Negative Experience with Anothernewphone

[MonBK]

He logged in again at 4.30pm

[offrdmania]

Originally Posted by Runnin' Rebel

We have detectives on here. how would anyone know that lol 😂

Last login time is listed on any members statistics. You last logged in, "Today 04:49 AM"

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by MonBK

He logged in again at 4.30pm

Right , if you go to his profile it states it in the
Statistics page last activity... apparently he checked
to see his messsages ?

We shall see ... hopefully he responds/replies

[kdub]

Bill is alive!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[schnipples24]

VERYYY interesting....so it looks like he logged on....but he still hasn't reached out to me or anything....im starting to think he may be trying to avoid me and hope this all blows over at this point? IDK....

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by schnipples24

VERYYY interesting....so it looks like he logged on....but he still hasn't reached out to me or anything....im starting to think he may be trying to avoid me and hope this all blows over at this point? IDK....

fwiw, use this thread to ask what you want; start fresh. he's likely apprehensive about walking openly into this clusterbomb only to be banned in short order...

if say, $250, $500 makes this go away, just throw it out there.

but, i still wouldn't send the watch back at this point.

[schnipples24]

I just would like a refund at this point I don't want any additional money. I think it would be fair at this point if he fully refunds me, and then I send the watch back? I have plenty of feedback on WUS and would gladly send the watch back if he refunds me in full first.

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

fwiw, use this thread to ask what you want; start fresh. he's likely apprehensive about walking openly into this clusterbomb only to be banned in short order...

if say, $250, $500 makes this go away, just throw it out there.

but, i still wouldn't send the watch back at this point.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by schnipples24

I just would like a refund at this point I don't want any additional money. I think it would be fair at this point if he fully refunds me, and then I send the watch back? I have plenty of feedback on WUS and would gladly send the watch back if he refunds me in full first.

I wouldn't count on that ever happen.

[superstarmar]

Originally Posted by MonBK

I wouldn't count on that ever happen.

[subfanatic]

I tagged him on instagram yesterday, I knew he was alive.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by schnipples24

...im starting to think he may be trying to avoid me....

Ya think?

[Runnin' Rebel]

Originally Posted by offrdmania

Last login time is listed on any members statistics. You last logged in, "Today 04:49 AM"

[GoingPlaces]

Originally Posted by freefly

+1

While I completely understand the OP's sentiment/frustration, and I can appreciate the "heads-up" to other potential buyers, there does seem to be a slight exaggeration/overreaction element here. From what I am seeing, it would have taken less time and effort to polish the case/bezel (by hand, no machine-polish needed) and hit the bracelet with some Scotch-Brite, than it did to create this thread (with all the replies, taking/uploading pics, updating with more pics, etc.). Plus, it would have been much more fruitful than trying to assign blame (lack of due diligence vs. misrepresentation), and/or waiting for the seller to respond. YMMV...

Seriously? Way over your head...

[Johny]

perhaps the seller has been on holiday.

[Knappo 1307]

I have officially changed my outlook on this. With the seller logging in since this thread has started, I believe unfortunately he has dipped......

[schnipples24]

Yeah....unfortunately I'm starting to feel that way too. 😢

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

I have officially changed my outlook on this. With the seller logging in since this thread has started, I believe unfortunately he has dipped......

[MrLy]

Good luck OP, Hopefully something good will come out of this experience, this makes me extra cautious as I'm about to purchase another watch.
All the best,

[MrLy]

Good luck OP, Hopefully something good will come out of this experience, this makes me extra cautious as I'm about to purchase another watch.
All the best,

[forgedblades]

Originally Posted by roaddog359

Fraud
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.
Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.
Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.
Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.
Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.
Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.
A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.
The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if the seller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is an auto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.
A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence. For example, if a real estate agent fails to disclose that a home is built on a toxic waste dump, the omission may be regarded as a fraudulent statement. Even if the agent does not know of the dump, the omission may be considered fraudulent. This is constructive fraud, and it is usually inferred when a party is a fiduciary and has a duty to know of, and disclose, particular facts.
Fraud is an independent criminal offense, but it also appears in different contexts as the means used to gain a legal advantage or accomplish a specific crime. For example, it is fraud for a person to make a false statement on a license application in order to engage in the regulated activity. A person who did so would not be convicted of fraud. Rather, fraud would simply describe the method used to break the law or regulation requiring the license.
Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of False Pretenses created to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.
Federal and state criminal statutes provide for the punishment of persons convicted of fraudulent activity. Interstate fraud and fraud on the federal government are singled out for federal prosecution. The most common federal fraud charges are for mail and wire fraud. Mail and wire fraud statutes criminalize the use of the mails or interstate wires to create or further a scheme to defraud (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1341, 1342).
Tax fraud against the federal government consists of the willful attempt to evade or defeat the payment of taxes due and owing (I.R.C. §7201). Depending on the defendant's intent, tax fraud results in either civil penalties or criminal punishment. Civil penalties can reach an amount equal to 75 percent of the underpayment. Criminal punishment includes fines and imprisonment. The degree of intent necessary to maintain criminal charges for tax fraud is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Internal Revenue Service and federal prosecutors.
There are other federal fraud laws. For example, the fraudulent registration of Aliens is punishable as a misdemeanor under federal law (8 U.S.C.A. § 1306). The "victim" in such a fraud is the U.S. government. Fraud violations of banking laws are also subject to federal prosecution (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 104 et seq.).
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend consideration of the intended victims of fraud in the sentencing of fraud defendants. The guidelines urge an upward departure from standard sentences if the intended victims are especially vulnerable. For example, if a defendant markets an ineffective cancer cure, that scheme, if found to be fraudulent, would warrant more punishment than a scheme that targets persons generally, and coincidentally happens to injure a vulnerable person. Federal courts may require persons convicted of fraud to give notice and an explanation of the conviction to the victims of the fraud (18 U.S.C.A. § 3555).
All states maintain a general criminal statute designed to punish fraud. In Arizona, the statute is called the fraudulent scheme and artifice statute. It reads, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions" is guilty of a felony (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2310(A)).
States further criminalize fraud in a variety of settings, including trade and commerce, Securities, taxes, real estate, gambling, insurance, government benefits, and credit. In Hawaii, for example, fraud on a state tax return is a felony warranting a fine of up to $100,000 or three years of imprisonment, or both, and a fraudulent corporate tax return is punished with a fine of $500,000 (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 231-36). Other fraud felonies include fraud in the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance (§ 329-42) and fraud in government elections (§ 19-4). Fraud in the application for and receipt of public assistance benefits is punished according to the illegal gain: fraud in obtaining over $20,000 in food coupons is a class B felony; fraud in obtaining over $300 in food coupons is a class C felony; and all other public assistance fraud is a misdemeanor (§ 346-34). Alteration of a measurement device is fraud and is punished as a misdemeanor (§ 486-136).
In civil court, the remedy for fraud can vary. In most states, a plaintiff may recover "the benefit of the bargain." This is a measure of the difference between the represented value and the actual value of the transaction. In some states, a plaintiff may recover as actual damages only the value of the property lost in the fraudulent transaction. All states allow a plaintiff to seek Punitive Damages in addition to actual damages. This right is exercised most commonly in cases where the fraud is extremely dangerous or costly. Where the fraud is contractual, a plaintiff may choose to cancel, or rescind, the contract. A court order of Rescission returns all property and restores the parties to their precontract status.

This guy is serious WOW

[smith one]

This is indeed sad and disapointing for the op.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

Can't be serious.

Originally Posted by imperio

Totally missing the point.

Originally Posted by rolexkidd

Whatever.......you are totally missing the point.

Originally Posted by GoingPlaces

Seriously? Way over your head...

LOL, reading is fundamental (and group-think is not). Was the watch misrepresented? Sure, just maybe not to the DEGREE that was being insinuated, IMO. That was MY point. Did that go over your heads?
Also, it is pretty easy to spot those who lack the knowledge and/or skill WRT to refinish work, photography, and those who have probably never had a loupe up to their eye.
In other words, it would appear than many don't know what they are even looking at in the OP's pics, just that it looks "bad". The pros chiming in so far have been right on the money, IMO.

Again, I understand the OP's frustration. Been there myself. I just got a little sense of a mountain being made out of a mole hill here. That is in no way any sort of absolvement (let alone endorsement) of the seller!
I don't know either party, and have no dog in this fight - only making observations.

Does the seller need to chime in with his side of the story, and make good? Absolutely. At lease if he wants to retain any semblance of respect and/or reputation here.
IMO any stand-up seller would just take it back, no questions asked, and refund the buyer (as long as it arrived in the same condition it was in when it left).

Now that other's have noted his log-on today, I guess we'll see...

[freefly]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

So any transaction that is misrepresented to you personally, you would be OK with as long as you can fix it yourself?

LOL, easy with the straw-man argument there bud.
Instead of putting words in my mouth, go back and read what I wrote.

Originally Posted by tyler1980

Im sorry but my time is worth money and spending several hours fixing something i shouldn't have to fix in the first place would make the price i paid for that watch not worth it.

Again with the lack of knowledge regarding the "damage" here.

The fact that you (and others?) think that it would take "several hours" to make that watch pretty again speaks volumes.
It would appear that some here don't have the visual acuity or experience to be making judgements based on the pictures provided.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by uansari1

This part of the forum is to warn others...the OP has done this forum a service.

Originally Posted by tyler1980

This was a heads up to others which is what this section is here for

Thanks, I'm quite aware of the purpose of this particular sub-forum, and even acknowledged the OP's "warning" aspect in my first post above.
If you were to search my posts here in "Watch Out", I am sure you would agree that I have a basic grasp of the concept.
Anyway, I stand by what I said, even if it was playing Devils-Advocate just a bit.
Call me crazy, but I think being a healthy skeptic is a logical approach to any one-sided story. YMMV...

[TPLGT]

Originally Posted by freefly

Thanks, I'm quite aware of the purpose of this particular sub-forum, and even acknowledged the OP's "warning" aspect in my first post above.
If you were to search my posts here in "Watch Out", I am sure you would agree that I have a basic grasp of the concept.
Anyway, I stand by what I said, even if it was playing Devils-Advocate just a bit.
Call me crazy, but I think being a healthy skeptic is a logical approach to any one-sided story. YMMV...

Why be a total dick? The op was screwed by a seller. Leave it at that. It's obvious you're trying to play the "smart guy" ...how about supporting a fellow member and stirring the pot? Jeez.

[freefly]

Originally Posted by TPLGT

Why be a total dick? The op was screwed by a seller. Leave it at that. It's obvious you're trying to play the "smart guy" ...how about supporting a fellow member and stirring the pot? Jeez.

Wow. Thanks for that measured, intelligent post (resorting to name-calling no less), lol...

Sorry if you take an opposing (but relevant) observation/viewpoint as "being a total dick". Seems to be quite a few unhinged folks and knee-jerk reactions flying around in this thread...
Your definition of "screwed" here is clearly different then mine (and other experienced members) as well. In this case, yours appears to be based on a complete lack of understanding of what it is you are looking at.

To quote the most succinct post in this thread so far (IMO), once more:

Originally Posted by Valenciawatchrepair

With my background in photography and my expertise in watch repair, I'd say his photos do a good job hiding the scratches and your photos do a good job exaggerating them. As for the watch, even a quick refinish would probably bring it back to like new condition. I don't really see any dings or dents, just surface scratches. Seller should at least offer to compensate for a refinish or something. Days with no reply is not cool. This is a simple fix.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by freefly

+1

From what I am seeing, it would have taken less time and effort to polish the case/bezel (by hand, no machine-polish needed) and hit the bracelet with some Scotch-Brite, than it did to create this thread

[QUOTE=freefly;7765515]Was the watch misrepresented? Sure

Originally Posted by freefly

LOL, easy with the straw-man argument there bud.
Instead of putting words in my mouth, go back and read what I wrote.

I did.

You said it was misrepresented and said OP should fix it himself instead of creating a thread about it. Its a fair question to ask, if you would be Ok if it happened to you, as you seem fine with it when it is someone else's watch.

Any time a watch is misrepresented the responsibility lies with the seller not the buyer to make it right, period. Fixing it yourself is not a reasonable expectation, and you agreed it was misrepresented. Degree of misrepresentation is irrelevant, it either is or it isn't misrepresented.

[Johny]

Any updates on the seller?

[Andad]

Hi J,

The seller has logged in to TRF but not on this thread.

Is it time for him to step up and address this issue?

E.

[schnipples24]

I'm sorry but I don't follow your logic. I didn't use flash or excessive lighting to try and exagerate the wear. The first set was taken with my phone and the second set with a nice camera. So you have multiple angles taken with different cameras, and the watch looks like a beater in all of them.

If it isn't such a big deal, then why is the seller in hiding and yet to reach out to me? He logged on multiple times yesterday so it's obvious he's alive and active.

You are telling me the watch I showed pictures of is in "excellent condition with little noticeable wear"? You would be completely happy if you paid $4050.00 and received the watch that I did? If I didn't have nice members here reaching out to me, the cost of a professional polish would fall on me + the time it takes to send it out and receive it back from polish. I didn't drop 4k on that watch, so I could go through the headache of getting all that done. 4050 isn't even that good of a price, there's probably 5+ for sale on watchrecon right now for 4.2-4.3k, could probably be talked down to 4.1k.

I will be sending out my watch tomorrow to the wonderful William for polishing. If he has the time I believe he might be posting progress pics, so anyone doubting the validity of my claim can check in once those are uploaded.

Originally Posted by freefly

LOL, reading is fundamental (and group-think is not). Was the watch misrepresented? Sure, just maybe not to the DEGREE that was being insinuated, IMO. That was MY point. Did that go over your heads?
Also, it is pretty easy to spot those who lack the knowledge and/or skill WRT to refinish work, photography, and those who have probably never had a loupe up to their eye.
In other words, it would appear than many don't know what they are even looking at in the OP's pics, just that it looks "bad". The pros chiming in so far have been right on the money, IMO.

Again, I understand the OP's frustration. Been there myself. I just got a little sense of a mountain being made out of a mole hill here. That is in no way any sort of absolvement (let alone endorsement) of the seller!
I don't know either party, and have no dog in this fight - only making observations.

Does the seller need to chime in with his side of the story, and make good? Absolutely. At lease if he wants to retain any semblance of respect and/or reputation here.
IMO any stand-up seller would just take it back, no questions asked, and refund the buyer (as long as it arrived in the same condition it was in when it left).

Now that other's have noted his log-on today, I guess we'll see...

[Johny]

Originally Posted by directioneng

Hi J,

The seller has logged in to TRF but not on this thread.

Is it time for him to step up and address this issue?

E.

Hi E.

I'm surprised that he hasn't done so already.

J.