rayfoxlee
Raymondo
In December 2009, I bought a mint chrome M7 (with box, warranty card, instructions etc) from a prominent London Leica specialist and paid what appeared to be a pretty ‘full’ price – as expected coming from a London shop. During the pre-sales telephone conversation, I ascertained the camera was 3+ years old – the age was important, given the problems with some of the early cameras. I asked if the camera had the upgraded viewfinder and, after inspecting it, they said that they ‘thought so’. When the camera arrived just before Christmas, it was in very nice condition, but on using it, it became immediately apparent that the shutter fired at about 1/500th, no matter what speed was set. The camera was duly returned to Solms to be overhauled by Leica and had a new optical DX reader fitted at the same time. All well and good and the camera works just fine.
Trawling the web this week (as you do during the dark days of the UK winter), I came across information that put the year of manufacture at 2002 – an early model and not what I expected from a camera that was sold new (I thought) in November 2006. I asked Solms for the date of manufacture – confirmed as 2002. Emailed the shop to ask the history of the camera that had been made in 2002, yet the warranty card showed the buyer’s name and address and the dealers stamp dated November 2006. Two versions of the date are on the card – both in different writing. You are beginning to form a feeling about this yet? Me too!
I asked the dealer what had happened to the camera between 2002 and the ‘first sale’ in 2006 – ‘surely Mr Dealer, it had not sat on your shelf?’ No, I was told, it was second-hand when the man whose name appears in the warranty card bought it. So, not only was the camera older than I was told, but also had a name on the warranty card of the second owner. I called Leica UK and the long and short of it is that the warranty card should only show the name of the first buyer. So, the 2 year warranty described in the card would not have applied to the previous owner to me, as he was the second buyer. Leica UK agreed with me that I should have been able to rely on the information of first owner’s purchase and, thus the date of that first sale.
Charitably (I think!), I suggested that perhaps an inexperienced member of the shop’s staff may have stamped a blank card that may have been with the camera, thus inadvertently giving the impression that the camera was new in 2006. Yes, says the shop, that must have been the problem, but, of course, very difficult to prove.
We have a saying here in the UK – to be ‘stitched up like a kipper’ or was this all misguided error. What do you reckon? And what would you now do??
The problem as I see it is how does one explain this to a subsequent buyer – and if you were that buyer, would you run a mile?
Your thoughts??
Ray
Trawling the web this week (as you do during the dark days of the UK winter), I came across information that put the year of manufacture at 2002 – an early model and not what I expected from a camera that was sold new (I thought) in November 2006. I asked Solms for the date of manufacture – confirmed as 2002. Emailed the shop to ask the history of the camera that had been made in 2002, yet the warranty card showed the buyer’s name and address and the dealers stamp dated November 2006. Two versions of the date are on the card – both in different writing. You are beginning to form a feeling about this yet? Me too!
I asked the dealer what had happened to the camera between 2002 and the ‘first sale’ in 2006 – ‘surely Mr Dealer, it had not sat on your shelf?’ No, I was told, it was second-hand when the man whose name appears in the warranty card bought it. So, not only was the camera older than I was told, but also had a name on the warranty card of the second owner. I called Leica UK and the long and short of it is that the warranty card should only show the name of the first buyer. So, the 2 year warranty described in the card would not have applied to the previous owner to me, as he was the second buyer. Leica UK agreed with me that I should have been able to rely on the information of first owner’s purchase and, thus the date of that first sale.
Charitably (I think!), I suggested that perhaps an inexperienced member of the shop’s staff may have stamped a blank card that may have been with the camera, thus inadvertently giving the impression that the camera was new in 2006. Yes, says the shop, that must have been the problem, but, of course, very difficult to prove.
We have a saying here in the UK – to be ‘stitched up like a kipper’ or was this all misguided error. What do you reckon? And what would you now do??
The problem as I see it is how does one explain this to a subsequent buyer – and if you were that buyer, would you run a mile?
Your thoughts??
Ray
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Well, you were led to believe the camera was newer than it really was, and that it was the camera you wanted, which it was not. So it was sold not really in good faith. If you still feel disappointed, why not ask to return it for a refund?
About all you can tell a buyer is what you told us.
About all you can tell a buyer is what you told us.
David Charlwood
Established
Sorry to hear of your misfortune - which shop sold you this camera?
MartinP
Veteran
I'd suggest finding the manager of the shop concerned and getting him/her to write a short note, on their letterhead, about the circumstances of the sale. That will protect you against any questions by a future purchaser, if you ever want to sell the camera.
Presumably you did not have to pay for the servicing performed in Solms, and that servicing carries some sort of warranty doesn't it ? With any luck you now have a fully functional M7.
The other thing might be mis-representation of the history of the camera, causing you to pay a higher price than it would otherwise have been worth. In that case take the legal route immediately, or at least seek advice from a Citizen's Advice Bureau about the possibilities open to you, after all it has been more than a year since you bought the camera and this might not help a case.
Presumably you did not have to pay for the servicing performed in Solms, and that servicing carries some sort of warranty doesn't it ? With any luck you now have a fully functional M7.
The other thing might be mis-representation of the history of the camera, causing you to pay a higher price than it would otherwise have been worth. In that case take the legal route immediately, or at least seek advice from a Citizen's Advice Bureau about the possibilities open to you, after all it has been more than a year since you bought the camera and this might not help a case.
greyelm
Malcolm
I think you have cause for a full refund under two sections of uk law .
(I'm not a lawyer so please could an expert confirm this)
Sale of goods act: the camera is not of merchantable quality I.e it has faults and can be returned if they said it worked.
Trade description act: it was described as 2006 but is 2002 so it is not as described so can be returned.
You could try for a refund of the cost of making it useable or return it for a full refund.
(I'm not a lawyer so please could an expert confirm this)
Sale of goods act: the camera is not of merchantable quality I.e it has faults and can be returned if they said it worked.
Trade description act: it was described as 2006 but is 2002 so it is not as described so can be returned.
You could try for a refund of the cost of making it useable or return it for a full refund.
Arjay
Time Traveller
Others were faster than me ...
The very least thing that would come to my mind is that the Leica shop made a stupid mistake to your disadvantage. Since your purchase was made over a year ago, this might possibly not be a case that could still be brought to court (if in doubt, consult a lawyer). I would therefore first try to find aan amicable solution with the dealer:
The very least thing that would come to my mind is that the Leica shop made a stupid mistake to your disadvantage. Since your purchase was made over a year ago, this might possibly not be a case that could still be brought to court (if in doubt, consult a lawyer). I would therefore first try to find aan amicable solution with the dealer:
- Have him supply you with correct (or corrected) paperwork. I think this is the minimum you can ask for.
- Ask for some kind of compensation (maybe not in the form of cash, but in the form of accessory items equivalent to the difference in value between the alleged 'as new' value and the actual value), the reason for this being that the 'error' is equivalent to a financial damage to you in case you wanted to re-sell the camera. And after all, the dealer also has his good reputation at stake. The dealer is responsible for any actions performed in his shop by his employees, even if someone acted incompetently.
Last edited:
ROOOO
Established
What about the camera itself? Do you like it since you had it serviced?
Darshan
Well-known
I would go this route too.
ROOOO
Established
I agree with the previous posters. They should do right by you, given that they, inadvertently, misrepresented the product. Have in mind an idea of what you think fair compensation would be, but let them make you an offer first before you start negotiating.
David Hughes
David Hughes
A London dealer selling an expensive "young" camera and doesn't know the date and didn't check...
And did they pay for the repair? And what would it be worth as an old camera, or rather its true age?
And didn't notice anything else but the customer did...
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
PS But - a big "but" here - are you happy with it and what it cost for the condition it's in now? That would be the most important point. If you were going to get anywhere with the shop it would, surely have been offered? Otherwise you'll just be beating your head against the proverbial brick wall and for nothing.
And did they pay for the repair? And what would it be worth as an old camera, or rather its true age?
And didn't notice anything else but the customer did...
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
PS But - a big "but" here - are you happy with it and what it cost for the condition it's in now? That would be the most important point. If you were going to get anywhere with the shop it would, surely have been offered? Otherwise you'll just be beating your head against the proverbial brick wall and for nothing.
Last edited:
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
The whole story makes me a little dizzy. In the end, you got a great camera that works, right?
That may not be the point but in the end that is all that matters.
The rest is just not important and is best put behind you.
I suppose it's a good lesson about getting the proper documentation ...OO.
I never used to believe in such things.
But there is a reason you and your camera came together.
Make it happen. And take some great pictures with your M7.
That may not be the point but in the end that is all that matters.
The rest is just not important and is best put behind you.
I suppose it's a good lesson about getting the proper documentation ...OO.
I never used to believe in such things.
But there is a reason you and your camera came together.
Make it happen. And take some great pictures with your M7.
Last edited:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I would be very annoyed but a year later is water under the bridge now....I know its a bitter pill to swallow. Expensive cameras need to be run through various tests before buying and most certainly after buying if it was shipped to you.
If the issue still bothers you, take it back as stated above posts and talk with the manager. He/she may just tell you the store has a 30 day warranty on used gear. Good luck.
If the issue still bothers you, take it back as stated above posts and talk with the manager. He/she may just tell you the store has a 30 day warranty on used gear. Good luck.