Help with bass related lawsuit

[jmondick]

Removing original post ...

I contacted the bass playing community to discuss the differences between carved and hybrid basses and get opinions on the original ad, not to discuss the merits of a lawsuit, which is a big reason why I put the disclaimers and such in the OP. I should have known better than to ask advice from a TB forum. Another lesson learned.

Going to edit my original post. I was going to leave the questions, but without the context they are kind of useless ...

[toman]

My opinion: You bought it. The internet is a risky place to do business, and musical instruments are not an easy thing to trade in. Never trust a person selling anything; it is the buyer's responsibility to determine the item's value whether its a bass, used car, or yams at the farmers market. If you don't have the knowledge to evaluate what you're buying, you need to get an expert to do it for you before you buy; otherwise, you're responsible for any decision you make.

Plenty of people will tell you I'm a jerk, but realistically, to expect the seller to answer for your poor judgement is weak. You made a mistake, deal with it.

[kevinmoore73]

Originally Posted by jmondick

I do want to clarify - even though I found the bass over the Internet, it was a local sale.

So you looked it over yourself before buying it? Sorry, but the only one to blame is yourself.

Originally Posted by jmondick

While it may be the buyer's responsibility to make sure he/she is getting a fair deal, it is also the seller's responsibility to represent the bass honestly and fully

Maybe the seller didn't know? Perhaps they explained it to the best of their knowledge? After all, you looked at the bass yourself before handing over your money. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think you have a case at all.

I just re-read your original post. If you're unable to recognize a bowed neck, perhaps you should let someone buy your basses for you. I'm not trying to be mean, just telling it like I see it.

[toman]

Misleading claims are the hallmark of business. We live in a capitalist society, not a hippie commune. To expect others to look out of your welfare is not the American way, and to seek second-hand vengance when you get screwed on a business deal is , IMO. I'm not going to post further on this subject, but dealing in musical instruments is a cutthroat business, and lawsuits are a pretty cowardly way out, when there were plenty of options to avoid being screwed in the first place. The fact that it was a local sale and not over the internet makes it even moreso, and the fact that Hammond Ashley, one of the bigger names in bass dealing in the US, is in your city doesn't help either. Again, weak. Sorry.

P.s. Don't buy a used car any time soon, or you'll be in court for years. "But, but, the dealer said the transmission was brand new, your honor!"

[Dave Martin]

I have to agree with the others - I'm assuming that you played the bass before you bought it, and you were apparently happy with it for a few months. In fact, I'd suggest that you apparently were happy with the instrument until you took it to Hammond Ashley for a setup; why not take legal action against them, since they were responsible for your current state of unhappiness...
(In case you're wondering, no I'm not a big fan of this sort of legal action; I think that this country would be a heck of a lot better if we disbarred about 90% of the lawyers and folks took responsibility for their own actions).

Off hand, I can think of a couple of ways to improve a bass with a bowed neck, with the worst case being to replace the neck. It is NOT unrepairable - might be expensive, but it's doable.

I would also suggest that if the seller didn't KNOW that the bass wasn't fully carved, then the ad certainly wasn't intentionally misleading. For that matter, I generally refer to a hybrid bass as a 'carved top bass'; someone who wasn't that knowledgeable who heard 'carved top' and then read a number of ads to get the right wording for her own ad could very easily have mis-remembered what the bass was. For that matter, I betcha the top WAS hand carved....

Another question (though it might not have any bearing on this) - was the seller a bassist who had been playing the instrument, or a punter selling a bass that she didn't play?.

You're claiming 'fraud'; I don't see this as reaching that level, myself; you might have paid too much for the instrument, but when you bought it, you thought it was worth the price. How much of this is simply 'buyers remorse'?

If anything, I would suggest that it's your own fault; by your own admission, you didn't know what you were doing, yet you didn't do what would be called 'due diligence' in other fields; you didn't get a second opinion as to the value of the instrument and the shape it was in - a bad thing considering your own admitted ignorance of the field. Was a trip to the repair shop or another bass shop have been out of the question before purchasing it - or even letting a more experienced bassist look at it? Did you do any research to find out if Roth MADE fully carved basses at the time this one was made? Did you get the model number of the bass and check to see if those are indeed fully carved instruments?

Here's a similar story (though with a happier ending: I bought a guitar last month - a late 1930's era Regal archtop. I know nothing about Regals, and very little about the guitars of that era. In any case, the seller sent it to me, and I played it for a bit (I liked it). Then I let 4 or 5 VERY experienced archtop guitar players look at it (all of them said that I needed to raise the action, but they thought it was a cool guitar). after that, I took it to Gruhn's Guitars for an appraisal (which cost $50) - George appraised it for about 50% more than the seller was asking. As it happened, another experienced vintage guitar dealer was visiting that week, and she guesstimated it as worth perhaps twice what Gruhn thought (or more than twice what I was going to pay). Had the appraisals been less than what the seller was asking, I might still have bought the instrument, since experienced musicians liked it as well as I did. But THAT's kinda what you do when you don't know what you're buying. You apprently didn't do any of that; it ain't the seller's fault.

[grovest]

Hey Jeff- so did you cross post this to 2xbasslist or something? ("In order to avoid clogging up the list, please respond to me directly") If so, what are those responses shaping up like? Did you ask to look at the appraisal before deciding to sue her? Did you ask her what her background is in instrument sales? Do you ever visit estate sales? I kind of feel bad for the lady, and I think I'll investigate which of the presidential candidates have spoken the most about tort reform. I do like the HA guys. That's a great place and worth even the 250 mile drive from my location. Sorry for the flippant post... (but I'm more sorry for her if you end up suing her).

EDIT:

Hiya... I want to add two more thoughts after reading drurb and myh's posts. I didn't go looking for the ad, and the original post here didn't give much background on the seller. If the seller really did have an appraisal for the value from a bona fide source, I think it is hard to say she committed fraud when the chances are good she didn't know any different. We don't know from the OP if the OP asked to return the bass. I'm not completely clear if the $1300 repair was actually performed. If it was, did the OP consider calling the seller before committing to the repair? Did the OP consider 'splitting the difference' with the seller for a return? Were there pictures of the bass in the ad that could indicate the construction? What kind of conversation happened with the seller after the HA visit? What is the legal difference between misleading and incorrect? How do I feel about providing free information that could potentially bolster a case against some widow trying to sell her late husband's upright after she found an old appraisal in his desk? What should I have for dinner tonight???!

[drurb]

I certainly agree with others here who have noted that you did not do your "due diligence" and you failed to take very simple, common-sense, prudent steps that would have protected you. From what you have related, it is not clear that there was any intention on the part of the seller to mislead. At most, it sounds like there was a misunderstanding that occurred in the undocumented verbal communication.

Now, if you could document beyond any substantial doubt that the bass was represented to you as being fully hand carved and it turned out to be a hybrid, then yes, I believe you were damaged even if it was an honest mistake on the part of the seller. Again, it sounds like you cannot really document that. As far as the bowed neck-- well, you could have seen that or had someone else look. You do not state that the seller made any material representation regarding the neck.

I disagree with the philosophy of others who have posted who do not even address the issue of whether the seller misled you. They take an extreme "caveat emptor" approach suggesting all is fair in transactions and that if one is foolish, one deserves to suffer. I don't agree. If one is stupid enough to leave one's keys in the car with the engine running, then, IMO, that individual does not actually deserve to have his car stolen. If caught, the thief would still be arrested and tried and would not get a pass because the car-owner acted stupidly. So it is with transactions. I gotta say though, in this case, you seem to have done the equivalent of leaving your keys in your running car but it isn't even clear anybody took it.

[MyUsernameHere]

1. Would a bassist, luthier, and/or musical instrument dealer consider the original ad, as described above, misleading?

2. If the seller did not disclose the fact that the bass had a laminate back and sides, would a bassist, luthier, and/or musical instrument dealer consider that "material information" was withheld?

3. Is there a material difference between a carved bass and a hybrid? If so, what (I am not just looking for cost, but also other aspects of the bass such as tone, sustain, professional respect, future value, etc.)?

4. Would a bassist, luthier, and/or musical instrument dealer typically consider a neck bow as described above to be a major problem?

5. Would a bassist, luthier, and/or musical instrument dealer consider themselves "damaged" if they bought a hybrid bass that was originally advertised as "hand carved?" If so, how?

.


1. As described by you yes.

2. Only if he stated that the bass was fully carved in the add or the information wasn't specified in the add and he didn't answer truthfully a direct question about it. Fully carved and hybrid are pretty standard terms describing basses.

3. In your case cost would be your main concern. The guy who appraised your bass can probably explain the justification for the price differences between carved and hybrid instruments better than I. The fact that you were expecting it to be fully carved would justify the price paid. Why you wanted a fully carved bass in the first place isn't very relevant.

4. Depends. You have to prove that it isn't fixable and show that he sold it in bad faith. The fact that he specified "major" when talking about problems means that he could argue that what he meant by "major" problems was something like a broken neck or a chunk missing from the body. If you didn't ask what the specific problems were, even if they weren't major, you're probably out of luck.

5. Yes. Its straight up fraud. Now this is assuming that your description of what happened is accurate. Many times listing and selling items on a forum is considered a contract between buyer and seller. Someplace in the rules section of the forum should mention this. If the description is clearly worded but the product you receive is substantially different than that which was advertised, its fraud plain and simple.

toman, you are a jerk (just kidding). There are policies and laws for every consumer problem you listed. Lemon laws, return policies, etc...Buyer ignorance might be a justifiable defense for a shady seller when the buyer doesn't ask a question he or she should. However, when a buyer is told a certain thing and doesn't ask if the seller is lying about it, its not ignorance its being misinformed.

[MyUsernameHere]

Originally Posted by jmondick

even though I found the bass over the Internet, it was a local sale.

.

Didn't see this. If you had a reasonable chance to inspect it before buying you're probably out of luck.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by jmondick

5. Would a bassist, luthier, and/or musical instrument dealer consider themselves "damaged" if they bought a hybrid bass that was originally advertised as "hand carved?" If so, how?

Originally Posted by MyUsernameHere

5. Yes. Its straight up fraud. Now this is assuming that your description of what happened is accurate. Many times listing and selling items on a forum is considered a contract between buyer and seller. Someplace in the rules section of the forum should mention this. If the description is clearly worded but the product you receive is substantially different than that which was advertised, its fraud plain and simple.

Straight up fraud? I don't agree. If the bass was advertised as "hand carved" as this one was (I just looked at the ad), then yes, this would likely indicate and lead one to believe that it is fully carved. That, however, is not necessarily the case and, IMO, experts and even the moderately informed would ask whether, indeed, it was fully carved. As pointed out here before, it did have a carved top that was, presumably, hand-carved. In short "hand carved" does not mean "fully carved." Take a look at ads from instrument dealers all over ebay and elsewhere. Laminate basses are very often described as having spruce tops and maple backs. Sure, the very top and very back are spruce and maple. The veneers, that is!

[conte2music]

I know of trusting musicians that have been taken for much much more. I'm sorry for your misfortune, and hope you can make something positive of the situation without the need to sue the uninformed seller. (S)He could have just as easily sold you a great old italian carved bass for 1/10 its value. Knowledge is power...power up.

[MyUsernameHere]

Originally Posted by drurb

Straight up fraud? I don't agree. If the bass was advertised as "hand carved" as this one was (I just looked at the ad), then yes, this would likely indicate and lead one to believe that it is fully carved. That, however, is not necessarily the case and, IMO, experts and even the moderately informed would ask whether, indeed, it was fully carved. As pointed out here before, it did have a carved top that was, presumably, hand-carved. In short "hand carved" does not mean "fully carved." Take a look at ads from instrument dealers all over ebay and elsewhere. Laminate basses are very often described as having spruce tops and maple backs. Sure, the very top and very back are spruce and maple. The veneers, that is!

I was thinking the OP said fully carved for some reason. My bad.

Anyway, in my defense...uh...well...um...why don't you quite using bolded words. I think we can all recognize what necessarily, fully and very mean without the help j@#k A@#.

[Damon Rondeau]

To me, even the expression "fully carved" is not specific and has plenty of weasel potential. That could be true even if only the scroll is fully carved. Or, something like "whaddya mean fraudulent? The top on that bass is fully carved! It's not partially carved, it's fully carved!"

[kevinmoore73]

Originally Posted by jmondick

I did do a significant amount of due diligence, but even though the bass was a "local" sale it was still over an hour's drive from me.

The distance of the drive is no excuse. You had the opportunity to inspect the bass before purchase. Your failure to properly examine it is not the seller's fault.

You said the neck bow was hard to detect. It doesn't sound that bad if it's that hard to detect.

As for the carving, did you even look inside the bass before you paid for it? It doesn't sound like it. I mean, you can *see* the back through the F holes! Your eyes will tell you if it's plywood or carved.

You got burned on a bass you didn't examine. Now you're getting burned again by your lawyer. Quit while you're behind.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by MyUsernameHere

I was thinking the OP said fully carved for some reason. My bad.

Anyway, in my defense...uh...well...um...why don't you quite using bolded words. I think we can all recognize what necessarily, fully and very mean without the help j@#k A@#.

Gee, not very friendly of you. The name-calling seems rather unjustified. I used the bolded words for emphasis, not because I thought people wouldn't know the meaning of the words and not to "yell" at anybody.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by jmondick

Wow .. I didn't realize that there were so many lawyers on TB :-)

...given that I have only posted a brief summary...

...I will gladly send someone the details over e-mail if they really need them though, but it's pointless to get into a legal discussion...

I really, REALLY don't want to sue, and one of my reasons for gathering this information is so that I could present her with enough evidence so that I could convince her...

I hardly think that the comments you get on the internet would be very convincing "evidence" in a legal sense. You've made it clear that you don't want the actual issue discussed here but that you want pseudo-expert advice. Seriously then, if you want to proceed with your case, why don't you pay a bona fide and recognized expert to answer your questions and render an opinion?

[Febs]

Originally Posted by drurb

I hardly think that the comments you get on the internet would be very convincing "evidence" in a legal sense.

This is true. On the other hand, the statements of the original poster probably would be admissible evidence in this lawsuit. jmondick, you should really discuss the advisability of this thread with your lawyer before you post further.

[MyUsernameHere]

Originally Posted by drurb

Gee, not very friendly of you. The name-calling seems rather unjustified. I used the bolded words for emphasis, not because I didn't think anybody didn't know the meaning of the words and not to "yell" at anybody.

Just kidding. I was actually trying to poke fun at myself for posting my less than well thought out response by posting another.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by MyUsernameHere

Just kidding. I was actually trying to poke fun at myself for posting my less than well thought out response by posting another.

Thanks. Onward we go...

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Febs

This is true. On the other hand, the statements of the original poster probably would be admissible evidence in this lawsuit. jmondick, you should really discuss the advisability of this thread with your lawyer before you post further.

I had the same thought. Just speculation, but I wondered if all the disclaimers he included (e.g., just stating facts, not wanting to cast the seller in a bad light) were suggested by counsel.