Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/05/20[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
You still don't have it right, Don. You are not in a position to say that the, "buyer obviously received an item that could not be authenticated as an original black paint camera." Indeed, there is every indication that the seller represented the M4 to the buyer accurately, completely, and honestly. Buzz Hausner -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Don Dory Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:38 PM To: email@example.com Subject: [Leica] fraud on the LUG OK all, I went back and re-read most of the account of the black paint M3. I think the key point is intentional fraud. From Brian's post, the seller was acting in good faith, believing the camera to be an original black paint camera. The buyer obviously received an item that could not be authenticated as an original black paint camera or he would not carp about the price. The buyer, after receiving the camera without the authenticating paper work, tried to return the camera for a refund. This would appear to be a normal request for an item whose value depends on some unique aspect, in this case black paint, which could not be authenticated.