BigSteveG
Well-known
I'm calling the police...
infrequent
Well-known
Makes me wonder what kind of professionals you deal with...
huh? i am with nikonhwebmaster here. that was intended for ppl who are defending the OP.
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
Sorry infrequent, I misread your post.
BillBingham2
Registered User
The camera and mounted lens is the small part of the deal. The 300/4.5 ED/IF in good condition has a street price of around $450 USD.
I always try to treat people how I would want someone to treat my sons, my wife, my sister, my mother or myself to be treated.
B2 (;->
I always try to treat people how I would want someone to treat my sons, my wife, my sister, my mother or myself to be treated.
B2 (;->
BillBingham2
Registered User
He was on the clock of the camera store at the time (assumption). He was in the camera store at the time (assumption but almost fact). He was to the average person in the store an agent of the company. My guess is he had a name tag from the store on at the time.
Permits are not required for a person, but when you are doing something in a place of business, be it their main business or a side line, I bet you do.
B2 (;->
robridge
Newbie
Loathe as I to stick my nose into this interesting hornet's nest for fear of getting stung - I am going to anyway. What many posters fail to acknowledge is that greed is a powerful driver - as somebody said above, ebay is founded on the central premise that getting something for nothing at the expense of another makes us feel good - the difference with ebay is that you are bidding against other knowledgeable bidders - in the Nikon transaction it was always one-on-one with the odds weighed heavily in favour of an unscrupulous buyer, whose disingenuity fair takes my breath away. Maybe a severe attack of hubris is in order. Makes you think though - is "ethical trading" as much of an oxymoron as "honest politician"? Certainly seems to be the case for employees of the big bad wolf..
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
"It was clear that she really didn't know what she had, so I asked her if she was interested in selling it."
That's the whole story, right there. A story told with pride, by someone who seems not to have been 'raised proper.'
That's the whole story, right there. A story told with pride, by someone who seems not to have been 'raised proper.'
robridge
Newbie
A fatal dose of what, pray?
julianphotoart
No likey digital-phooey
Ah, an unrepentant devotee of Keynsian economics -- aka social darwinism.
Nevertheless, I am troubled by your story as you have written it.
Either: (1) the conversation was more nuanced and involved and you simply glossed over it in summarizing what occurred; (2) or she was fencing the camera/lens and you knowingly turned a blind eye; OR the story is exactly as you stated.
If the latter, it is indeed troubling.
In many jurisdictions, intentional material omissions are just as fraudulent as affirmative material misstatements. Here, a material omission was failing to honestly answer her query concerning what was wrong. She may not have come right out and asked you the question "what's wrong with this camera?", but her statements in that regard were close enough.
You knew that she thought there was something wrong with the camera. You purposely failed to disclose that there was nothing wrong. Since this was a business transaction between you and her (let's put aside whether you were violating work rules by entering into a private transaction), your behavior was actionable. You have exposed both yourself and Wolf Camera.
Separate from the legalities, your actions were at the very least amoral, if not immoral.
It is troubling in general to have examples where there is so little regard for the "social weal"; i.e., lack of regard for doing what's fair and right simply to keep intact the community good.
Nevertheless, I am troubled by your story as you have written it.
Either: (1) the conversation was more nuanced and involved and you simply glossed over it in summarizing what occurred; (2) or she was fencing the camera/lens and you knowingly turned a blind eye; OR the story is exactly as you stated.
If the latter, it is indeed troubling.
In many jurisdictions, intentional material omissions are just as fraudulent as affirmative material misstatements. Here, a material omission was failing to honestly answer her query concerning what was wrong. She may not have come right out and asked you the question "what's wrong with this camera?", but her statements in that regard were close enough.
You knew that she thought there was something wrong with the camera. You purposely failed to disclose that there was nothing wrong. Since this was a business transaction between you and her (let's put aside whether you were violating work rules by entering into a private transaction), your behavior was actionable. You have exposed both yourself and Wolf Camera.
Separate from the legalities, your actions were at the very least amoral, if not immoral.
It is troubling in general to have examples where there is so little regard for the "social weal"; i.e., lack of regard for doing what's fair and right simply to keep intact the community good.
robridge
Newbie
I neither condone nor condemn his behaviour - and of course he is under no obligation to reveal its true worth - just a vendors of sub-prime mortgages were under no obligation to reveal the underpinning risks - in fact you could argue that they were being perfectly honest at the time the offer was made.
Should the senator's husband from Michigan (who was nabbed in a sting for patronizing a prostitute for $150) have pointed out she was selling her services for far below the established market price of Ashley Dupre, who serviced the governor of New York? And should have he ponied up another few thousand? Where is the morality?
Last edited by a moderator:
Blake Werts
Established
April Fools' ????
yanidel
Well-known
I am sure Mr Sound Mind must be on his butt laughing when he sees he generated 87 posts together with 14 new detectives, about 6 legal counselors and a few shrinks in about 24 hours. Good job !
matthew J Shaw
Established
This is a funny one, and has clearly created alot of debate on the matter, and it got me thinking.
As a former manager for many stores for one of the UK's biggest camera retailers it made me think of what used to go on. I know my staff with a photographic interest used to do stuff like this, and I did it too on one occasion, I think the key is if the sale was correctly represented.
I was in a similar posistion with my M.P.P. the guy was trying to sell a whole car full of antique camera equipment that belonged to his father so that his father could replace his central heating that had broken, my company were not interested in the items (Rollei's/Contax/Nikon/Plaubel) because they were to old. I felt sorry for the guy, went on my lunch break with him and sorted through what he had. He thought boxed and mint rollei 3.5's were worth about £20!!!! I put him right on prices, gave him some numbers of dealers and pointed him the right way....
Then I saw the M.P.P. (love at first sight) he could tell I liked it, I gave him a qoute on the kit he had, about £600 I reckoned. And I decided mint condition as it was I didnt want to spend that, He was so happy with all my help that he asked me what i would pay for it, I explained it was a quite month, not got to payday yet etc and that i could only stretch to about £100. Guess what... He sold it to me anyway!
The moral of this slightly rambling tale (if it has 1) is if we all hate the soul less corparations and inter net sales destroying or beloved knowledgable local camera stores if we work in them we have an obligation to offer the service and profesionalism we expect. I would of taken the camera for $60, but only if I'd given her an honest market value for the kit, then expressed my interest and made an offer, I think it was a bit unfair. There are some saying she should of been aware of the value, but she didnt know, thats why she was seeking "proffesional" advice on if it was working etc.
If our man got scammed on a lemon of a car, or bought a dodgy camera off ebay, would he be so happy that someone had taken advantage of him...?
Its a tough one to call, and at the end of the day its all down to conscience.
As a former manager for many stores for one of the UK's biggest camera retailers it made me think of what used to go on. I know my staff with a photographic interest used to do stuff like this, and I did it too on one occasion, I think the key is if the sale was correctly represented.
I was in a similar posistion with my M.P.P. the guy was trying to sell a whole car full of antique camera equipment that belonged to his father so that his father could replace his central heating that had broken, my company were not interested in the items (Rollei's/Contax/Nikon/Plaubel) because they were to old. I felt sorry for the guy, went on my lunch break with him and sorted through what he had. He thought boxed and mint rollei 3.5's were worth about £20!!!! I put him right on prices, gave him some numbers of dealers and pointed him the right way....
Then I saw the M.P.P. (love at first sight) he could tell I liked it, I gave him a qoute on the kit he had, about £600 I reckoned. And I decided mint condition as it was I didnt want to spend that, He was so happy with all my help that he asked me what i would pay for it, I explained it was a quite month, not got to payday yet etc and that i could only stretch to about £100. Guess what... He sold it to me anyway!
The moral of this slightly rambling tale (if it has 1) is if we all hate the soul less corparations and inter net sales destroying or beloved knowledgable local camera stores if we work in them we have an obligation to offer the service and profesionalism we expect. I would of taken the camera for $60, but only if I'd given her an honest market value for the kit, then expressed my interest and made an offer, I think it was a bit unfair. There are some saying she should of been aware of the value, but she didnt know, thats why she was seeking "proffesional" advice on if it was working etc.
If our man got scammed on a lemon of a car, or bought a dodgy camera off ebay, would he be so happy that someone had taken advantage of him...?
Its a tough one to call, and at the end of the day its all down to conscience.
tripod
Well-known
Looks like $60 bought you a whole lotta grief from this forum.
kevin m
Veteran
Why stop there? The same is true for most any retail business, which is why the internet has retail in a headlock.
julianphotoart
No likey digital-phooey
bmattocks:
I disagree with your disagreements. First, fraud does not differentiate between buyers and sellers.
Second, and more generally, In the modern marketplace there are innumerable exceptions to "caveat emptor". For example, the Uniform Commercial Code is far removed from the classical laissez faire marketplace and imposes many duties on both buyers and sellers that would be anathema to many of the posters here. Yet that is the modern marketplace and that's how it works.
I sense amongst some of the posters here a nostalgia for the perceived good-old-days when there were no controls on the marketplace. I perceive an assumption and/or desire that there be no controls on the marketplace. Perhaps that's the real difference of opinion here.
I disagree with your disagreements. First, fraud does not differentiate between buyers and sellers.
Second, and more generally, In the modern marketplace there are innumerable exceptions to "caveat emptor". For example, the Uniform Commercial Code is far removed from the classical laissez faire marketplace and imposes many duties on both buyers and sellers that would be anathema to many of the posters here. Yet that is the modern marketplace and that's how it works.
I sense amongst some of the posters here a nostalgia for the perceived good-old-days when there were no controls on the marketplace. I perceive an assumption and/or desire that there be no controls on the marketplace. Perhaps that's the real difference of opinion here.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
This is why I don't go to Ritz or Wolf anymore.
julianphotoart
No likey digital-phooey
bmattocks:
Thank you for your clarifications. I am now less concerned about our disparity of views. It is unproductive to debate points of law in this manner. This is not a legal website. Suffice to say that on the discrete legal points, you are incorrect--you'll have to take that on faith since to go further is not fruitful. I happen to have a pretty good understanding of the legal stuff given what I do -- but that's beside the point.
In any event, regardless of who's correct, we are way off-topic. I don't cite laws in a vacuum. Laws are pointless without a social consensus that the law serves commonly-held values or has contemporary moral underpinnings. I have not been trying to prove a legal point per se. Rather, for those who find a problem with the OP's conduct, it can be valuable to see that those readers' negative gut reactions are supported by examples of laws that provide a remedy for that gut reaction.
Thank you for your clarifications. I am now less concerned about our disparity of views. It is unproductive to debate points of law in this manner. This is not a legal website. Suffice to say that on the discrete legal points, you are incorrect--you'll have to take that on faith since to go further is not fruitful. I happen to have a pretty good understanding of the legal stuff given what I do -- but that's beside the point.
In any event, regardless of who's correct, we are way off-topic. I don't cite laws in a vacuum. Laws are pointless without a social consensus that the law serves commonly-held values or has contemporary moral underpinnings. I have not been trying to prove a legal point per se. Rather, for those who find a problem with the OP's conduct, it can be valuable to see that those readers' negative gut reactions are supported by examples of laws that provide a remedy for that gut reaction.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Bill, besides saying that you're a very witty, smart and civil human being, I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. But heck, that doesn't matter when we're having such a good time!
BTW, IIRC, Julian practices law.
BTW, IIRC, Julian practices law.