I don't bring this up lightly...

[275r7x57]

I have said my 2 cents worth.

The facts speak for themselves.

 

[Sabre]

People are treating this much differently because the seller is well known and well liked on the forum. For what it's worth, I also have liked the seller and his posts on the forum.

However, if this was any average member or a new member, people would be tearing the seller to shreds for this. And they wouldn't say anything negative about the buyer exposing it considering he stuck to facts and seems to be telling the truth about all of it.

The seller posted old photos when the rifle was in "like new" condition. They then went on multiple hunts causing quite a bit of cosmetic damage and didn't disclose it. They used a condition report from when they bought it claiming it was "perfect". After the buyer was unhappy with the discrepancy, as any reasonable person would be, they promised to refund purchase price and all shipping costs, in writing, which we all have seen on here. Then the seller decided to back out of his word and didn't refund all shipping costs.

The excuses for it on here from both the seller and other members are kind of gross. Members who like the seller are trying to sweep this under the rug and basically telling the buyer to shut up about it and acting like it isn't a big deal and saying the buyer is being unreasonable. They aren't.

I keep seeing defenders of the seller saying the buyer shouldn't be too worked up over losing (what he states is) ~$550 on the deal. And they say, get over it, it's just a few hundred dollars and a small percentage of the price of the gun. Well, by that token, the seller should not be so worried about giving up that "few hundred dollars" to make it right, considering he is the one who misrepresented the item for sale. And yes, although he seems offended by that phrasing, that is what he did. If you post photos when something is in "like new" condition and call an item "perfect" and then send it out with cosmetic damage, you knowingly and purposefully misrepresented an item.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Trust is hard earned and easily lost.

Lesson: Describe the items for sale with exactness and accuracy. It will avoid this BS.
We expect this from the all Outfitters posting offers here on AH.

Mediation is not a service provided on AH.
The caveats in the Classifieds provide adequate warnings. Choose to ignore them at your peril.

 

[GuttormG]

Gun was sold described as "perfect" using old pictures. Seller promised to refund cost of the gun and shipping both ways; and the same for the reloading supplies.

So why not just do the right thing and pay?

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

There has been no effort made public to correct the outstanding amount due for shipping due to Mr. Breed’s misrepresentation of the item.

If the misrepresentation never occurred I am confident that we would not be discussing this matter.

Again if shipping had been refunded as Mr. Breed agreed upon in writing I am confident we would not be discussing this matter.

Mr. Breed created both issues, no one else. Facts are facts!

Still seems something versus nothing has been done to make most of this right. But okay, whatever, much drama now over a fairly small amount of money, that's what I don't get. As mentioned in my first post i'm not getting into who was right and who was wrong. I'm out.

 

[NIGHTHAWK]

People are treating this much differently because the seller is well known and well liked on the forum. For what it's worth, I also have liked the seller and his posts on the forum.

However, if this was any average member or a new member, people would be tearing the seller to shreds for this. And they wouldn't say anything negative about the buyer exposing it considering he stuck to facts and seems to be telling the truth about all of it.

The seller posted old photos when the rifle was in "like new" condition. They then went on multiple hunts causing quite a bit of cosmetic damage and didn't disclose it. They used a condition report from when they bought it claiming it was "perfect". After the buyer was unhappy with the discrepancy, as any reasonable person would be, they promised to refund purchase price and all shipping costs, in writing, which we all have seen on here. Then the seller decided to back out of his word and didn't refund all shipping costs.

The excuses for it on here from both the seller and other members are kind of gross. Members who like the seller are trying to sweep this under the rug and basically telling the buyer to shut up about it and acting like it isn't a big deal and saying the buyer is being unreasonable. They aren't.

I keep seeing defenders of the seller saying the buyer shouldn't be too worked up over losing (what he states is) ~$550 on the deal. And they say, get over it, it's just a few hundred dollars and a small percentage of the price of the gun. Well, by that token, the seller should not be so worried about giving up that "few hundred dollars" to make it right, considering he is the one who misrepresented the item for sale. And yes, although he seems offended by that phrasing, that is what he did. If you post photos when something is in "like new" condition and call an item "perfect" and then send it out with cosmetic damage, you knowingly and purposefully misrepresented an item.

Very true… When I see a scam I call it out. I’ve personally educated several new members on how to be successful selling rifles on AH Classifieds. I’ve also gone after several scammers privately and openly; educating them on the downside of trying to scam members. This sight needs to be protected and maintained as a trusted place to buy and sell rifles and hunting equipment.

 

[Altitude sickness]

I bought a very nice 110 year old British SxS at the recommendation from Rookhawk that it was a worthy example.

But he told me to use the sellers return grace period and send it to a known British gun expert for a complete examination. The seller knew and used this Smith also. The Smith was our gun Escrow guy.

It got his approval and he sent it on to me. If it didn’t get a clean bill of health. The seller just got a free thorough checkup.

P.S. I’m not very smart but I take direction well thanks Rookhawk

 

[Challer]

I doubt linseed oil fixed the issues in the photo. And if the return is for cause - photos don’t match actual condition- then the buyer is made completely whole.

 

[Challer]

While you are right, I did feel Frantz threaten me to do just what he did during our phone call which left a very bad taste in my mouth. Call it principle to me… could I have avoided this by just giving into him…yes but I am just not built that way. I know I did not in any way intentionally misrepresent anything to him shown by my immediate take back no further explanation needed

Your photos didn’t match the actual condition. Your “repairs” look horrid. This is on you

 

[Quest#1]

Couldn’t agree more.
This has 100% been taken lightly on this forum because of the seller. His arrogance hasn’t changed.

 

[Fixfire]

Trust is hard earned and easily lost.

Lesson: Describe the items for sale with exactness and accuracy. It will avoid this BS.
We expect this from the all Outfitters posting offers here on AH.

Mediation is not a service provided on AH.
The caveats in the Classifieds provide adequate warnings. Choose to ignore them at your peril.

RB will end up losing much, much more in Goodwill with the forum members that Franz may loose on the shipping. Talk about a bad business decision….

 

[Fatback]

Certainly hate to see this for both members. It’s a shame. I understand the frustration on both parts. What I don’t understand is are the folks who are mentioning the amount of money not repaid as being minimal and shouldn’t be a big issue.

If in fact the seller stated he would reimburse the total back to the buyer, to include shipping both ways, then that’s what the honorable thing to do would be, in my humble opinion. Even a nickel less would be as bad as not refunding anything at all in terms of the principal of what was said. Even if the seller misspoke originally and didn’t clearly explain his intentions about what he was willing to repay, then the additional $550 would be the “misspoke” tax.

Again, this is an unfortunate situation for both seller and buyer and hopefully they will be able to come to a resolution that they can both live with going forward.

Everybody else is entitled to their opinions on this matter and that is one of the big draws of AH to me, the wealth of different view points of all the members and the way most everybody expresses said viewpoints in a mostly civil and mannerly fashion is a rarity in today’s world, especially online. It’s ok to disagree without being disagreeable with one another. That’s my two cents on the matter.

 

[franzfmdavis]

Interesting. After making a deal with him a fews years ago on a double i learned about his word…

Sounds like I am not the only one who he has done this to. I’m sorry it happened to you too. This is exactly why I posted all this information – for other people to be informed.

 

[Red Leg]

As someone who has been at this gun game a bit longer than most here, this is pretty simple to my mind. Condition is a the major factor in valuing any gun. The photographs used in the sale were of a gun that simply no longer exists. The gun was priced at the top of market value for that particular rifle in the photographed condition. The buyer had every right to return it when he received a "different" rifle. Based on the verbal contract between the parties, he would have had a valid claim had the seller not refunded his money. Because every part of this issue was caused by the false advertising of the gun, intended or not, I can not see how the seller ethically would not also be responsible for all the costs associated with the deal.

Caveat Emptor puts great responsibility on the buyer - a responsibility he rightly exercised when he received a different product than advertised.

 

[franzfmdavis]

People are treating this much differently because the seller is well known and well liked on the forum. For what it's worth, I also have liked the seller and his posts on the forum.

However, if this was any average member or a new member, people would be tearing the seller to shreds for this. And they wouldn't say anything negative about the buyer exposing it considering he stuck to facts and seems to be telling the truth about all of it.

The seller posted old photos when the rifle was in "like new" condition. They then went on multiple hunts causing quite a bit of cosmetic damage and didn't disclose it. They used a condition report from when they bought it claiming it was "perfect". After the buyer was unhappy with the discrepancy, as any reasonable person would be, they promised to refund purchase price and all shipping costs, in writing, which we all have seen on here. Then the seller decided to back out of his word and didn't refund all shipping costs.

The excuses for it on here from both the seller and other members are kind of gross. Members who like the seller are trying to sweep this under the rug and basically telling the buyer to shut up about it and acting like it isn't a big deal and saying the buyer is being unreasonable. They aren't.

I keep seeing defenders of the seller saying the buyer shouldn't be too worked up over losing (what he states is) ~$550 on the deal. And they say, get over it, it's just a few hundred dollars and a small percentage of the price of the gun. Well, by that token, the seller should not be so worried about giving up that "few hundred dollars" to make it right, considering he is the one who misrepresented the item for sale. And yes, although he seems offended by that phrasing, that is what he did. If you post photos when something is in "like new" condition and call an item "perfect" and then send it out with cosmetic damage, you knowingly and purposefully misrepresented an item.

There are several community members that have expressed a similar sentiment, and I completely agree.

It seems that for some, their principles are secondary to their friendships and groups. It is just a small scale version of what we see in politics today.

Fortunately, however, the vast majority of members, from new to veteran, have called this out for what it was. Certainly, @Rare Breed was wrong when he said "I am 100% sure all members would agree with me."

If @Rare Breed wants to rehabilitate himself, he can: (1) admit that it was deceptive to post old pictures of a gun in a different condition that what was shipped; (2) admit that he unilaterally changed the terms of the return to his benefit, twice, each time after the items had been shipped; and (3) contribute the money he owes me ($554) to AfricaHunting.com, since ultimately, the greatest harm has been to the trust we members have in each other on this site.

For me, all three parts are equally important, and just doing the most convenient one is meaningless without the other two.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Certainly hate to see this for both members. It’s a shame. I understand the frustration on both parts. What I don’t understand is are the folks who are mentioning the amount of money not repaid as being minimal and shouldn’t be a big issue.

If in fact the seller stated he would reimburse the total back to the buyer, to include shipping both ways, then that’s what the honorable thing to do would be, in my humble opinion. Even a nickel less would be as bad as not refunding anything at all in terms of the principal of what was said. Even if the seller misspoke originally and didn’t clearly explain his intentions about what he was willing to repay, then the additional $550 would be the “misspoke” tax.

Again, this is an unfortunate situation for both seller and buyer and hopefully they will be able to come to a resolution that they can both live with going forward.

Everybody else is entitled to their opinions on this matter and that is one of the big draws of AH to me, the wealth of different view points of all the members and the way most everybody expresses said viewpoints in a mostly civil and mannerly fashion is a rarity in today’s world, especially online. It’s ok to disagree without being disagreeable with one another. That’s my two cents on the matter.

I have opinions on the actual transaction, but my opinions aren't important. But I did want to comment on the first part of your post. For some folks here 500 bucks might not be a big deal; but for some of us it is. I'm not anything like destitute, but 500 bucks? That's a month's worth of heating fuel in the winter, where I live, or a plane ticket to ANC for one of my medical visits. Losing that amount might not be crippling but it's also not an amount I'm likely to blow off either. YMMV

 

[Fatback]

I have opinions on the actual transaction, but my opinions aren't important. But I did want to comment on the first part of your post. For some folks here 500 bucks might not be a big deal; but for some of us it is. I'm not anything like destitute, but 500 bucks? That's a month's worth of heating fuel in the winter, where I live, or a plane ticket to ANC for one of my medical visits. Losing that amount might not be crippling but it's also not an amount I'm likely to blow off either. YMMV

I agree 100%. $500 doesn’t go as far as it used to but it is not a minor amount of money for lots of folks, including me.

The point I was trying to make was that the amount being disputed, the $500 or so, was not the issue to me. If the seller first agreed to refund all costs then changed his mind whether it was the whole purchase price or a penny difference than what was originally agreed upon, then that was where the issue lies. I just have always believed and try to live my life in a way that if I say I’m going to do something then I do it, even if it means I have to learn a difficult lesson by doing something I shouldn’t have agreed to in the first place.

Everybody’s finical situations are unique to them and I would never minimize what a certain dollar amount means to one person over another. If that is how my original post came across then I offer my apologies because that was not my intent at all.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Not at all good sir. I took it, in part, as pointing out that we are all in a different place with our situations. I have said this before: I do not at all begrudge those in a better financial than myself, and am happy for their successes. And I do not feel bad at all for my own, even if it's somewhat less. Losing $500 bucks would piss me off.

 

[HankBuck]

You are not correct and in our phone discussion I made clear that I would reimburse the return shipping cost of the rifle since that was the issue nothing else. I made very clear to Franz I did not think it fair for me to reimburse my shipment cost and insurance out. I want to see if Frantz is honest enough to admit my point here. I obviously should have recorded our phone call. In all my transactions I have had zero problems. I always end up providing more than is in my ad without charging extra. I do not appreciate whatsoever Frantz saying I on purpose misrepresented to him the gun. I freely admit I should have wiped down the scratches and used and iron before shipping…my bad. I have just never bought anything used that has been hunted with that did not have some scratches/dings that easily are fixed. One more time I IMMEDIATELY agreed to take back the gun and supplies no questions asked

@Rare Breed - you have earned and enjoy a very good reputation on AH and in my opinion you have damaged that over a couple hundred $$ - doesn’t matter if you are 100% right….you might take a “nick” from this but that is certainly your decision and only my opinion. It is very hard to gain trust and especially on a “forum” and You had that, some of that might now be at risk over a few $100s. Hopefully everything returns to normal for both members.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

There are several community members that have expressed a similar sentiment, and I completely agree.

It seems that for some, their principles are secondary to their friendships and groups. It is just a small scale version of what we see in politics today.

Fortunately, however, the vast majority of members, from new to veteran, have called this out for what it was. Certainly, @Rare Breed was wrong when he said "I am 100% sure all members would agree with me."

If @Rare Breed wants to rehabilitate himself, he can: (1) admit that it was deceptive to post old pictures of a gun in a different condition that what was shipped; (2) admit that he unilaterally changed the terms of the return to his benefit, twice, each time after the items had been shipped; and (3) contribute the money he owes me ($554) to AfricaHunting.com, since ultimately, the greatest harm has been to the trust we members have in each other on this site.

For me, all three parts are equally important, and just doing the most convenient one is meaningless without the other two.

May I suggest for number 3 that if a "donation" is made, that instead it be directed to the following:

DSC Frontline Foundation –

www.dscfrontlinefoundation.org