jaylegroove
Well-known member
Hope thing will work out for you, Robert ! Anyway, keep us updated !
PS. oh, and... you have PM
PS. oh, and... you have PM
- Thread starter RobertB
- Start date
- Status
jaylegroove
Well-known member
Just a few more tips (I'll develop later, this evening when I come back from rehearsal) :
1. The brand luthiers approve the consigned instruments. How could they NOT know that was a "historic" one ? So why did they "expertize" this bass could sell for "only" $6,300 ? How could they NOT know it was about to sell close to twice that price ?
2. The certified pre-owned offer is on THEIR website. Not sure about US laws, but in EU they ARE responsible for anything that displays on their website.
I'd suggest you pursue BOTH the company and the webguy. And probably MAINLY the company.
Later this evening.
Cheers and best luck again.
1. The brand luthiers approve the consigned instruments. How could they NOT know that was a "historic" one ? So why did they "expertize" this bass could sell for "only" $6,300 ? How could they NOT know it was about to sell close to twice that price ?
2. The certified pre-owned offer is on THEIR website. Not sure about US laws, but in EU they ARE responsible for anything that displays on their website.
I'd suggest you pursue BOTH the company and the webguy. And probably MAINLY the company.
Later this evening.
Cheers and best luck again.
Last edited:
r goldsmith
Well-known member
As a lawyer myself, I can tell you these things get complex, and the result very much depends on the laws that apply in your jurisdiction. With respect, getting advice from internet buddies won't necessarily take you very far. That said, if this had happened where I am, and I stress I'm not offering advice here, I'd think you'd have some recourse against the company you dealt with for various common law and statutory actions. Here, there's a thing called "misleading and deceptive conduct", not to mention other things that spring to mind like common law misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. Of course how much of that sticks depends on your local laws and the probity of evidence. It makes it harder when there is a lot of verbal stuff, not written agreements and the like. Only you can make the final call, but bear in mind if you do take action, even in a small claims context, it might cost you. You will probably be required to adduce evidence that might be subject to cross-examination, and it might get nasty, and people lie. Then again, they might buckle and settle the matter if they know you mean business. I've said enough.
Aussie Mark
Well-known member
I know exactly what you mean, Robert. Our two kids are under 2 y/o, so my lady is in the same boat - works her butt off 24/7, and I really appreciate it too. And don't mind my lechery, I'm just an old perv - Jack can tell you how many times I've asked for more pics of his wife
And, for the record, even though (or maybe because) he's a lawyer, rgoldsmith is an old perv too
r goldsmith
Well-known member
Old Perv
Guilty, as charged, your honour.
Guilty, as charged, your honour.
silverburst
Well-known member
I do not know if what he did was legal or not.
But, the owners of the company need to take a look at their consignment program, because one of their employees is conducting business under their auspices with no benefit to them, and doing shady things that are making them look bad.
It would be a shame if you made this public on talkbass, wouldn't it?
But, the owners of the company need to take a look at their consignment program, because one of their employees is conducting business under their auspices with no benefit to them, and doing shady things that are making them look bad.
It would be a shame if you made this public on talkbass, wouldn't it?
muggsy
Well-known member
What the employee did is certainly unethical, but I'm not sure it was illegal. That said, +1 on Silverburst's comment above. Raising your claim in the court of public opinion might lead to a quicker (and better) resolution than taking it to the other kind of court. As long as any public statements you make stick to the facts and the truth, as I assume you've done here, you protect yourself from legal action and may spur the builders to put some pressure on their employee to resolve this. It's a lousy situation, but it sounds like you're handling it appropriately. Good luck.
I agree that it sounds more like a moral infraction than a legal one. (I'm not a lawyer...) That doesn't mean, however, that you can't go after the owners in the court of public opinion and get them to settle the score with you. What the consignment guy did was sleazy at best and reflects poorly on their name.
On a side note I had a friend who ordered a bass from them many years ago and was treated very poorly. They stalled and stalled production (but were more than happy to take his money) and lied about due dates, etc. (My friend is blind and gave them his last few $ for the bass of his dreams...)
If that experience tells me anything it's that they're not going to care much, but I would still go after them.
Good luck!!
On a side note I had a friend who ordered a bass from them many years ago and was treated very poorly. They stalled and stalled production (but were more than happy to take his money) and lied about due dates, etc. (My friend is blind and gave them his last few $ for the bass of his dreams...)
If that experience tells me anything it's that they're not going to care much, but I would still go after them.
Good luck!!
Big Poppa
Well-known member
I would not allow one of my employees to personally benefit from the infrastructure that I paid for personally. If an employee wanted to buy something posted on the for sale thread here I have no objections.
YOu were happy with the $6,300.00. You expected the manufacturer to disclose the collectibility that you weren't aware of..Im not sure that is a party foul.
I am amazed that a sequential serial number is of increased value from a company that makes so few instruments.....
I really find it whacky that a bass
YOu were happy with the $6,300.00. You expected the manufacturer to disclose the collectibility that you weren't aware of..Im not sure that is a party foul.
I am amazed that a sequential serial number is of increased value from a company that makes so few instruments.....
I really find it whacky that a bass
Slater
Well-known member
If webguy said a potential buyer wanted to come in and try the bass, then that was a lie if he purchased the bass himself. Also, this consignment deal was chosen because of the reputation of the builder and the exposure of that builder's website. webguy denied the advantage of those attributes and prevented the owner of the bass from getting full potential of the sale. IMO, this deal was similar to stockmarket insider trading.
FWIW, if I owned this business and found out what webguy had pulled (technically legal or not), webguy would be gone!...
FWIW, if I owned this business and found out what webguy had pulled (technically legal or not), webguy would be gone!...
Multiversal
Well-known member
Dude, take him to court.
Even if it is a case of morality, who's to say stuff like that hasn't been fought over in court? I think you have a case, my friend.
I could talk to the lawyers in my family for more info if you'd like.
Even if it is a case of morality, who's to say stuff like that hasn't been fought over in court? I think you have a case, my friend.
I could talk to the lawyers in my family for more info if you'd like.
FWIW,
I'm a non-practicing attorney (i.e. - passed the bar but don't practice). Here's my 2 cents from what I remember from law school.
I think you yourself used the word 'agency'. An employer is responsible for the acts of his employee if that employee acts w/in the scope of his employment. Their consignment business falls w/in that scope. I think you have a strong basis for a claim, both against the company and the individual employee. If they get tagged w/ a lawsuit (even small claims), you can bet your ass that employee's future w/ the company will be limited.
Whether you win or lose, I can't predict. Small claims is wierd like that, but judges definitely tend to side w/ the 'moral' party if the legal aspect is unclear. If it's worth your time, I'd look up online your state statutes about the issues, and take them both to small claims court. Even better, if they are out of state, you can sue them in your jurisdiction and compel them to travel for the court date, b/c they actively did business in your state via the website. It's called the 'long-arm statute'.
Good luck.
*btw - what was the basis of the $6300? That would only be a 10% fee if he sold it for $7k...
I'm a non-practicing attorney (i.e. - passed the bar but don't practice). Here's my 2 cents from what I remember from law school.
I think you yourself used the word 'agency'. An employer is responsible for the acts of his employee if that employee acts w/in the scope of his employment. Their consignment business falls w/in that scope. I think you have a strong basis for a claim, both against the company and the individual employee. If they get tagged w/ a lawsuit (even small claims), you can bet your ass that employee's future w/ the company will be limited.
Whether you win or lose, I can't predict. Small claims is wierd like that, but judges definitely tend to side w/ the 'moral' party if the legal aspect is unclear. If it's worth your time, I'd look up online your state statutes about the issues, and take them both to small claims court. Even better, if they are out of state, you can sue them in your jurisdiction and compel them to travel for the court date, b/c they actively did business in your state via the website. It's called the 'long-arm statute'.
Good luck.
*btw - what was the basis of the $6300? That would only be a 10% fee if he sold it for $7k...
Last edited:
oli@bass
Well-known member
How much did the web-guy pay the company owners?
1.) 1575 USD (your consignment deal)
2.) 2400 USD (his consignment deal)
3.) 3975 USD (both consigment deals)
4.) 0 USD
Given 1.) and 2.) the web guy betrayed the company owner for whom he works, they should be interested in correcting this.
Given 3.) the company owers are involed, and you were betrayed by the company.
Given 4.) the whole consigment contract stuff is a fraud.
IMO
1.) 1575 USD (your consignment deal)
2.) 2400 USD (his consignment deal)
3.) 3975 USD (both consigment deals)
4.) 0 USD
Given 1.) and 2.) the web guy betrayed the company owner for whom he works, they should be interested in correcting this.
Given 3.) the company owers are involed, and you were betrayed by the company.
Given 4.) the whole consigment contract stuff is a fraud.
IMO
Last edited:
SteveB
Well-known member
I'm no expert but here's my two cents:
1) You agreed to $6300. That's probably closes the case right there.
2) the amounts in question here might be too large for small claims court.. you'd have to check your local laws.
1) You agreed to $6300. That's probably closes the case right there.
2) the amounts in question here might be too large for small claims court.. you'd have to check your local laws.
Smakbass
Well-known member
I think legally you are hooped, but you may wish to write a letter to the manufacturer and state your displeasure.
I cant believe someone would pay that much more for a bass with sequential numbers and the same woods blah blah of some high end player....like that matters.
I cant believe someone would pay that much more for a bass with sequential numbers and the same woods blah blah of some high end player....like that matters.
jlepre
Well-known member
Lesson Learned
I would just move on and chock this one up to experience. Do I think that the Web guy did something underhanded? Not exactly, but he used his position within the company to get information that allowed him to make a wise investment, that he turned around for a nice profit for himself.
My only real problem with the situation is was the $6300 you were paid minus the 20% consignment fee? I think that I read in an earlier post that this was not the case, but if it was I would want that 20% fee paid to me in full.
Just my 2 cents...
I would just move on and chock this one up to experience. Do I think that the Web guy did something underhanded? Not exactly, but he used his position within the company to get information that allowed him to make a wise investment, that he turned around for a nice profit for himself.
My only real problem with the situation is was the $6300 you were paid minus the 20% consignment fee? I think that I read in an earlier post that this was not the case, but if it was I would want that 20% fee paid to me in full.
Just my 2 cents...
sandman@midlife
Well-known member
Since you agreed to $6300, and were paid, I believe that constitutes a contract. And it was fulfilled. It's not his fault you didn't know about the wood it was made of.
And remember the legal advice you get on the internet is priceless.... or is it worthless?
And remember the legal advice you get on the internet is priceless.... or is it worthless?
oli@bass
Well-known member
The web-guy was using insider information for his advantage. If such a deal happened in a Bank, the employee would immediately be reliefed of duty, and would have to face the consequences in court.
smallequestrian
Well-known member
If the legal stance appears to be that you are screwed, I would kindly inform said owners of your plans to let this hash out in the court of public opinion. Maybe they don't reimburse you, or get the employee too, but at that point it might at least get the jackass fired.
oddjob
Well-known member
I think that this is what needs to be seen. Not that he couldn't "cook" the books but I think that if he did infact pay the 1575 off your deal (in an appropriate time frame) AND you did accept the payment, you don't have a case - but if #1 is missing you should string his @ss up.
- Status
