Quote:
Originally posted by Tomathvl
Michael,
To sum this up, I can't get past the fact that you say the gun as delivered was/is 100% mechanically sound and that was your main criterion for buying the piece. You obviously noticed the bluing damage when you received the gun and that didn't deter you from keeping the gun. So IMHO you received what you wanted and there is no fraud involved.
The possibility that the gun may have been damaged and repaired is a situation open to debate as to whether the seller should have mentioned it to you. If you stressed the importance of 100% mechanical correctness and the gun is 100% then I'm not sure that it matters that at some time it may not have been. Without a transcript of who said what to whom and when it was said it's difficult to take a position. If I were the seller I would have explained what caused the obvious bluing damage, if I knew the cause, e.g. the widget or whatever was damaged and was replaced and it's not a numbered part and the gun is 100% mechanically correct. However, I attempt to be totally honest with folks because that's what I want from them but don't always succeed in getting.
From what you have related to the forum regarding the purchase, I don't think you have a case to go forward with but, different strokes......
Seems that your Samuel beckett may apply to the situation.
Tom
|
I did not say that the gun as delivered was/is 100% mechanically sound. I did say that at present the cylinder edge rotates free of the frame at all times, the action is completely within factory spec, and all chambers align with the bore at lockup. Since the yoke matches the frame in tight fit and correct number, and there are neither marks nor records of factory rework, the gun must have been repaired by an independent gunsmith who most likely would have straightened its original yoke instead of replacing it. I do not consider such repair to result in complete mechanical soundness.
Quote:
Originally posted by lugerholsterrepair
You guys are stuck on a very serious charge..Fraud. I have seen no proof of that charge and for that matter not even a reasonable argument to support a hint of it.
In my opinion the argument presented by Michael has become academic at best.
If you cannot convince people who are on your side..what hope is there to convince a third party?
I would be very carefull with the printed word. David Carroll already HAS a lawyer. He might be itching for some billable hours...
Jerry Burney
|
One possible predicate for fraud is a material misrepresentation made as an expression of opinion that is false, by one claiming or implying to have special knowledge of the subject matter of the opinion. In the matter at hand, David Carroll satisfies the conditions for having special knowledge, as knowledge or information superior to that possessed by the buyer, and to which the buyer does not have equal access. The sole remaining condition turns on whether or not a gun that suffered structural damage that was subsequently repaired could be accurately described as 100% mechanically sound. For my part, I would not so describe any mechanical device that has had its critical steel component straightened after being deformed out of spec. Hence my example of a shotgun that underwent repair of a barrel bulge.