[Michael Zeleny]

Thanks to all for their responses. Herewith several points to clarify the issue:

1. I represented myself to David Carroll as a long time student and collector of automatic pistols who knew nothing about revolvers. I stressed that I needed a mechanically perfect specimen of the first Magnum revolver for a study that I was conducting. He reassured me that the revolver in question answered my requirements.

2. I did not expect this revolver to be cosmetically perfect. It took me some time to correlate its pre-existing cosmetic damage with a likely mechanical cause, through comparing its action to another Registered Magnum in my possession.

3. David Carroll does not dispute that the damage I discovered pre-dated my purchase. He refers me to his lawyer's opinion that he had "no duty to disclose" this damage, notwithstanding his express reassurances of mechanical perfection.

4. I am less interested in recovering my money, than I am in setting myself right about the ethical issue. David Carroll holds himself out as the highest authority on dealing in collectible firearms. Compared to him, I am a piker. Hence my present attempt to draw on the wisdom of my betters in this forum.