RE: Note of Theft

Costs are rising and times are tough.
Please consider a donation to keep this
place going.

Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.

RE: Note of Theft

You are logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >>Discussions >>General >>

Page: << < 1 [2]

Message

<< Newer Topic Older Topic >>

stevnp

Posts: 35
Joined: Oct. 22 2005

RE: Note of Theft (in reply to Ruphus)

Here is an answer from me to Byron posted to the Acoustic Guitar Forum with some amendments and additions. I sent this as a pm on another forum but can't post there as the thread's locked, but I feel I'm entitled to answer these accusations.

Remember I teach at the Centre and am a sales assistant there. I don't own or manage it in any way.

"It was a not a secondhand guitar it was new, obtained directly from Gary-if you don't believe me ask him. It was sold to the Centre and was owned by Barry as stock and when Barry left he sold some stock to me. The Centre has theinsurance money not me. At no time was any repair work undertaken on the Howell. I wasn't working in the Centre when the guitar was mistakenly taken to the rubbish.

All I was told was that it had been left downstairs outside the Centre (yes, there's a place to leave rubbish there, you're incorrect stating there isn't) by mistake and it had been removed. As the Centre has been reimbursed the full value of your guitar they are liable to supply you with another one not me.

I was bringing in new guitars from luthiers and selling them in the shop. This is perfectly legal. VAT was paid on the sales.

Please desist from making accusations of fraud against me Byron.

Regarding the damage to the Howell. I know what I'm talking about here as we used to get guitars from British Airways which had been damaged in transit. The case was of poor quality regardless of whether Richard sent the guitar in it originally or not. I can't believe he wouldn't also have boxed it up; in fact I'm certain he would have done. I tested the case and it flexed several centimetres inwards at the point of the impact and showed no obvious damage to the case. As far as the bubble wrap is concerned this would have offered virtually no protection from such a drop, and would only have shown minimal damage itself, if you don't believe me try it.

Our luthier and repairman also inspected the damage and the case at the time and can corroborate my version of events. He is in a far stronger position to agree with me on the likely damage scenario than the luthier you have spoken to because he was actually there.

The fact that you sent such a valuable instrument through freight without insurance is inexcusable, end of story.

I wasn't there when the parcel was originally delivered. I opened it the following day (I don't work every day) and saw the damage immediately. Do you really think the shipping company is going to own up to damaging a parcel? Get real! They wouldn't have made any notes to that effect not wanting to be make themselves liable. As I said the extra £1500 from you will still leave me out of pocket so why on earth would I damage a valuable instrument and ruin its resale value? Total rubbish!

Do you think that the person who initially showed you the Hearn who's been working in the music business (in music retail as well as a performer and composer) since 1963 and has an utterly untarnished reputation would let me get away with smashing a guitar, or do you think the luthier would for that matter? Perhaps you have your doubts about Jon Baldachin and Andy Preston but EVERYONE? You're getting into conspiracy theories here where we all ganged up on you, deliberately smashed your guitar for no obvious reason, and then pretended to chuck out the Hearn. It wouldn't have done us much good as it's a one-off instrument, instantly recognisable, so who would we sell it to? And if it isn't incinerated or in landfill where the hell is it?

You need to clear your head and think rationally. You're getting delusional here.

As far as my knowledge of the financial situation at the Centre is concerned: do you really think they'd tell me what was going on? They promised me, as they did you that when the insurance money came through it would be sent to Gary to make you another instrument, I even contacted Gary on several occasions, to find out what was going on. If you want proof ask him.

When banks fail, do people blame the cashiers?

Or when people can't use their HMV vouchers is it the fault of the shop assistant who sold them, because they "should have known what was going on"? Just because a shop is having money difficulties doesn't mean I got to see the bank accounts.

I wish we'd never agreed the deal. The most sensible option would've been for you to fly over from Greece with the Howell and fly back with the Hearn, that's what I suggested if you recall. Now because it's all gone pear-shaped because of YOUR (poor packaging and lack of insurance) and the CENTRE'S screw-up I'm getting accused of fraud on open fora.

This must stop now, as it is in effect libel. If you continue to accuse me of a conspiracy to defraud an insurance company (amongst other things) I will take legal proceedings against you.

I have told you the truth, unpalatable as some of it may be to you. I know you are very angry, but you're aiming it at the wrong person.

I have sold guitars privately, through a classical guitar forum and at the Guitar Centre and have never stolen anyone's money, nor their guitars, nor defrauded them in any way, and I don't want my name dragged through the mud like this with false, unfounded accusations that I refute and can disprove.

Please take time to think about this.

Steven Patterson."

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 26 2013 5:22:55

Maniates

Posts: 23
Joined: Jun. 29 2012

RE: Note of Theft (in reply to stevnp)

Ricardo -

Just because a person buys a guitar they are not necessarily the owner.

In your scenario in which the hard working musician buys the stolen guitar at full price, this buyer has purchased the guitar in good faith, meaning they didn't know it was stolen at the time of purchase, but is not a holder in due course. The guitar still belongs to the original owner from whom it was stolen, and he is the only holder in due course. He is able to recover the guitar immediately after finding it. The hard working musician guy must then go after the thief who sold it to him to recover his money.

Is it fair? Yes absolutely. Any buyer must exercise due diligence making any purchase in which it is even possible they might be buying a stolen instrument. If someone can't prove how they came across a guitar better not to buy it. And if you pay a price that you know is too low for a guitar and it ends up being stolen you won't even be able to recover that money because you would no longer be considered a good faith buyer.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 27 2013 0:28:16

Ricardo

Posts: 14806
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: Note of Theft (in reply to Maniates)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maniates

Ricardo -

Just because a person buys a guitar they are not necessarily the owner.

In your scenario in which the hard working musician buys the stolen guitar at full price, this buyer has purchased the guitar in good faith, meaning they didn't know it was stolen at the time of purchase, but is not a holder in due course. The guitar still belongs to the original owner from whom it was stolen, and he is the only holder in due course. He is able to recover the guitar immediately after finding it. The hard working musician guy must then go after the thief who sold it to him to recover his money.

Is it fair? Yes absolutely. Any buyer must exercise due diligence making any purchase in which it is even possible they might be buying a stolen instrument. If someone can't prove how they came across a guitar better not to buy it. And if you pay a price that you know is too low for a guitar and it ends up being stolen you won't even be able to recover that money because you would no longer be considered a good faith buyer.

THe first sentence sounds funny.

But truth is, I don't think you read the rest of my argument. I made exact same point as you and based on the story, felt the guitar goes back to the MAKER who was supposedly ripped off by the company originally and all the other robbed folks have to take it up with the original thief. All this moot point if you read the post above yours.

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 27 2013 13:27:03

Maniates

Posts: 23
Joined: Jun. 29 2012

RE: Note of Theft (in reply to stevnp)

Sorry if I missed something and ranted for no reason.

This whole situation seems incredibly bizarre. I don't believe either the original guy who posted on AG forum or this guy above.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 28 2013 4:40:48

Escribano

Posts: 6415
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy

RE: Note of Theft (in reply to Maniates)

I am locking this thread as it may involve legal action elsewhere, but will keep it here as a reference for both parties.

If either party asks me to delete it, I will do so, but keep a copy for the record.

_____________________________

Foro Flamenco founder and Admin

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Feb. 28 2013 9:39:23