Quote:
Originally posted by Tomathvl
Michael,
Allow me to clarify a point, you state "As I stated at the outset, when I asked David Carroll to make good on his description of the revolver as 100% mechanically sound, he informed me that according to his lawyer he had no duty to disclose the damage at issue."
What is the "damage of issue"you, David Carrol and the lawyer are referring to? Is it the damage to the bluing or is he admitting that the gun was mechanically damaged and repaired and he had no obligation to tell you it was repaired? I'm just trying to understand why you keep coming back with different examples.
Tom
|
As I understood his explanation, David Carroll knew that the cylinder had rubbed against the frame at some point. But he did not think that he was obligated to inform me of that at the time of my purchase. In fact, here is what he wrote to me in response to my questions about the cosmetic condition of the gun:
Quote:
|
Now, I've provided you with a definitive comparison on two guns vs. mine, as well as having gone over quite a number of others as my inventory has changed over the past 8-10 months. If you are interested in buying the 6.5", please let me know. I'm not excited by- or, inclined to be- covering the same issues over and over - as in: more photo comparisons. As my website explains; I don't do photos for my inventory other than on engraved, extremely rare and/ or special configuration guns. My descriptions are accurate, as evidenced by the 27 collectors who have purchased 371 S&W's from me in the last 24 days.
|
The description at issue was that the revolver in question was 100% mechanically sound.