[lugerholsterrepair]

Ron, I think I may not have made myself clear...
I'm only guessing about this; however, I suspect that dealers actually filing lawsuits against buyers is an extremely rare to perhaps even nonexistent event, in spite of all the bluffing and bluster that we hear about.

Does anyone even know about a case in which a dealer did file a lawsuit against a buyer, AND actually did collect a judgement?

One does not have to collect a judgement to cost you a ton of money. Simply putting together some sort of defense against a lawsuit could immediately cost $5000.00 in retainers. At $300-500 an hour you could go deep in a hurry.

One must put a pencil to this and determine just how bad the damages might be.

Michael says there is cosmetic damage...This seems to be the extent of his complaint. Lets say the damage is $1000 to be overly generous. Michael says Herr Carrolls prices have risen 20% since he bought his pistol. This brings his pistol back to $5000. So it could be argued there is no loss.

I still believe there is NO way to proove any culpability by the seller. Or, if there was a way it would involve much too much investment for too little return.
This all turns on ONE thing regardless of other considerations. Michael had this pistol in his possesion during an inspection period of at least 72 hours. Ostensibly.. this gave the buyer a hands on look and an opportunity to accept or reject the purchase.
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.

In the above statements, Michael admits to being incompetent to analyize the condition of this pistol. Knowing this as he must... it would behoove him to arrange for someone to look over this pistol by a previous arrangement or during the 72 hours provided.
By NOT returning the pistol.. Michael agreed that it was acceptable! Mr Carroll and Michael came to the fullfilment of a contract. Money was exchanged. End of story. Mr. Carroll did not offer any guarentee I am aware of. Like buying a used car...Seller says It is in good mechanical order..you are welcome to inspect it. 3 months later it explodes. Judge Judy is not going to give your money back.

Michael presents two scenarios as a comparison to his situation...

Both these conditions should have been apparent to a buyer within the customary three day inspection.
In the first instance: what if you actually did sell an all matching Luger? The buyer breaks the firing pin and a year later wants to return the luger with a replaced firing pin for a full refund on a gun that is now worth half what you sold it for. EXACTLY!

The shotgun...Who is to say the buyer did not make this repair, become dissatisfied with it and try to return it.

I believe all of these scenarios hinge on a competant inspection. If I am unable to look over a 5000 dollar purchase with enough accuracy to protect my investment... I better arrange for someone who can.

Again...Best to you michael! I hope this works out to your advantage...

Jerry Burney