#Caveat Emptor
31 messages in this thread
All,
this is just a warning. If you deal with Gary Mockus, do cover
your bets. The following is why I have posted this message.
Gary posted a message here in the Classifieds that he had two (2)
A2386SX boards for sale. I was the the second person, so I received
the second board he had. It was most definitely not an A2386SX, but
an A2286 modified to have a 20 MHz '386SX chip.
At the time, I did note that it wasn't anything similiar to what
was represented to me in the Classifieds, but I thought that it would
at least perform to the minimal standards I had for a BB. Would that
it were so.
The board I received was defective from day one. While I do
acknowledge that it will boot, which was the first test that I applied
to verify that I had a functional board, it will not interface with
the disk drive, at all. I only wish I had the time at receipt to
test that function as well. I did not, so I think I am at fault
here, to a certain extent.
The only reason I am posting this message at all is that after I
had received the board, with questionable documentation, is that Gary
only decided to notify me then that he had never tested the board,
whatsoever. If he had informed me of such before I sent him my
money, I might have been spared this trouble.
BTW, I did do a bit of troubleshooting on the board and as near as
I can tell, it cannot recognize _any_ floppy, no matter what
configuration it is in. If there is a tech out there that would like
to have some fun, just let me know. You can have it cheap, only
shipping. I never want to see it again.
Ah, what the hey, I'll hack around with it. Gimme a cmail?
Robb
(I've been tempted to answer a few classifieds but, was afraid this
might happen. Good we don't here more! Sorry for your 'blem!)
> I've been tempted to answer a few classifieds but, was afraid
this might happen.
What Brian reported was the exception rather than the rule. I, and
many others, have used the Classifieds here on many occasions, with
no problems at all. There might be an occasional problem, but
generally I do recommend the Classifieds here. There are many good
deals out there. I have bought and sold items over 30 times here
without problems. Good luck.
I'd like to add my 2 cents:
A R. Rice posted a message here earlier this year wanting a used A500,
which I happened to be selling. We worked out a deal (I even through
in a few extras), and the guy's checked bounced. He's a loser who had
too many debts, and CServe was no help whatsoever (losers in their
own right). I caught the guy posting a classified in the main
classified section trying to sell my computer (Compuserve basically
could have cared less).
So — my lesson – even sending COD (as this deal was) is no
guarantee.
Aside to Rich Rice: Always be looking over your shoulder…I will be
in Texas in the future, and I will find you.
This won't help your current situation, but if you ship UPS COD
they allow you to select "cash only" as a payment option – meaning
they won't release the package except in exchange for real money.
This is how I ship (unless I know the person) and I've never had a
problem. I get a check from UPS for the cash amount, and they don't
bounce (at least, they haven't yet … 8^) ).
Conrad:
There is an alternative. If you ship via UPS you can specify that the COD
be COD CASH ONLY.
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Conrad,
I'm really sorry to hear of your misfortune with A.R. Rice, but you
can't really blame CS. It's not their domain to interfere. I have found
that it's best to send COD, but CASH ONLY, in order to protect yourself.
This way, the buyer pays cash and UPS sends you a check.
I don't doubt that there are a few bad deals through the Classifieds.
However, for every bad deal, I think there are a large number of deals
that go through fine. While I don't want to minimize what happened to you
and I know it's no consolation, the fact is that the very large majority
of items bought and sold here, come off without a hitch. So while it's
unfortunate what happened to you, and yes "Caveat Emptor" applies, I would
still recommend to people that they use the Classifieds section here,
especially to buy and sell from people they see here all the time. There
are some great deals to be had.
I hope you're able to recover your money. Good luck.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
I agree with Dom,
I have had a good deal of luck buying and selling in this forum
but I am always leary about what I am buying. Respect is a hard
earned commodity, I hope that you don't think that the lot of us
are deadbeats.
The sad truth to your tale is our very POOR justice system here in
the US. We need something in between Saudi Arabias beheadings and
the US's Death Penalty.
Best of luck, I hope the jerk gets what he deserves…..Maybe he will
get hit by a bus, no how about swept away by Venusians and ends up in
a poor miniseries that has Vanna White as a Co-Star (ekkkkkkkk).
Sorry Vanna :-).
Ciao,
Shawn
I find it fascinating that increasingly, people in this country, refuse to
accept personal responsibility.
You had something you wanted to sell. Using this section in AmigaUser
Forum you found a potential buyer. CompuServe in general, or this forum
in particular, is no more responsible for the transaction than your local
newspaper would be if you'd placed your ad there.
Finding a buyer, you are responsible for determining if the buyer is
qualified. You did not do that. You stated you wanted "COD" and the
check bounced? Sorry, C.O.D. means Cash on Delivery — not a personal
check. You can also request certified funds (cashier's check, certified
check, etc.). You were negligent in your responsibly in this transaction,
got burned, and are now attempting to blame the advertising medium for
your negligence.
-sja
Personal Responsibility is long gone. The lawyers took it.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Ben,
yep! Although I still accept responsibility for my end of the bargain.
I should have had serious alarms raised when it wasn't an A2386SX.
Steve- I find it amazing that someone thinks they understand the situation from
reading a single e-mail thread:
The point of my mentioning CompuServe was not to blame them for having the
medium in which I got burned (from my own risk), but rather that when I made
CServe customer service aware that the computer that R. Rice bought from me
with his bad check, and then blatantly posted in the main classified section
trying to resell it, they could basically care less. Obviously I'm aware that
the first part of the deal was my risk, but I thought that CS might be slightly
concerned that their service was being used to "fence" what was (oops) stolen
goods.
You sound like you should be working in Columbus at CServe's customer service.
Conrad,
Attempting to shift the blame from yourself to someone else is, obviously,
denial of personal responsibility. Your assertion that the other party
attempted to sell stolen property is libel.
You have legal remedies to pursue. Knowingly writing a bad check, with no
effort at restitution, is a felony. The responsible approach would be to
pursue this problem via legal channels.
Your caveat emptor is appropriate in that sh*t happens. Libeling someone else
is not appropriate.
Steve,
> Your assertion that the other party attempted to sell stolen property
is libel.
That's not necessarily the case. It's only libel if the statement is
false. Truth is a defense in a defamation action. If a person utters
(slander) or writes (libel) a FALSE statement, AND the statement is HEARD
or PUBLISHED, and the statement DAMAGES THE REPUTATION of a person in the
eyes of those who have heard or read the statement, then the statement is
either slander or libel. All three elements must be present for a
defamation cause of action. (Falsehood, Publication, and Damages).
So if Conrad's statement is true, then his statement is not libelous
even if it damages the buyer's reputation.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
Dom,
Yes, that's the case. Now, are you telling me that you know for a fact that 1)
the original allegation is true, and 2) the system for sale is the same one as
was allegedly stolen? The libel comes into play because there can be no proof
that the allegedly stolen system and the one advertised for sale are the same
(short of comparing serial numbers of the systems).
If I were to make a statement that you were selling a piece of equipment that
was stolen from me — unless I could prove that were the case, I have just made
a libelous statement. Now it would be up to you to prove damages and intent —
but the statement is libelous regardless.
Yes, but the burden of proof falls on the libelled party. I can (for example),
report that I have evidence that you, Steve Ahlstrom, are actually an escaped
Nazi war criminal who personally killed Bambi's mother, which as far as I know
is a lie <g>, but you have to take me to court to get me to stop saying it
and/or to collect damages.
Bob
Bob,
Yes and no. There's a difference between the semantic and legal definitions of
libel. If you were to say that about me (too young for the first and "no
comment" for the second <grin>) it would more than likely be a libelous
statement semantically … My Webster's New World defines libel as "any written
or printed matter tending to injure a person's reputation unjustly".
Legally, I'd have to prove that you not only said it, that it indeed injured my
reputation, but that you did it maliciously — the last point can be tough to
prove.
Robert,
> Yes, but the burden of proof falls on the libelled party.
Normally, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. However, in a
defamation action, the defendant (the alleged defamer) must plead and
prove the truth of his statements as an affirmative defense. That is, the
person being sued for defamation must prove his statements were true. The
person claiming he was defamed doesn't have to prove the statements were
false.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
Steve,
> Now it would be up to you to prove damages and intent — but the
statement is libelous regardless.
Again, that doesn't have to be the case. I agree that right now we have
no way of knowing if the equipment was stolen. Even if we accept the fact,
that the buyer did bounce a check and never paid for the computer, that
doesn't mean that the computer he's now selling is the same one he got
with a bounced check. (There's also the issue of the legal definition of
the term "stolen").
However, I didn't say that the statement was definitely NOT libelous. I
believe I said something like, "That's not necessarily the case [that it
is libelous]." That is, making a disparaging remark about someone is not
libelous, if the statement is true. You're allowed to call people names,
if they're true. 😎
Although he would have to prove the truth of his allegations, the fact
is if there were a lawsuit, the court would most definitely compare the
serial numbers. But issues of proof aside, all I said was that we have no
way of knowing if the statement is libelous. If the buyer is selling the
same computer he got with a bounced check, then the seller is telling the
truth in his message and his message is not libelous. The bottom line is
that the statement could be, but isn't necessarily, libelous.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
Dom-
Thanks for typing in the same thing that my wife (an attorney) has been telling
me. Lots of big words for my un-skilled typing fingers.
In this particular case, the statements I made against R. Rice can be easily
backed-up with printouts and downloads of messages from R. admitting to what he
was doing (not intending to pay me, and selling the same Amiga computer he
"borrowed" from me on CServe's main classified). So libel doesn't seem to apply
(R.Rice is likely lurking here somewhere, but I don't suppose he has the nerve
to add anything).
Dom – what is your personal opinion, by the way, about whether or not
CompuServe's customer service should be even the least bit interested in
following up with R.R. to see if this was a practice he commits frequently or
not? Obviously my point was never to get CS to help me legally or whatever in
my situation, but rather to see if this guy has an "operation" like this and
does the same thing to other CServe members.
Conrad,
I understand your concern in wanting to see if the guy has a sting
operation going and if he does this on a steady basis. However, I can
understand CS not wanting to get involved at this juncture. If, indeed, he
does what you claim on a repeated basis, then I'm sure there will be more
complaints to CS and then they might take the next step. Right now, they
can't act on one isolated complaint.
If you want to pursue the matter and can back it up, then you might
want to contact the Attorney General's office in the state where the buyer
resides. You have the address you shipped the computer to and his banking
information for the bounced check, so you have some information to go on.
Good luck.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
I'd pin a little blame on UPS, too. Their COD tags are non-obvious, and
everyone gets burned once by them. The casual user would think that "COD" means
"cash on delivery" and that the tag's somehow guaranteed. Unless you write
"cash only" in a little unmarked line on the form, the consignee can give the
UPS driver a personal or company check. Of course, there's many ways to stop
payment on many forms of checks, even ones that people think are unstoppable.
And you never know what's in the box until you open it, so as someone pointed
out, it could be full of rocks for all you know. I've heard of software
companies using this "box of rocks" method for collecting cash from
unscrupulous distributors who think they're getting new product when in fact a
software company is using a novel method of collecting on overdue invoices.
🙂
For what it's worth, I've transacted many deals over various BBS's and
networks during the last ten years or so. I haven't been burned. Any such
transaction is based on trust from at least one party. COD cash only
means that the buyer has to trust the seller (he could ship a box of
rocks). Besides COD is a hastle and costs extra money.
99.9+% of these transactions go smoothly. Since they are based on trust
anyway, I'd just assume the parties agree to simultaneous shipment of
check and product. Nobody is protected except by trust and human decency.
For anything less than several hundred dollars, this is usually
adequate.
I may eat some transaction in the future because of some deceit. I'm
willing to accept that risk in return for the benefit of the warm feeling
I get from not having to worry about all humans being crooks.
And no, I'm not interested in cheap property in FL. 🙂
Dale Larson
– An Amiga Software Engineer with less and less time on his hands.
Dom,
correct. I just thought I should point it out. My Retina, also
obtained through the Classifieds, is working very nicely, thank you.
I should have pointed that out as well.
Brian,
Good. I'm glad you've generally had good luck with the Classifieds
here.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
I have had very good luck with the classifieds here. Have those of
you who've had bad luck contacted the seller and asked him/her to
take the product back and give a refund? No one seems to've mentioned
that, but perhaps that would be obvious. I've bought and sold
hardware and software in the classifieds. So far, I guess I've been
lucky. I will say that when I've laid out $500. for something, I've
been plenty nervous about it. One option which might help is for
sellers to ship Fed Ex Secured COD. This way the seller has to provide
a cashiers check or money order which guarantees the funds. The only
recourse the buyer has is to use a personal check for a COD and
stop-payment if the item doesn't work as stated. Clearly these two
options are incompatible in one transaction. It's a tough
situation…no matter what, someone has to trust and that leaves the
possibility for gettin' burned. G. Roland
> …was afraid this might happen.
Well, caution should be had for both sides of any transaction,
buyer and seller.
Unfortunately, a tiny minority cause problems for the
legitimate deals that go on.
I think that I have made about a dozen or so deals through CIS
and FIDO For Sale areas. I have never been burned and I don't
believe anyone has considered themselves to be burned by my.
Testing equipment sales as immediately as possible is good
advice to the buyer, and cash/M.O. payment is advice for the seller.
The biggest worry I ever has was on a SIMM I bought a few
months ago that I knew I couldn't test for a while. The first
indication that my great deal really WAS a great deal was the way the
guy packaged, or should I say 'over-packaged', the SIMM 72. I think
it could have been run over by a bus and not fear a hint of damage.
I have had great experiences with my mail dealings, but a note
of caution should be given for both parties.
Hello this is GARY MOCKUS and I want to get my say in this argument
since I seemed to have started it. The person Brian J Bartlett has
never once contacted me saying that he was not satisfied w/ the board
I have messages from him where he recieved it and was happy. I also
talked to him on the phone when he said that it wasn't a 386 board
but a 286 w an ATOP module. He said this was fine though and he had
to work on the configuration. I told him when he bought it that I
never had hooked it up and I feel his rude comments about me are
undeserving. The other bridgeboard was sent to DANNY R BULL in Calif.
but would not work in his A3000 I gladly took it back he also sent
back an Amax emulator since it was the external and he wanted an
internal (I even paid for the C.O.D. charge and shipping to him) I
ripped his check up and he mailed it back. No problem and we would
still do business together. Well I said my piece and people who have
dealt with me continue too even w/ Brian J bartlett grumbling because
he didn't let me know he is having a problem.
Gary,
I couldn't contact you as the installation ate my harddrive, along with
the entire contents of my AP: directory. As I posted in the original
message, I did state that I was aware that it was an A2286 modified by the
ATOP, as well as the fact that you advertised it as an A2386SX, and I
believe, although I lack the History function anymore due to the lost
messages, I did send a message to you discussing such. I have NEVER had a
phone conversation with you. I don't use the medium except for local
calls.
I never did get a reply as to whether I was correct as to my analysis
of the board. It was only when I discovered that the board could not
successfully address the floppy drive that I became seriously irate. I
trouble shot the board and discovered that the floppy could never work,
period. Almost certainly never had, definitely never will. I'm an
electronic technician with 2M/NASA certification, so I feel comfortable
with that analysis.
As I've stated elsewhere, I feel this is as much my fault as yours. I
did install the board and powered up to determine that it was minimally
functional. Unfortunately, due to a lack of time, I did not get around to
hooking up the floppy until this last weekend.
That you never tested the board or floppy is icing on the cake, as it
were. Fine. I'm accepting the loss, as I feel it was a combination of
faults here, not the fault of any one individual. I thought I made that
clear the first time around, but be that as it may. I did think that the
situation did merit the notice of the other members of the fora here.
There. We've both said our piece.
I verify that I did receive both a Bridgeboard and an AmaX from Gary Mockus and
that he, in good faith, refunded my money when they ( the bridgeboard and Amax)
did not meet my needs.
Dan