Whammy 4 versus Whammy 5??

PolarityMan

i have been away can someone summarise what the hell this is about?

dano

xtrouble;303671" said:

You seem desperate to sell, I sense this isn't the Vertex modded flux capacitor model that you're insinuating it is.

Vertex. I see what you did there.

Drew_TNBD

PolarityMan said:

i have been away can someone summarise what the hell this is about?

AdolfHipster strikes again. He (seemingly KNOWINGLY) sold a Digitech Whammy version 4, but told the guy it was a version 5, the newest one with polyphonic pitch detection, etc... He swapped it for the buyers Adrenalinn 3. Whammy turns up, buyer spots it's not a 5... complains and asks for his stuff back, AdolfTWATSTER tells him he already sold it on.

The timescales imply that he's lying about it, and now he wont return messages.

I feel bad for the buyer.

hugbot

Even if he wasn't lying about it selling something on before it arrives is dumb as hell anyway.

octatonic

Also he has a lot of previous form about dicking people about. The previous deals he eventually, after a long time, made right but this time he's gone the full knobber.

randomhandclaps

I've been away and missed all this......

Have you tried asking Fenderman if he's heard from him?

guitarfishbay

Stupid username anyway. Saddam Highgain and Push Pol Pot are spinning in their graves, Robert Mogami isn't talking to him either.

Deijavoo

I liked the username. Not as much as I like that comment ↑↑↑ though. 

fretmeister

hugbot said:

Even if he wasn't lying about it selling something on before it arrives is dumb as hell anyway.

And actually illegal.

Selling something you don't own is a criminal offence under the theft act.

He can agree terms on a deal, but if he took money for the item or told the other buyer that he had one for sale - then that is theft.

It's also a civil offence of Conversion.

digitalscream

fretmeister said:

And actually illegal.

Selling something you don't own is a criminal offence under the theft act.

He can agree terms on a deal, but if he took money for the item or told the other buyer that he had one for sale - then that is theft.

It's also a civil offence of Conversion.

That's interesting - so if a shop takes money for something they don't have in stock (so they have to order it in), does this apply?

fretmeister

digitalscream said:

fretmeister said:

And actually illegal.

Selling something you don't own is a criminal offence under the theft act.

He can agree terms on a deal, but if he took money for the item or told the other buyer that he had one for sale - then that is theft.

It's also a civil offence of Conversion.

That's interesting - so if a shop takes money for something they don't have in stock (so they have to order it in), does this apply?

As always the answer is "it depends"

Because shops don't ever promise to have stock. In the terms and conditions they almost  always say a variety of things like 'stock levels change every minute of the day' and 'your contract for sale is only compete when we confirm the item has been dispatched to you'

Basically a shop is geared up to merely store your money until the item is available, and then ownership of the item becomes yours only when they put it in the post.

The terms apply because a shop never actually offers anything for sale!

A shop merely gives "an invitation to treat" and it is actually the buyer who makes the offer to buy the item, and then the shop can accept or decline the offer.

It has to be that way round because if a shop was making an offer to sell, then ANYONE could accept the offer. So a gun would be offered to under 18s and an under 18 accepting the offer would have a contract and both would be breaking the law.

So the shop invites potential customers to treat themselves.

The buyer then offers to buy

The shop can then accept or decline the offer. So for an under age person buying a controlled item - they can decline and avoid the offence.

I have no doubt that some shops have shit terms and conditions that could be challenged - but your only loss would be your money, so you'd get a simple refund.

Buying in person is different because you take it away with you, OR you agree to pay in advance of the shop obtaining stock. Its a specific term of contract to put the shop in funds before they order something for you.

digitalscream

Ah, got it. Ta very much

hugbot

Off on a tangent now but the offer to treat thing is iirc the same reason why when you see an item in a shop incorrectly marked "5p" you can't take it to the till and demand to buy it for 5p; no deal is actually occurring until the shop accepts your offer.

Useful to know you've ever worked retail because that happens weekly.

PolarityMan

fretmeister said:

digitalscream said:

fretmeister said:

And actually illegal.

Selling something you don't own is a criminal offence under the theft act.

He can agree terms on a deal, but if he took money for the item or told the other buyer that he had one for sale - then that is theft.

It's also a civil offence of Conversion.

That's interesting - so if a shop takes money for something they don't have in stock (so they have to order it in), does this apply?

As always the answer is "it depends"

Because shops don't ever promise to have stock. In the terms and conditions they almost  always say a variety of things like 'stock levels change every minute of the day' and 'your contract for sale is only compete when we confirm the item has been dispatched to you'

Basically a shop is geared up to merely store your money until the item is available, and then ownership of the item becomes yours only when they put it in the post.

The terms apply because a shop never actually offers anything for sale!

A shop merely gives "an invitation to treat" and it is actually the buyer who makes the offer to buy the item, and then the shop can accept or decline the offer.

It has to be that way round because if a shop was making an offer to sell, then ANYONE could accept the offer. So a gun would be offered to under 18s and an under 18 accepting the offer would have a contract and both would be breaking the law.

So the shop invites potential customers to treat themselves.

The buyer then offers to buy

The shop can then accept or decline the offer. So for an under age person buying a controlled item - they can decline and avoid the offence.

I have no doubt that some shops have shit terms and conditions that could be challenged - but your only loss would be your money, so you'd get a simple refund.

Buying in person is different because you take it away with you, OR you agree to pay in advance of the shop obtaining stock. Its a specific term of contract to put the shop in funds before they order something for you.

wow. that is needlessly complicated.

hugbot

I wouldn't say needless.

RaymondLin

The case laws for that is Fisher vs Bell (1960) and Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots (1953).

Wazmeister

guitarfishbay said:

Stupid username anyway. Saddam Highgain and Push Pol Pot are spinning in their graves, Robert Mogami isn't talking to him either.

"Push Pol Pot" - kin brilliant ! 

I did genuinely chuckle to myself at this....