A consignment deal gone bad

[robobass13]

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.

He agreed to 80% of the selling price, the webguy lied and said that a buyer came in the shop and bought the bass and and said I will send you your 80%, and then the bass actually sells for $12000. I believe that is the case. you have evidence of the web sale of $12000 and the emails back and forth between you and the webguy, I think you might just have a case here, the fact that the webguy is representing the builder and the fact that the builder should have known and probably did know the value of the instrument tells me that the builder has some a lot of responsibility in this situation, being the employer of the webguy.

 

[Soul Man]

Wow, there are a lot of ways this could go - please keep us up to date, we all may learn something important here.

 

[boristhespider7]

Many states have an "unfair trade practices act" or "deceptive trade and business practices act," or "consumer fraud act" or the like that could be broad enough to cover this situation. They often deal with almost any deceptive business practice. It seems here that the deal contemplated by the parties was that of an outside buyer purchasing in the normal course from the cosignment business. That's what you were lead to believe but not what happened. Deceitful? Fraudulent? Ask yourself this: Did you reasonably rely on his false statements of material fact to your detriment? You may also argue that the cosignment guy had a "fiduciary duty" to you to obtain the highest and best price for your instrument which you were entrusting him to do. He was supposed to be working for you (for a fee), not against you. Instead, he may have used his postion of trust for his own personal gain, thus potentially breaching his fiduciary duties to you. A little research on the web may do it. Those statutes also sometime allow recovery of attorneys' fees.

Disclaimer: This, of course, is not legal advice from me! Just some tips on where to start looking or what to talk to an attorney about!

 

[MrMusashi]

if you ever go to court i will add some funds to the rlbates "sue the freakin bastard" trust fund!

if it was advertised in any way on the manufacturers site id say that makes them a part of it. the webguy clearly used the site to get a bigger crowd and pulled off more money because of it. if that manufacturer has any sense of morale they will rectify it!
i expect nothing less than the high standards eb sets!

MrM

ps: in my job ive had lots of opportunities to make money that way. old confused widows, people with no idea about vintage guitars value and so on.. it would have been so easy to offer them 50$ for that old crappy guitar which actually was a hagstrøm guitar easily worth 2000+
my boss would skin me alive if i ever pulled anything like that, so instead we do the right thing and inform the customer about the value. then we can do business..

 

[bovinehost]

The webguy may think he's acting independently, but he is not. There is no mention of an "independent" used section, plus I believe there is something like:

"Occasionally, we have the opportunity to acquire a pre-owned *** bass. Because of the great demand for our work, we would like to supplement our regular production by offering directly to you these fully restored and reconditioned instruments."

Does webguy have a mouse in his pocket? No. "We" and "our" are first person PLURAL pronouns/possessive pronouns and the implication is that this is supported and endorsed by the company in question. And who restores and reconditions them? Webguy? Hmmmm?

"Each piece will be reconditioned according to its particular needs and restored to 'as new' condition with full warranty."

Again, who is supplying the warranty? Webguy? Nooooooo?

Well, I'm no lawyer, but it appears to me that Mister Webguy misrepresented his intentions based on information that he gained as a result of his employment, subsequently using said information to deny the original owner a fair bit of cashola.

If he had simply said to you, "That's a nice piece, I'll buy it myself", then there would be nothing to talk about it.

But that's not what he did.

I don't know about legalities, but I do know that someone needs an ass-kickin'.

If the name of the company in question and the activities of said webguy ended up on Talkbass, that would be bad.

I might call one of the owners and explain that they're already in a lose-lose situation in terms of public perception. Maybe they'll see that it's better to put the arm-twist on Webguy than to go through a big public ordeal/legal proceeding.

Just my two cents, prolly worth half that.

Jack

 

[silverburst]

A half-baked analogy, maybe:

What if someone called Fender or Gibson customer service to ask the value of his 50's guitar, only to have the person tell him it is worth $500. And then offer to buy it for that price. I imagine the company would be in a pretty tight spot.

Sort of a Brent thing, I guess.

 

[RobertB]

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.

Great info, thanks.

 

[RobertB]

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?

That's exactly my feeling, and I told them that on the phone ... that this guy's messing with THEIR very hard earned reputation. I've thought about the talkbass thing, but, I still respect the owners and want to avoid that if possible. It wouldn't leave a good taste in my mouth. Sure, we're not seeing eye to eye on this right now, but I don't want to do unnecessary harm to their imagine/reputation.

 

[MrMusashi]

i had a look at the site and that bass was a nice piece of equipment!
i think id rate this as if someone at eb found out that this was the second guitar made for evh and then paid the customer as if it was an axis. but then again thats just my 2 cents.. i just hate that kind of dishonesty!!
if you ever sue ill glady contribute to ya so you can get the best lawyer possible!! if you win, keep the money, give it to charity, do the right thing and if you loose we did what we could for the good side

MrM

 

[Beth]

Not sure about legal recourse, but I know that this type of conduct at EB/MM, whether or not the "web guy" was an independent contractor for our company, would likely get me fired. I wouldn't think of doing it, and the fact that the company appears to be turning the other cheek to it is bad.

 

[Beth]

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?

He didn't agree to $6300, when he talked to the owner on the phone, the owner said that they would take 20% commission. The guy said "I think I can get you $6300 for it", he didn't mention whether that was the full sale price or what was remaining after taking the 20% commission. If he got $6300 off of it, then he supposedly "sold" it (to his own self, not the company) for $7875, which doesn't make sense because why would he charge himself $875.00 more for it than the original quote of $7K?

OK, fair. But if he then used company resources to advertise and then make a profit off of the sale without dispersing the appropriate commissions to the company, he's a bad web guy! Bad bad!

 

[muggsy]

The webguy may think he's acting independently, but he is not. There is no mention of an "independent" used section, plus I believe there is something like:

"Occasionally, we have the opportunity to acquire a pre-owned *** bass. Because of the great demand for our work, we would like to supplement our regular production by offering directly to you these fully restored and reconditioned instruments."

Does webguy have a mouse in his pocket? No. "We" and "our" are first person PLURAL pronouns/possessive pronouns and the implication is that this is supported and endorsed by the company in question. And who restores and reconditions them? Webguy? Hmmmm?

"Each piece will be reconditioned according to its particular needs and restored to 'as new' condition with full warranty."

Again, who is supplying the warranty? Webguy? Nooooooo?

Well, I'm no lawyer, but it appears to me that Mister Webguy misrepresented his intentions based on information that he gained as a result of his employment, subsequently using said information to deny the original owner a fair bit of cashola.

If he had simply said to you, "That's a nice piece, I'll buy it myself", then there would be nothing to talk about it.

But that's not what he did.

I don't know about legalities, but I do know that someone needs an ass-kickin'.

If the name of the company in question and the activities of said webguy ended up on Talkbass, that would be bad.

I might call one of the owners and explain that they're already in a lose-lose situation in terms of public perception. Maybe they'll see that it's better to put the arm-twist on Webguy than to go through a big public ordeal/legal proceeding.

Just my two cents, prolly worth half that.

Jack

As usual, very well said. Now that I've had a chance to review the site in question, and fill in the blanks, I think your legal position is stronger than I did before. I'd still recommend trying to work out something amicably through the owners, because litigation is expensive, time-consuming and inevitably unsatisfactory for most everyone except the lawyers.

 

[mynan]

he's a bad web guy! Bad bad!

Beth, you are so beautiful when you are angry...

 

[RobertB]

MrM, thanks alot, but that shouldn't be necessary. Based on the amounts involved (the amount I'd be suing for, specifically), this does fall into small claims court jurisdiction, and from what I understand so far, lawyers are not needed in small claims. I guess that's not to say that one might not be very helpful, but then again, I feel it's a very straight-forward case, in terms of presenting the actual who/what/when/where, etc...

There are alot of great replies to this, and I appreciate it. I started to reply to individual comments, but I decided to consolidate them in a single reply instead.

Oli, the owners say they got exactly squat (zero) from web-guy for this transaction.

Jack, as always, you crack me up, but with comments to also be taken seriously. Your points make sense, and I couldn't agree more with

"I don't know about legalities, but I do know that someone needs an ass-kickin'."

What that implies about the situation SHOULD be enough in terms of legalities as well, in my opinion ... I know that's idealistic & maybe naive, but I feel that way.

BP, I know what you mean about the weirdness of such a delta in pereived value between 2 basses with sequential SN's. It's an interesting phenomenon, but the logical or illogical basis of the fact that it sold for that is not what's at question here. I see that as more a bi-line for discussion. By the way, your last sentence got cut off .. "I think it's whacky that a bass". I'd be curious to know the rest of that thought if you'd care to re-post it.

Edit: just saw your replies, Beth. Right on, that's a subtle yet key point. I agreed to that amount under false/deceptive pretenses.

And while, sure, it could be said that anyone seeking legal advice from web buddies needs his own head examined, this HAS harvested some really good info and perspectives. I wasn't looking for verbage to arm myself with for "litigation". I was more so sitting on the fence leaning toward filing, curious to know if the consensus of public opinion (atleast here) would be to push me on over. I think I have my answer, so thanks all.

Debate & deliberation be damned; we'll let a judge decide.

Thanks again.

 

[www.lamusic.ca]

I agree with your displeasure. I think what transpired was underhanded, and you have every right to take whatever necessary steps you need to, to either get your money - or your instrument back. Don't let this happen!

 

[jaylegroove]

Well, we're here on the EBMM board, which is very popular but... essentially EBMM-related.

My suggestion is that you open a thread on TB, the same way you did it here. Not mentioning the brand involved, just letting people search by themselves. I'm pretty sure this can start enough word-of-mouth for the company owner to finally set up a solution. This could be faster and maybe more efficient than a trial.

Just IMO, as usual.

 

[mynan]

My suggestion is that you open a thread on TB, the same way you did it here. Not mentioning the brand involved, just letting people search by themselves. I'm pretty sure this can start enough word-of-mouth for the company owner to finally set up a solution.

That or "thread closed" before it gets to 2 pages...

 

[strummer]

I might call one of the owners and explain that they're already in a lose-lose situation in terms of public perception. Maybe they'll see that it's better to put the arm-twist on Webguy than to go through a big public ordeal/legal proceeding.

Just my two cents, prolly worth half that.

Jack

I'm with jack.
Their basses are sold mainly on reputation, and I am sure that their behaviour in this affair would seriously damage their rep.

 

[bovinehost]

And you know what?

Name names.

If they've looked into it and feel their behaviour is perfectly okay, they should go ahead and be proud.

 

[RobertB]

I'm with jack.
Their basses are sold mainly on reputation, and I am sure that their behaviour in this affair would seriously damage their rep.

I've tried that, both on the phone and in email. The responses were "I can't do anything for you", and no reply, respectively.

That was very disappointing, considering the respect with which I've still tried to deal with them about this. I have felt that I've gone about it with more concern for their reputation than they seem to have.

I know that's obviously not the case, though. Either they're genuinely (though mistakenly, I think) convinced that they are not at fault or risk since, as they say, no company money was involved & they didn't receive any money from the deal ... or they just don't think I'll follow through & go to the mattresses over this.

Like I said, I've let it lie for months at a time, mulling it over, between the demands daily life places on your attention. But that doesn't mean I'm inclined to just let it slide.