includes a free return shipping label.

    >>
    >> My son bought something there and was pleased, but sometimes I'm too
    >> impatient to wait for something. I want to go and buy now.
    >>
    >>> Out here are only a handful of local bricks & mortar stores which have
    >>> developed the sort of pleasant customer/shopkeeper interaction the big
    >>> box stores never seem to attain. The best of them is my local gun
    >>> shop/gunsmith where everybody is treated like a friend, and nothing is
    >>> too much trouble.

    >>
    >> The most popular local gun store is also a range. There have been at
    >> least three suicides there in the last year. I may have missed
    >> reading about any more.
    >>
    >> One was a murder/suicide. The customer shot his father and then
    >> killed himself.
    >>
    >> I guess the suicides don't want to leave a mess for their family, so
    >> they leave a mess for the gun store to mop up.

    >
    >Well that's Florida for you.
    >No range at Art Bridge's place.


    This is the place I was referring to:

    http://www.shoot-straight.com/

    You can rent a gun there, so you don't even need to own one to top
    yourself.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 5, 2011
    #55
  16. Neil Jones

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:50:55 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:13:03 -0400, tony cooper <>
    : >wrote:
    : >: On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    : >: <> wrote:
    : >:
    : >: >On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    : >: >> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : >: >>
    : >: >>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    : >: >>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    : >: >>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    : >: >>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    : >: >>
    : >: >>
    : >: >> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    : >: >> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    : >: >> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    : >: >> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    : >: >> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    : >: >> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    : >: >>
    : >: >> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    : >: >> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    : >: >> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    : >: >> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    : >: >>
    : >: >> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    : >: >> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    : >: >> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    : >: >> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    : >: >> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    : >: >> way unhappy.
    : >: >>
    : >: >> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    : >: >> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    : >: >> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    : >: >> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    : >: >>
    : >: >
    : >: >Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    : >:
    : >: You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    : >: manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    : >: he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    : >: dissatisfied.
    : >:
    : >: If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    : >: Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    : >: that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    : >: mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    : >: wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    : >
    : >Quite right. Bruce's intentions were honorable, and he made sure the customer
    : >didn't feel cheated. But sometimes appearances are (for legal or other
    : >reasons) at least as important as reality. And I'm not sure that what was done
    : >addressed the appearance issue sufficiently.
    :
    : I don't see how a lawyer could be involved in any way. Sales of used
    : merchandise between private parties, and usually between a store and a
    : private party, are always "as is" in the US unless there's some
    : specific warranty or unless there's deliberately fraudulent
    : representation.

    Someone has already told us that in New York the seller is responsible for
    disclosure if he knows or should know of the defect. Under NY law, one
    suspects that a professional camera salesman "should have known" in this case.
    It may, of course, be quite different in the UK.

    : A $10,000 sale of a used automobile between private parties is an "as
    : is" sale unless there is a specific warranty or fraud.

    That may be true in Florida, but it isn't true in Massachusetts, which has a
    "lemon law" that applies to used cars, no matter who the seller is. If you
    sell something as a "car", rather than as just a pile of parts, it must be
    able to pass the inspection required for registration in Massachusetts. Those
    familiar with this area (should) understand that the reason there are so many
    used car lots across the border in New Hampshire is that NH doesn't have a
    lemon law that applies to used cars.

    : Why should a camera or lens be any different?

    Why indeed? In any case, it depends on what the law says.

    : Not knowing there was or was not auto-focus is not fraud.
    :
    : In US law, even "puffery" does not exclude the sale from being "as
    : is". "It worked fine", or "I've never had a problem with it", or
    : "It's as good as new" is "puffery" in the eyes of the law.
    :
    : eBay has some rules about statements of condition, but those are eBay
    : rules for that venue.

    "US law" is far too broad a term to be used in this context. Different states
    handle such matters differently.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 5, 2011
    #56
  17. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/5/2011 2:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:45:23 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/5/2011 11:27 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:28:32 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 8/4/2011 10:13 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>>>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>>>>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>>>>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>>>>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>>>>>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>>>>>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>>>>>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>>>>>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>>>>>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>>>>>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>>>>>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>>>>>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>>>>>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>>>>>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>>>>>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>>>>>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>>>>>> way unhappy.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>>>>>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>>>>>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>>>>>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >>>>> manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >>>>> he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >>>>> dissatisfied.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >>>>> Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >>>>> that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >>>>> mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >>>>> wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It's not that clear to me that Bruce made the disclosure. His posting
    >>>> came after he learned here about the fault.
    >>>
    >>> Well, he said he did, and he's never given me reason to doubt him. He
    >>> could have called the customer between the first post and his
    >>> follow-up.
    >>>
    >>> Also, he admitted that he screwed up. How often do you see that here?
    >>>
    >>>> I agree with you though, that if it really happened I would definitely
    >>>> be a loyal customer. When I purchased my 60-400 from local place the
    >>>> price well below the street price. I asked him if it was gray market. He
    >>>> told me it was used. That lens was in mint condition and still had the
    >>>> warranty slips. I give first priority to him on all my photo purchases.
    >>>
    >>> How a store handles problems determines if I'll buy from that store
    >>> again. Several years ago I purchased a ZIP drive from Best Buy that
    >>> was dead out-of-the-box. Best Buy wouldn't exchange it, and insisted
    >>> that it had to be returned to the manufacturer before I'd get credit.
    >>>
    >>> Another time I purchased an external hard drive from CompUSA that made
    >>> a funny whining sound when I plugged it in. CompUSA's return desk
    >>> didn't even take the unit out of the box; they just told me to get
    >>> another unit off the shelf or they would credit the amount against the
    >>> purchase of another brand.
    >>>
    >>> I've never purchased anything from Best Buy since that incident, but I
    >>> do buy from CompUSA. (Now part of Tiger Direct)
    >>>
    >>> All Best Buys and CompUSAs may not be the same. Sometimes the local
    >>> management sets the store policy.

    >>
    >> Those policies are usually set by national management. CompUSA is
    >> essentially out of business in New York.

    >
    > I'm not sure how rigid that is. I think store managers have more
    > leeway than you think to set store policy.
    >
    > For example, the CompUSA people haven't bothered to take more than a
    > cursory glance at anything I've returned for credit. They just make
    > sure that the contents are there.
    >
    > Another manager in another store may require that the unit be tested
    > rather than just take the customer's word for it.
    >
    > I like the local store's policy because I don't have to wait for them
    > to dick around with what I know is a dead unit.
    >
    > The only problem with CompUSA is the availability of assistance. The
    > clerks don't seem to have assigned sectors. Ask for help with a
    > graphics card and you might get the guy who is good with mobile phone
    > questions but doesn't know diddly-squat about graphics cards.


    When they were in business here I found that maddening. I would walk in
    intending to make a purchase, but cold not find anyone to give me
    competent help. I walked out and purchased the item at another store, at
    a competitive price. I guess there were many repetitions of this ans
    that's one of the reasons they are no longer in business.

    >
    >> CompUSA is essentially out of business in New York.
    >> the local place I was talking about is a small family owned store.

    >
    > We have a local outfit with three or four locations, but they carry a
    > limited number of choices and too many "no name" generics that they
    > push. They don't like returns and will try to fix a dead unit. If I
    > buy something new, I want it to work out of the box.
    >


    I just came back from a visit to the store I was talking about. I had a
    lens issue. My 1.7 teleconverter could not be separated from the lens I
    attached it to. Nikon could not fix it on the spot. by now you guessed
    what happened. He fixed it in about three minutes and explained the
    problem. BTW he didn't charge me for the repair.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 5, 2011
    #57
  18. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/5/2011 2:17 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    <snip>
    > The most popular local gun store is also a range. There have been at
    > least three suicides there in the last year. I may have missed
    > reading about any more.
    >
    > One was a murder/suicide. The customer shot his father and then
    > killed himself.
    >
    > I guess the suicides don't want to leave a mess for their family, so
    > they leave a mess for the gun store to mop up.
    >


    Bet the owner didn't get much of a bang out of that.
    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 5, 2011
    #58
  19. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/5/2011 2:50 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:49:54 -0400, Robert Coe<> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:13:03 -0400, tony cooper<>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >> :<> wrote:
    >> :
    >> :>On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >> :>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> :>>
    >> :>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >> :>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >> :>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >> :>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >> :>>
    >> :>>
    >> :>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >> :>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >> :>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >> :>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >> :>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >> :>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >> :>>
    >> :>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >> :>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >> :>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >> :>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >> :>>
    >> :>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >> :>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >> :>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >> :>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >> :>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >> :>> way unhappy.
    >> :>>
    >> :>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >> :>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >> :>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >> :>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >> :>>
    >> :>
    >> :>Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >> :
    >> : You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >> : manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >> : he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >> : dissatisfied.
    >> :
    >> : If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >> : Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >> : that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >> : mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >> : wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >>
    >> Quite right. Bruce's intentions were honorable, and he made sure the customer
    >> didn't feel cheated. But sometimes appearances are (for legal or other
    >> reasons) at least as important as reality. And I'm not sure that what was done
    >> addressed the appearance issue sufficiently.

    >
    > I don't see how a lawyer could be involved in any way. Sales of used
    > merchandise between private parties, and usually between a store and a
    > private party, are always "as is" in the US unless there's some
    > specific warranty or unless there's deliberately fraudulent
    > representation.
    >
    > A $10,000 sale of a used automobile between private parties is an "as
    > is" sale unless there is a specific warranty or fraud. Why should a
    > camera or lens be any different?
    >
    > Not knowing there was or was not auto-focus is not fraud.
    >
    > In US law, even "puffery" does not exclude the sale from being "as
    > is". "It worked fine", or "I've never had a problem with it", or
    > "It's as good as new" is "puffery" in the eyes of the law.
    >
    > eBay has some rules about statements of condition, but those are eBay
    > rules for that venue.
    >


    Laws differ from State to State. New York distinguishes sales between
    laymen and where one party is in the business of reselling. In all sales
    of personal property there is an implied warranty of fitness for use,
    unless specifically excluded.

    Used car dealers used to pack a faulty gear train with hamburger meat to
    muffle the clanking of missing teeth. They also turned back the
    odometer. Either is clearly fraud, despite any exclusion to the
    contrary,unless the exclusion specifies the defect..

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 5, 2011
    #59
  20. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/5/2011 3:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:42:21 -0400, Robert Coe<> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN<>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >> :> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> :>
    >> :>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >> :>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >> :>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >> :>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >> :>
    >> :>
    >> :> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >> :> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >> :> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >> :> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >> :> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >> :> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >> :>
    >> :> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >> :> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >> :> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >> :> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >> :>
    >> :> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >> :> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >> :> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >> :> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >> :> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >> :> way unhappy.
    >>
    >> Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
    >> might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
    >> you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
    >> functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
    >> lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
    >> camera).
    >>
    >> :> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >> :> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >> :> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >> :> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >> :>
    >> :
    >> : Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>
    >> To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
    >> camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
    >> place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
    >> in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
    >> camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
    >> it or not.
    >>

    > Bruce is in the UK, but that sale here would be "as is" and the
    > customer would have no recourse no matter where the sale was made or
    > who sold it as long as no warranty or fraud was involved. Fraud
    > requires deliberate misrepresentation.


    Not so in NY. this is not a sale under the UCC as between merchants. It
    is between a merchant and a non-merchant.

    Also, see UCC s-315, et. seq.


    >
    > Further, all the buyer can expect if a civil action is brought is to
    > be "made whole". Punitive damages don't apply. By "made whole", the
    > seller would have to refund the purchase price and take back the item.
    > It's pretty difficult to overcome the "as is" aspect of used
    > merchandise sales, though.


    True, but see above.

    >
    > Any seller can instigate their own rules and offer refunds, exchanges,
    > or warranties, but they don't have to. Keh, for example, offers a 6
    > month warranty on some cameras but sells some cameras "as is".
    >
    > Also, a venue like eBay can add requirements like payment dispute if
    > PayPal is use.
    >
    > Buy a used camera from a private party, though, and you're SOL if the
    > camera is a problem.
    >
    >
    >
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 5, 2011
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andy Munnis

    Guidance on a buying a new digital camera

    Andy Munnis, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    828
    Michael Geary
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    790
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  3. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    455
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  4. alex

    Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible?

    alex, Jun 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,039
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    439
Loading...

Share This Page