On Sun, 9 May 2004 20:15:37 -0400, "Pat"
shouted from the rooftop:


I once had a partner who was a lawyer... Many times he told me... "the
courts expect you to mitigate your losses"... If you go to small claims
court, I would expect the Judge to tell you... "Mr Harold, your claim should
be for $50, the amount of the freight.... you should have taken the refund,
minimized your loss to $50 and if you felt it necessary, file the claim for
that amount"....
Pat Landy


Pat, you just joined the Harold Hates You For Being Logical Club.

Expect to be sued shortly.

-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

In article , Pat says...

I once had a partner who was a lawyer... Many times he told me... "the
courts expect you to mitigate your losses"... If you go to small claims
court, I would expect the Judge to tell you... "Mr Harold, your claim should
be for $50, the amount of the freight.... you should have taken the refund,
minimized your loss to $50 and if you felt it necessary, file the claim for
that amount"....

But then again Mr. Harold could reply to the judge:

"Your honor, the seller substantially mis-represented the item.
It was as though he told me it was a horse, and he sent me
a cow. I would like to be made whole again - as if the transaction
had *never* *happened* at all. Because the contract that was
agreed upon (I pay for a horse, and he sent me a cow) was null
and void.

Part making Mr. Harold whole again means he gets the purchase
price back, and gives the goods to the seller, in *exactly*
the same condition they were sent. If the transaction had
never happened, Mr. Harold would not have spent any money
on shipping items back and forth. If I were the judge, I
would therefore reward him a complete refund, including his
original shipping costs, and require the seller to pay for
*all* the shipping - both ways.

That effectively "undoes" the deal from the purchasers
standpoint.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 May 2004 20:15:37 -0400, "Pat"
shouted from the rooftop:


I once had a partner who was a lawyer... Many times he told me... "the
courts expect you to mitigate your losses"... If you go to small claims
court, I would expect the Judge to tell you... "Mr Harold, your claim
should
be for $50, the amount of the freight.... you should have taken the
refund,
minimized your loss to $50 and if you felt it necessary, file the claim
for
that amount"....
Pat Landy


Pat, you just joined the Harold Hates You For Being Logical Club.

Wrong again, carl. No wonder so many have plonked you.

Expect to be sued shortly.

Actually, what Pat has to say is correct, and we may very well have done
that. Hard to say, we lost the opportunity immediately because the seller
had no intentions of taking the vase back. He seized the first opportunity
to withdraw the offer. NO decent business person would have done that.
The short cut you're taking through the facts is that the option to return
the vase in question was withdrawn the moment we didn't agree that the
reason for the return was not a flaw inherent with the manufacture of the
vase. In other words, they lied, then when we didn't agree with the basis
for their lie, we were not entitled to a return. Any return, at any time,
for any amount. You're a real boor, carl. Your opinions are worth
what we've paid for them.. Lets say that I won't be reading any more of
your worthless childish comments in the future. You be sure to have a good
day. I know I will.

Harold


-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Pat says...

I once had a partner who was a lawyer... Many times he told me... "the
courts expect you to mitigate your losses"... If you go to small claims
court, I would expect the Judge to tell you... "Mr Harold, your claim
should
be for $50, the amount of the freight.... you should have taken the
refund,
minimized your loss to $50 and if you felt it necessary, file the claim
for
that amount"....

But then again Mr. Harold could reply to the judge:

"Your honor, the seller substantially mis-represented the item.
It was as though he told me it was a horse, and he sent me
a cow. I would like to be made whole again - as if the transaction
had *never* *happened* at all. Because the contract that was
agreed upon (I pay for a horse, and he sent me a cow) was null
and void.

Part making Mr. Harold whole again means he gets the purchase
price back, and gives the goods to the seller, in *exactly*
the same condition they were sent. If the transaction had
never happened, Mr. Harold would not have spent any money
on shipping items back and forth. If I were the judge, I
would therefore reward him a complete refund, including his
original shipping costs, and require the seller to pay for
*all* the shipping - both ways.

That effectively "undoes" the deal from the purchasers
standpoint.

Jim

That's all we ever asked for, right from the beginning. We may never see
proper resolution to this matter, but I thank you for understanding that
which we have tried, apparently in vain, to have others see. We'd have had
no contest, nor desire to return it, if the item was as represented. It
is, in collecting terms, a beautiful piece. It just isn't worth the price
they extracted by being dishonest and not disclosing the repaired condition.

Thanks, Jim.

Harold

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Pat says...

I once had a partner who was a lawyer... Many times he told me... "the
courts expect you to mitigate your losses"... If you go to small claims
court, I would expect the Judge to tell you... "Mr Harold, your claim
should
be for $50, the amount of the freight.... you should have taken the
refund,
minimized your loss to $50 and if you felt it necessary, file the claim
for
that amount"....

But then again Mr. Harold could reply to the judge:

"Your honor, the seller substantially mis-represented the item.
It was as though he told me it was a horse, and he sent me
a cow. I would like to be made whole again - as if the transaction
had *never* *happened* at all. Because the contract that was
agreed upon (I pay for a horse, and he sent me a cow) was null
and void.

Part making Mr. Harold whole again means he gets the purchase
price back, and gives the goods to the seller, in *exactly*
the same condition they were sent. If the transaction had
never happened, Mr. Harold would not have spent any money
on shipping items back and forth. If I were the judge, I
would therefore reward him a complete refund, including his
original shipping costs, and require the seller to pay for
*all* the shipping - both ways.

That effectively "undoes" the deal from the purchasers
standpoint.

Jim

Yup,
Back in the 80's I worked as a Harley - Davidson mechanic at my brothers
motorcycle shop. Every 3 months or so he would accumulate enough bad debt
that he would take everyone that had failed to pay their bill to small
claims court.
Being the owner and the mechanic, we were the "star" witnesses (the only
witnesses), and I was constantly amazed at the common sense and the high
level of perception (or B.S. detectorability) displayed by the small claims
court judges after hearing only a very few minutes of opposing testimony.
We never lost one, and it was always a "he said vs. she said" situation,
only we usually had an invoice with appropriate notation hand written by one
of us about the condition of the motorcycle, signed by the owner.
It significantly bolstered my confidence in the American system of justice.
I hope Mr. Harold gets to stand on the court house steps and say, as we
often did, "Naa Naa Naa NaNa, you lost!"
We used to take the proceeds and make a trip to the best steak house within
several hundred miles, North Star, in Topeka, Kansas, and enjoy a very very
fine meal!

JTMcC.




==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"JTMcC" wrote in message
...
snip---

Yup,
Back in the 80's I worked as a Harley - Davidson mechanic at my brothers
motorcycle shop. Every 3 months or so he would accumulate enough bad debt
that he would take everyone that had failed to pay their bill to small
claims court.
Being the owner and the mechanic, we were the "star" witnesses (the only
witnesses), and I was constantly amazed at the common sense and the high
level of perception (or B.S. detectorability) displayed by the small
claims
court judges after hearing only a very few minutes of opposing testimony.
We never lost one, and it was always a "he said vs. she said" situation,
only we usually had an invoice with appropriate notation hand written by
one
of us about the condition of the motorcycle, signed by the owner.
It significantly bolstered my confidence in the American system of
justice.
I hope Mr. Harold gets to stand on the court house steps and say, as we
often did, "Naa Naa Naa NaNa, you lost!"
We used to take the proceeds and make a trip to the best steak house
within
several hundred miles, North Star, in Topeka, Kansas, and enjoy a very
very
fine meal!

JTMcC.

Thanks, JTMcC.

Susan and I both appreciate your understanding. Nothing would please me
more than to have a judge hear this thing, especially the part where the
seller felt he had no responsibility to disclose the repair, which, for all
practical purposes, destroyed the value of the vase. Could be a step
standing proposition. ;-)

Harold

"AZOTIC" wrote in message
...

You might consider placing liens on any real property
( house, car, bussines, Etc. ) it will cost you little or
nothing to file and he will have to settle with you when
he wants to sell any major asset or hire a lawer to
vacate the lien which will cost him money either way.
In addition liens can show up on credit reports and
be a big problem for him if he ever needs credit.

Best Regards
Tom.

Thanks, Tom.

Yeah, we have that in mind, but I don't think that is possible without a
judgment. We're going to file fraud charges through the post office
this week, so we're certainly working that direction. If we can get a
ruling from the post office, it might make it easy to get a civil
conviction. That's sort of the plan, but so many seem to think we're nuts.
What the hell has become of honesty and decency in our world?

Harold

Carl Byrns writes:

"Where-is, as-is" applies to the more typical casual sale- not unlike
a garage sale

Under what law? "As is" applies when it applies, casual or not. Lots of
credit card sales are made casually.

Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

We're going to file fraud charges through the post office
this week, so we're certainly working that direction.

You should also call 911 and report them. This is called "being a crank":
making a criminal complaint out of a civil dispute (and a silly one at
that). The criminal authorities don't like cranks.

Better yet, file your complaint right now! He

https://www.usps.com/postalinspector...dComplaint.htm

However, you may have a problem, in that they say:

[Dear cranks,] "the Inspection Service cannot resolve routine business
disputes between companies and their customers"

Read this: http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub300a.pdf so you understand
what mail fraud looks like. None of it has the slightest resemblance to
your case.

What the hell has become of honesty and decency in our world?

Harold

Unfortunatley moral values are rapidly being replaced with
monitary values based on a system of winners and losers
without regard to future consiquenses.


Tom.

On Sun, 09 May 2004 00:28:33 -0500, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Same reason they never make you pay the first $50
if your card gets stolen, and why they don't allow merchants to add fees
for using a credit card.

But *many* merchants will give you a discount if you pay cash. In effect,
they've simply raised their posted prices to include the cost of credit card
processing, and then discount the posted price if you don't use a credit
card to pay. I always ask for a 3 to 4% discount for paying cash. I usually
get it.

Gary

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

We're going to file fraud charges through the post office
this week, so we're certainly working that direction.

You should also call 911 and report them. This is called "being a crank":
making a criminal complaint out of a civil dispute (and a silly one at
that). The criminal authorities don't like cranks.

Better yet, file your complaint right now! He

https://www.usps.com/postalinspector...dComplaint.htm

However, you may have a problem, in that they say:

[Dear cranks,] "the Inspection Service cannot resolve routine business
disputes between companies and their customers"

Read this: http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub300a.pdf so you
understand
what mail fraud looks like. None of it has the slightest resemblance to
your case.

Be sure you read through what constitutes fraud at the link you provided.
Not receiving that which was advertised is top of the list, so to speak.
Don't kid yourself into believing they don't care. The only thing that they
caution is that they may not react to a single complaint. Others have had
outstanding results. In no way do they consider such things as crank
complaints. Can't imagine where you got your information. Got mine off
the site.

Harold

"AZOTIC" wrote in message
...
What the hell has become of honesty and decency in our world?

Harold

Unfortunatley moral values are rapidly being replaced with
monitary values based on a system of winners and losers
without regard to future consiquenses.


Tom.

Sigh. Very heavy sigh.

Yep, I'm afraid Susan and I must fully agree.

Harold

My completely unqualified 2c worth - that is a noticeable defect, and
definitely should have been mentioned in the description. Get the
small claims court onto them, although in my experience, some of the
judgements can be screwy.
I had a similar case with a car painter many years ago. Bowling up
with the court summons got their attention quickly, however, it
doesn't always work. My ex-boss was rippred off by some painter ($12k
worth) and got screwed by the courts in a cut-and dried case.
Geoff

On Sun, 9 May 2004 19:07:50 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:


"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 May 2004 20:15:37 -0400, "Pat"
shouted from the rooftop:


I once had a partner who was a lawyer... Many times he told me... "the
courts expect you to mitigate your losses"... If you go to small claims
court, I would expect the Judge to tell you... "Mr Harold, your claim
should
be for $50, the amount of the freight.... you should have taken the
refund,
minimized your loss to $50 and if you felt it necessary, file the claim
for
that amount"....
Pat Landy


Pat, you just joined the Harold Hates You For Being Logical Club.

Wrong again, carl. No wonder so many have plonked you.

Expect to be sued shortly.

Actually, what Pat has to say is correct, and we may very well have done
that.

Oddly enough, it's also what I said some five days ago:

"Your defense is weak because the seller did offer to refund your
money and you refused.
You screwed up and made a cheap lesson into an expensive one."

I'm repeating myself here, but it's worth it:

Have you even talked to an attorney instead of a NG?
No? Why not?
If you're serious, then get that checkbook out and start spending the
retirement fund. Your first non-refundable check will probably equal
the cost of the glassware.
Have fun and keep us posted on how much of a financial drain this
whole sorry mess is.


-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

In article , JTMcC says...

Back in the 80's I worked as a Harley - Davidson mechanic at my brothers
motorcycle shop. Every 3 months or so he would accumulate enough bad debt
that he would take everyone that had failed to pay their bill to small
claims court.

This only serves to reinforce the idea in my mind that it's
a tough life being a motorcycle dealership owner. Aside from
the thin margins, folks what don't pay their bills can really
put a crimp in your business.

Being the owner and the mechanic, we were the "star" witnesses (the only
witnesses), and I was constantly amazed at the common sense and the high
level of perception (or B.S. detectorability) displayed by the small claims
court judges after hearing only a very few minutes of opposing testimony.
We never lost one, and it was always a "he said vs. she said" situation,
only we usually had an invoice with appropriate notation hand written by one
of us about the condition of the motorcycle, signed by the owner.
It significantly bolstered my confidence in the American system of justice.

Oddly, the few encounters with the criminal justice system in the
US leaves me with pretty much the same impression. It's odd and
creaky but it works very, very well.

I hope Mr. Harold gets to stand on the court house steps and say, as we
often did, "Naa Naa Naa NaNa, you lost!"
We used to take the proceeds and make a trip to the best steak house within
several hundred miles, North Star, in Topeka, Kansas, and enjoy a very very
fine meal!

Now *that*'s an incentive!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Probably coincides with the decline in spelling, grammar, and puctuation.

"AZOTIC" wrote in message
...
What the hell has become of honesty and decency in our world?

Harold

Unfortunatley moral values are rapidly being replaced with
monitary values based on a system of winners and losers
without regard to future consiquenses.


Tom.

Probably coincides with the decline in spelling, grammar, and puctuation.

Naaah you jist aint neva lerned no ebonics n skoole.

Tom.

Gary Coffman writes:

But *many* merchants will give you a discount if you pay cash. In
effect, they've simply raised their posted prices to include the cost
of credit card processing, and then discount the posted price if you
don't use a credit card to pay. I always ask for a 3 to 4% discount
for paying cash. I usually get it.

I'm not aware that any major retailers do this, although it happens at the
flea market.

It doesn't seem quite rational, as if there were no overhead or barriers to
handling cash.

Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

Don't kid yourself into believing they don't care.

The USPS?

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

Don't kid yourself into believing they don't care.

The USPS?

Ok! Gotcha! :-)

Harold

On Sun, 9 May 2004 02:20:20 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
These people expect to have sold something and take it back at
a profit.

Lets see now, they offered you a full refund (minus shipping) until you got
****y with the man's wife. Since shipping is paid to the Post Office, how
exactly would they have been profiting?

Of course *now* that you've gotten into a ****ing match with them, they
want to make you pay for your insolence. But the initial offer of a full
refund wouldn't have yielded any profit for them.

You'd have been out the shipping, same as you'd have been out gas
expense if you'd driven to a physical store front to buy and return an
item. Ever had anyone at a store front offer to pay for your gas and
time? Neither have I. Why should you expect mail order to be any
different?

Gary

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2004 02:20:20 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
These people expect to have sold something and take it back at
a profit.

Lets see now, they offered you a full refund (minus shipping) until you got
****y with the man's wife. Since shipping is paid to the Post Office, how
exactly would they have been profiting?

Of course *now* that you've gotten into a ****ing match with them, they
want to make you pay for your insolence. But the initial offer of a full
refund wouldn't have yielded any profit for them.

You'd have been out the shipping, same as you'd have been out gas
expense if you'd driven to a physical store front to buy and return an
item. Ever had anyone at a store front offer to pay for your gas and
time? Neither have I. Why should you expect mail order to be any
different?

Gary

Give it up, Gary, he spent the money on shipping based
on their description, if it had been accurately described
he wouldn't have spent the money!

Tom

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sun, 9 May 2004 02:20:20 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
wrote:
These people expect to have sold something and take it back at
a profit.

Lets see now, they offered you a full refund (minus shipping) until you
got
****y with the man's wife. Since shipping is paid to the Post Office,
how
exactly would they have been profiting?

They SAID they offered a full refund. You apparently believe them. We
know better. We have all the records. The offer for any kind of refund,
which was NOT a full refund, was on the table only long enough for me to ask
about shipping. Moments later it was gone, as was any chance of a return
as far as the Michael was concerned. Tell me this wasn't fraud, gary.


Of course *now* that you've gotten into a ****ing match with them, they
want to make you pay for your insolence. But the initial offer of a full
refund wouldn't have yielded any profit for them.

But a sure loss for us, yes? They not only expected us to pay the shipping
to us, but back to them. Which one of us lied about the condition of the
vase, gary? Which one of the parties did everything right, and which one
violated their own published terms?


You'd have been out the shipping, same as you'd have been out gas
expense if you'd driven to a physical store front to buy and return an
item. Ever had anyone at a store front offer to pay for your gas and
time?

Damned right I have. I bought a router that a HD had banded closed. Got
home and the wrench was missing. I got a $25 gift certificate from them
because they'd screwed up. But then, they weren't trying to screw me by
misrepresenting their wares, were they?

Neither have I.

???? Makes no sense when I HAVE!


Why should you expect mail order to be any
different?

Because they care about their customers and would treat them as they'd care
to be treated. Don't know what kind of uncivilized society you live within,
but mine is apparently different.

My God, gary, what the hell has happened to your sense of decency? Are you
related to this crook? Maybe his buddy?


Gary

Give it up, Gary, he spent the money on shipping based
on their description, if it had been accurately described
he wouldn't have spent the money!

Tom

Oh, hell, Tom, it's OK. I'm sure gary's brain is just rusty. He was wrong
about natural gas not being lighter than air some time ago, too.

I expect it to be different because they LIED about the piece. Tell me
that if you went to a store of choice and bought a sealed package that was
supposed to contain a specific item that you'd be happy to drive back,
perhaps a couple hundred miles, and return the item with a smile, at your
expense, when it was something unlike that which you had purchased, based on
the description the store provided. Gary, you have your head straight up
your ass. There's simply nothing less than that I can say.

How would they profit by shipping? How about the $10 more than it cost to
ship, and, if you knew the whole story, they also wanted us to discount the
amount they'd return by the settlement that came from eBay for their
indiscretions. Yeah, gary, eBay paid under their fraud insurance. Even they
think we were screwed. We also were to pay for the return of the vase,
insured. They wanted us to take a loss of $200, and them end up with money
and the vase? When they lied? Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

They cause us to travel extensively, paying for a report to substantiate
that the item was, indeed, repaired, still insisting that they had no
obligation to properly describe the piece, and you find fault with us?
Thanks, gary. Maybe some day I might run across you in the desert with a
broken down vehicle. I'll be the first to help, gary, I really will. ;-)

I made mention that there's a very kind hearted attorney on the list that
just lurks, who contacted us on the side. He states clearly that we have
cause of action based on fraud. Prevailing and collecting is another
matter, of that there's no doubt, but the very idea that someone sells a
misrepresented item, especially when they stand to profit unreasonably, like
in this case, has committed a crime. I'm not nuts about criminals, gary,
and I'd like to think that you'd pull your head out of your ass and quit
supporting the position of those that commit crimes. How's that for
insolence?

I think I'll go back to reading the mindless comments from Brain Damage. At
least they're entertaining.

Harold

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Statics" wrote in message
news:uCAmc.12163$iy5.2214@okepread05...

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
.. .
Harold & Susan Vordos writes:

I'm going
to make their life as uncomfortable as I possibly can by asking
people
that frequent eBay to boycott them. I'm going to hit them exactly
when it hurts, when they offer their next lot of live auctions. It
will be impossible for buyers to miss or ignore, and it will cost
less
than $5 to pull off.

Very bad idea. This can do you no possible good, and invites great
harm.
Only very bad judgment, or neurosis, could account for such action.

Bye Richard.

plonk


Thanks, Statics! Need I tell you I'm about to do the same thing? This
guy
has, from all appearances, a total lack of ethics. Or is he on the other
side? Sure makes you wonder.

For the life of me, I can't understand why decent people should turn the
other cheek where matters like this are concerned. All the crooks need is
the slightest of cooperation through no action on the part of the victims
and they continue the course. For us to let this one slide just makes no
sense to us.

One would have to question the motive of anyone that seems to be in
support
of the crooks, and I certainly am suspicious in this case. Decent folks
don't encourage the criminals, they do what they can to stop them, often
at
great expense. Sometimes it even costs more than the dollar value, but
there's more at stake here than money.

If you were near I'd buy you a drink!

Harold



I might get out to Washington someday. A good friend in the service
transferred up there last year and shipped out to Iraq shortly after. He
made it home last week in good health and spirits.

Back when we were dating, my wife got scammed by a company on the east coast
(we are in Omaha NE). She is very intelligent, and lest someone suggest she
had it coming, she didn't. At the time I worked for a business information
research company. I even tracked down his neighbors' phone numbers
(business neighbors: he rented an office in a business plaza).
Unfortunately there really wasn't much I could do, as he had done nothing
documentably 'illegal'. So I can empathise with you, though it sounds like
you have a much better case against your art dealer's fraudulent activities.

Best wishes,

StaticsJason

On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:09:24 -0500, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Gary Coffman writes:

But *many* merchants will give you a discount if you pay cash. In
effect, they've simply raised their posted prices to include the cost
of credit card processing, and then discount the posted price if you
don't use a credit card to pay. I always ask for a 3 to 4% discount
for paying cash. I usually get it.

I'm not aware that any major retailers do this, although it happens at the
flea market.

Have you asked? It has worked for me at, to name just a few places,
Circuit City, Lowes, my local Ace Hardware store, even on ocasion at
Sears. Often a manager has to be called over to get it approved, but
many places will do it if you ask.

It doesn't seem quite rational, as if there were no overhead or barriers to
handling cash.

The credit card company skims 4% off the top. By accepting cash, which
they have to do anyway (legal tender for all debts public or private), they
save that 4% while their only extra cost is counting more cash at the end
of the day when they empty the till.

Gary

Gary Coffman writes:

The credit card company skims 4% off the top.

Sez who? I'm a little guy and only pay 2.47 pct. Big guys must pay
something like 1.xx. Not insignificant, but less than any other arbitrage
fees (ever changed money in a foreign country?).

By accepting cash, which
they have to do anyway (legal tender for all debts public or private),

No, they don't.

they save that 4% while their only extra cost is counting more cash at
the end of the day when they empty the till.

Handling cash involves quite an overhead. Look at all those pneumatic
tubes at Home Depot, and the armored counting room hidden in the back.
Cash registers, cash drawers, cashiers counting, cashiers trading rolls of
quarters, cash getting stolen (mostly by employees). It is easy to think
that cash is cheap to handle, because businesses have to hide much of the
handling of it..