Eastman SB59 issues, advice appreciated!

Deadman

I quite literally almost bought a GS1 off their site yesterday and even had it in my basket this morning. After hearing this I won't be bothering.

gregm

Cols said:

In case a full refund is not forthcoming (and I hope it is), you could always just go back to your credit/debit card company and ask them to get your money back.

More emails received trying to twist things since last night! How can a request for a refund turn in to such a drama!

I was checking out this option thanks, supposedly people in Ireland do not have the same protection on card purchases as in the UK. We have something called charge back, which is only to be used if the retailer goes out of business or the item is not as described and they are refusing a refund.

I am fairly sure after the last email to Sally (who when she was communicating was very professional) that this is a clear indicator that it is not going to end well, if they are already predicting damage to the guitar even though 2 photos were sent yesterday proving it is as received then it seems like a sign of what is coming and having looked at other bad feedback they received a fair few guitars when returned are being claimed to have been damaged. This guitar has only been plugged in twice and is as new but once it leaves me then they can say whatever they want!

So going to the store myself with the guitar is one option I think would be the quickest way to sort this and would be the most satisfying, being called a little man is a first is all I will say but at this stage just go the legal route as I am out of the country for a month from Thursday hence the request for a refund and an end to 21 days of trying to sort this from an order originally placed on the 6th Feb and don't need any more time wasted on it! I will see what my solicitor says about it tomorrow and should have two expert reports done by Wednesday! If I have to pay to send someone over with the guitar I will no problem rather than have this drag on!

Roland

Take or send it back. The guitar is not “fit for purpose”. The faults which you have highlighted are manufacturing faults, and aren’t going to have been caused by you. As others have said you are due a full refund, plus repayment of postage/transport costs. It doesn’t matter what arguments the retailer might raise. The item is faulty. It doesn’t matter what the manufacturer might say, or insinuate. Your contract is with the retailer. Dealing with the manufacturer is his problem.

digitalscream

As is probably predictable, I've received an email from Richard this morning claiming defamation in this thread, stating that his "only alternative will be to do another video showing all the evidence as I will not allow this kind of trial by forum to keep occuring (sic) without any opportunity to reply" if I don't do what he wants.

Near as I can tell, there is no defamation in this thread (I'm open to correction by any law professionals on the forum, of course), but please watch yourselves and your comments bearing in mind the rules of the site (ie no personal comments etc). They will be strictly applied here, possibly with a stricter interpretation than usual.

Philly_Q

Without wishing to defame Richard any further, how does he explain his own words in the emails quoted earlier?

digitalscream

Philly_Q said:

Without wishing to defame Richard any further, how does he explain his own words in the emails quoted earlier?

He hasn't addressed that at all.

EDIT: Its an interesting point, and subject to the usual "I am not a lawyer" caveats, my own personal take on it is that if he did bring a court case against the OP or the forum, it's opened up one possible defence in terms of public interest - I'd guess that there would be a valid argument that it's in the public interest for potential customers to know what they might expect if they make a complaint.

Cols

Harsh.  Perhaps Richard would be kind enough to indicate what in the thread he feels is defamatory?

guitartango

@gregm ;;

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 9:21 PM Richards Guitars <richard@rguitars.co.uk> wrote:Oh go away you silly silly self centred selfish horrible little man

How come it came to this ? Do you send him a rude email or is this just a "Richard" thing ?

english_bob

guitartango said:

@gregm ;;;;

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 9:21 PM Richards Guitars <richard@rguitars.co.uk> wrote:Oh go away you silly silly self centred selfish horrible little man

How come it came to this ? Do you send him a rude email or is this just a "Richard" thing ?

The emails are in reverse order. That was Richard's response to gregm's email that said:

I’ve had enough time wasted on this, this is not only my view that the guitar is not fit for purpose but is a fact and backed up by everyone that has seen it. Selling a faulty guitar and refusing to confirm what the photos clearly show, then causing undue stress for what you and your staff admitted to be a reasonable person will make you morally bankrupt, looking after that customer is the retribution. Of course that is only if it is the customer you care about instead of the money.
 
When you confirm that I will be getting a full refund and when it will be paid then get Sally to contact me. I will be getting a third party report from a shop in Dublin before the guitar is sent back as proof of claim and advice on my rights.

Worth noting re: "trial by forum" and "defamation" and all that- gregm doesn't name the retailer at all in the first instance (although there are only a few options for that brand in the UK), just asks for a consensus on the issue with the guitar, which is pretty unanimous. It's only after quibbles over how to address it, and name-calling by email that Richard's name gets mentioned. All the situation needed was a single email that said "I'm sorry the guitar doesn't come up to scratch. Send it back and I'll refund your money". 

Nobody's treating him any differently than any other retailer who'd sold that guitar with that fault- how could they?

mbe

I fail to see how Richard can claim defamation. It is only defamation if it is a falsehood and I  haven't read anything like that in this thread. On the contrary, the posts have been factual and true. 

digitalscream said:

As is probably predictable, I've received an email from Richard this morning claiming defamation in this thread, stating that his "only alternative will be to do another video showing all the evidence as I will not allow this kind of trial by forum to keep occuring (sic) without any opportunity to reply" if I don't do what he wants.

Can you tell us what he wants you to do?

CloudNine

Unbelievable stuff. I can say with absolute certainty that I would personally never in a million years dream of buying anything from Richards Guitars.

digitalscream

mbe said:

I fail to see how Richard can claim defamation. It is only defamation if it is a falsehood and I  haven't read anything like that in this thread. On the contrary, the posts have been factual and true. 

digitalscream said:

As is probably predictable, I've received an email from Richard this morning claiming defamation in this thread, stating that his "only alternative will be to do another video showing all the evidence as I will not allow this kind of trial by forum to keep occuring (sic) without any opportunity to reply" if I don't do what he wants.

Can you tell us what he wants you to do?

He's claiming defamation on the grounds that the OP's account is false. He's sent me the whole set of emails (I've requested the same from the OP, for completeness), and I'll go through it when I've got time. On a brief skim through, though, it seems that the main element of contention is whether Richard offered a refund or not; the rest of it seems like missed/poor communication of intent spread across multiple email threads.

There's one bit from one of Richard's emails to me that I want to quote on here, but I'm waiting for him to confirm it's OK first (we previously agreed not to publish each other's emails).

Lodious

I feel very sorry that as a mod you have to put up with this kind of thing....thank you for all your efforts. 

digitalscream

Richard has forwarded me all of the emails he could find relating to this complaint in an effort to show that his intent has been misinterpreted somewhere along the line (possibly not helped by the fact that all of the communication has had to be via email). As an attempt to demonstrate good faith, he tells me he's now refunded the OP in advance of receiving the guitar back.

He's also expressed his regrets over the "little man" comment - and I believe he's genuine in that. On a personal note, it would be hypocritical of me to get too critical of him for that, because I've done the same on occasion.

NelsonP

I'm wondering whether this sort of thing went on in the good old days. You know, when people bought guitars from each other, in person in something called a shop. And if there was a problem they went back to the shop to discuss it, in person.

Ahhh - the good old days.....

Bridgehouse

That’s an extremely good result for the OP - it’s not normal practise to give a refund before the goods are received back. 

As a forum we can be quick to jump on the bandwagon, pitchforks waving - it would be nice to think we can do the same (without the pitchforks) when something good happens.

Philly_Q

NelsonP said:

I'm wondering whether this sort of thing went on in the good old days. You know, when people bought guitars from each other, in person in something called a shop. And if there was a problem they went back to the shop to discuss it, in person.

Ahhh - the good old days.....

GoldenEraGuitars

Christ... I need a lie down after reading this. 

CloudNine

Bridgehouse said:

That’s an extremely good result for the OP - it’s not normal practise to give a refund before the goods are received back. 

As a forum we can be quick to jump on the bandwagon, pitchforks waving - it would be nice to think we can do the same (without the pitchforks) when something good happens.

The final outcome changes nothing for me. Wouldn't shop there in a million years personally.

Philly_Q

Good to hear there's ben a positive result, anyway.