Well, this is the message received by Mike from Kevin (JDColour). It seems
that's all, and I'm indeed f***ed up.
I just want to say thanks to all members for their time and great support.
It's nice to know there is people like you out there.
My warmest thank to everybody here.
Regards
Albano
PS: I seriously doubt this guy would made other thing if I didn't leaved my
negative feedback.
I did it because he didn't gave me an answer. In fact he still didn't. All
the answers were to other people.
At least people worldwide will be free from doing bussiness with such an
irresponsible "seller".
-----Original Message-----
From: jd colour service [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: July 10, 2001 08:16
To: Michael Bromm
Subject: Re: A. Garcia
Mike,
Thanks for the advise. I appreciate you taking the time to do so much
research regarding this case. Are you a lawyer by chance?
You mentioned that according to the Alberta Sale of Goods Act it is
incumbent on me to provide adequate protection of the item against loss or
damage. The damage aspect was addressed through quality packaging. The
provision for loss was followed to the extent that it is available. The
only means of insuring against loss or theft of such an item all the way to
Argentina would be to send by a bonded courier company. This type of
shipping would not be "reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods
and the other circumstances of the case." The cost would likely approach
that of the item itself in this case. The statement in my sale is that the
shipping shall be done by airmail and international or rush shipping will
be
done at actual cost. I consider Mr. Garcia's failure to request anything
other than air mail to be a tacit agreement that airmail was acceptable to
him.
As far as it goes I was trying to find out more from the post office right
up to the time that I went on vacation. Over my vacation I checked my
feedback profile on Ebay and found that Mr. Garcia had run out of patience.
I have considered it and I will not be offering Mr. Garcia any refund of
money. Had he contacted you before he left this feedback I might have
considered meeting him half way. This is all very unfortunate and has
resulted in my sales no longer being world wide.
Thank-you for your clarification. I trust that you will contact Mr. Garcia
to explain my position.
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Bromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:39 AM
Subject: A. Garcia
> Dear Kevin,
>
> I wonder if you received my previous note gegarding Albano Garcia's
> SuperProgram. If so, would you mind letting me know your position on the
> situation? If not, I have reproduced it below. I sent it about a week
and
> a half ago.
>
> What I'm trying to do is to find out exactly where you stand on the
> situation so that Albano can stop worrying about it. Could you get back
to
> me at your earliets convenience?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Bromm
>
> 88888888888888888888888888888888888888
> Dear Kevin,
>
> The e-mail quoted below was forwarded to me by the person to whom you
sent
> it, since, as a Canadian, I am in a more convenient position to speak
with
> you about the whole situation.
>
> My name is Michael Bromm. I live in Vancouver, and know Albano Garcia
from
> his participation in a Pentax mailing list of which I am member. He has
> asked that I contact you regarding the recent eBay transaction involving
a
> Pentax SuperProgram body, since he is not comfortable with spoken
English,
> and also because the price of phone calls from Argentina would quickly
> outstrip the price of the camera body.
>
> First of all, let me say that I do not believe that there has been any
> dishonest conduct on the part of you or your establishment. I can see by
> your eBay feedback rating that you have an excellent record. I also must
> say that Albano has participated in many exchanges of equipment with
fellow
> list members, and his reputation is equally impeccable. It seems that
what
> has really happened here must be described as an unfortunate failure of
some
> post office or other (perhaps theft in transit, which is not unheard of).
>
> I further wish to add that on the Pentax mailing list, there is a general
> feeling that the non-delivery of the camera body is "just one of those
> things" that happens in a world where transactions are conducted over
great
> distances. No one has suggested dishonesty on your part, instead
adopting
a
> "wait-and-see-what-happens" attitude. There has been no damage to your
> reputation in that forum.
>
> As your email suggests, the most pressing question in the matter is this:
> at whose risk is an item shipped by airmail? He's paid, you've shipped,
> both, I believe, in good faith. He has no camera, again, I believe, in
good
> faith. Who bears the loss in such a situation?
>
> In order to be fair, I looked up the Alberta Sale of Goods Act, a piece
of
> legislation that governs the conduct of parties involved in consumer
> transactions originating in Alberta. The relevant provision in that
statute
> is as follows:
>
> "Delivery to carrier
> 33(1) When in pursuance of a contract of sale the seller is authorized
or
> required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to the
> carrier, whether named by the buyer or not, for the purpose of
transmission
> to the buyer shall prima facie be deemed to be a delivery of the goods to
> the buyer.
>
> (2) Unless otherwise authorized by the buyer, the seller shall make a
> contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer that is reasonable
having
> regard to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case
> and if the seller omits to do so and the goods are lost or damaged in
> course of transit the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the
> carrier as a delivery to himself or may hold the seller responsible in
> damages."
>
> Essentially, section 33(1) says that normally, you as a seller are
> considered to have provided the camera to Mr. Garcia at the moment you
> placed it in the care of the Post Office, having paid the appropriate
> postage. This is a time-honored tradition of contract law. Section
33(2),
> though, says that unless the buyer has expressly given permission
otherwise,
> the seller must ensure that the contract made with the carrier offers
> reasonable protection against loss or destruction in transit. Given that
a
> camera body is a precision instrument (ie. is subject to damage in
transit)
> and is easily resellable (ie. is a target for theft in transit), and
given
> the low cost of insurance for such an item, insuring the camera would be
> reasonable under the circumstances, unless Mr. Garcia had specifically
> instructed you not to do so. If such an uninsured item is lost or
damaged,
> the seller, according to the Sale of Goods Act, bears the loss.
>
> This is the legislative authority that governs the transaction. Mr.
Garcia,
> being in Argentina, is unlikely to be able to force you to abide by it.
As
> a seller of merchandise over the internet, I have only once shipped an
item
> to a buyer and had him claim that he'd not received it. I felt that, in
the
> situation, I had no choice but to replace the goods, since the method by
> which I had shipped the item left me with no way to verify whether the
item
> had been received. I understand that in this case the loss you would
bear
> would not be trivial, should you choose to abide by the Act.
>
> Can we speak further about the situation and see if we can come to an
> amicable resolution to the situation? You can reach me either by email or
by
> phone at (604)351-8132 (during normal business hours).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mike Bromm
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
