TARA Labs cable challenge!!

[prockenklang]

I just found out something interesting,none of the Tara Labs cables that we have in stock have a "Made In U.S.A" sticker on them!! However,on the packages for the Tara Labs Prism AC cables,it states"Each Prism Interconnect is hand-assembled and individually tested at our factory in Southern Oregon". It doesn't state that it is made here,just assembled.

I can't say if their lower-end cables are made here or not,I have never stocked them,and to my knowledge,the cables that were seized were all lower-end,not the pro cables,and that,from what I understand, the high-end cables are made here.

By-the-way,anybody heard from Bob yet?

 

[funkycarnivore]

Maybe it's cause they got busted for having cables with "Made in the U.S.A." labels on them that really weren't.

 

[prockenklang]

Maybe it's cause they got busted for having cables with "Made in the U.S.A." labels on them that really weren't.

I highly doubt it,some of these cables were from an order we recieved a few months before they got "busted".

 

[prockenklang]

I heard a rumour that Glockenlang is Peavey's German subsidiary. Is this true?

Funny you bring-up Peavey,the rumour I heard was that Ashdown was their lower line English subsidiary!

 

[prockenklang]

I heard Ashdown is the lower end line of Behringer.

It actually doesn't bother me if someone rags on my gear. Heck, I even like Peavey!

Oh,you were ragging on my Glockenklang gear? I thought you were serious! By-the-way, I think both Peavey and Ashdown make some killer products!

 

[Munjibunga]

Just for the record, being the capitalist pig that I am, Tara Labs can charge $2,000 for a few cables, or any other price. And you people can pay it. Or not. It's not gouging. It's charging what the traffic will bear. If they can keep sales high enough to make a profit and pay their fines, then the price is right.

 

[bigbeefdog]

However, the "gouging" issue has no legal relevance. Their cost to manufacture the cable has nothing to do with the fair market value. The cost of the wod and metal in an high end bass is nowhere near what the fair market value is for the bass. What you are paying for is the manufacturing process. If they decide to build in $500 an hour of r manufacturing and another $500 per unit in R&D and engineering costs, that's their perrogative. If you choose to or not to buy it, that's yours. There is nothing illegal about charging their price for these cables.

Not quite the point I was making.

Of course the "gouging" has no legal relevance; I wasn't suggesting it did. But your choice of whether or not to buy it, and at what price, is influenced by how they represent the product.

So, Tim's legal position is very simple. If he can return the cables, he should. If he cannot, he should offer them fair compensation for their loss - roughly $14. Hell, give 'em a 50% profit - offer them $21.

But if they insist on $2,000 compensation, he should forcefully remind them that that price was agreed upon several months ago, and was based, in part, on their misrepresentration that the cables were "Made In USA".

There was a contract, and it is now void due to the cables having been mislabeled and misrepresented (if, of course, the feds are correct). So Tim is no longer bound by it.

Any civil court in the U.S. would arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[Munjibunga]

Not quite the point I was making.

Of course the "gouging" has no legal relevance; I wasn't suggesting it did. But your choice of whether or not to buy it, and at what price, is influenced by how they represent the product.

So, Tim's legal position is very simple. If he can return the cables, he should. If he cannot, he should offer them fair compensation for their loss - roughly $14. Hell, give 'em a 50% profit - offer them $21.

But if they insist on $2,000 compensation, he should forcefully remind them that that price was agreed upon several months ago, and was based, in part, on their misrepresentration that the cables were "Made In USA".

There was a contract, and it is now void due to the cables having been mislabeled and misrepresented (if, of course, the feds are correct). So Tim is no longer bound by it.

Any civil court in the U.S. would arrive at the same conclusion.

I don't see why any contract between them would be for anything but the retail price of the cables.

 

[nashvillebill]

Let's just put the matter to rest and return the cables.

 

[Marlat]

There was a contract, and it is now void due to the cables having been mislabeled and misrepresented (if, of course, the feds are correct). So Tim is no longer bound by it.

Its highly unlikely there is any contract at all, techinically, at least under UK/ Australian law, there would be a bailment of goods. The duty on the bailee is to return the goods in specie according to the terms of the bailment. Which has not occured.

Also, you seem to have missed the part where Prockenlang explained that the cables that were the subject of the seisure were Tara's low end cables and the highend ones were not involved.

 

[ModulusFan]

Guys, please understand I am not making excuses, or trying to make the impression that they should not be returned....I actually feel quite strongly the opposite. Sounds like in some replies, people seem to think I feel I shouldn't have to return them? Not the case at all. I have sent messages to bob, and I know he is a good guy, so I have no worries he will return them soon. I have expressed the urgency of their return, so I am sure it wont be a problem.

I would also like to offer thanks to Tara, and Long specifically for allowing us to do this little project. I would also like to apologize for the extreme tardiness returning them. By me stating it has been "out of my hands", means I haven't personally seen the cables in 9 months either, they have been in other testers hands. Again, I am not trying to make excuses, just stating that this was not by any means my intentions. However, as the one who put this idea together, I do feel I am ultimately responsible for the products sent to me. If needed, I will find a way to cover them, to protect a good trusting reputation online, and attemp to show that I am indeed a standup guy.

Tim

 

[bigbeefdog]

I don't see why any contract between them would be for anything but the retail price of the cables.

That's exactly what it would have been. But it becomes null and void if misrepresentation/fraud is proven.

In fact, *if* the alleged misrepresentation is proven, it's likely that any and all retail customers could bring (and successfully argue) an action to have their money returned, much in the same manner that one can void a car purchase if pertinent information (such as an odometer rollback) is known and not disclosed by the seller.

Its highly unlikely there is any contract at all, techinically, at least under UK/ Australian law, there would be a bailment of goods. The duty on the bailee is to return the goods in specie according to the terms of the bailment. Which has not occured.

Well, there's a contract, even if it's only a verbal one, to either return the goods or pay compensation to those who loaned them. They wouldn't loan them otherwise.

The problem here is that the goods may not be *able* to be returned. The fellow who has them isn't responding. If they cannot be, the subject of fair compensation must follow.

And if it turns out that the goods were not as touted back in December by the seller, then enforcement of the December "bailment amount" by a civil court is highly unlikely.

Also, you seem to have missed the part where Prockenlang explained that the cables that were the subject of the seisure were Tara's low end cables and the highend ones were not involved.

Nah, didn't miss it. Prock's post came later, after I had already started down this road. Of course, it is all dependent on whether the loaned cable(s) were mislabeled.

If Prock is correct, the $2,000 will likely stand up.

As I said, before, the preferred resolution is for the cables to be returned.

 

[Marlat]

Well, there's a contract, even if it's only a verbal one, to either return the goods or pay compensation to those who loaned them. They wouldn't loan them otherwise.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from, but unless the facts are otherwise than as stated in this thread, there is not a contract. In order for there to be a contract there needs to be consideration. There is no consideration flowing from the recipeint of the goods to Tara Labs. What you have here is a gratuitious loan of goods from Tara to the recipeint, which IIRC is a species of bailment (that is NOT a contract).

If you were advising Tara on their recourse towards the recipient, you would not be telling them to sue in contract (unless you wanted a malpractice suit), because in the absence of valuable consideration, there is no contract. Perhaps if you were taking this to Judge Judy

The problem here is that the goods may not be *able* to be returned. The fellow who has them isn't responding. If they cannot be, the subject of fair compensation must follow.

And if it turns out that the goods were not as touted back in December by the seller, then enforcement of the December "bailment amount" by a civil court is highly unlikely.

The issue of what the goods were touted as and what they has already been clarified by Prockenlang.

However unless there was some "term" in this non-existent contract as to the value of the goods rather than just saying a "Tara "The One" cable", what their cost price was would likely be irrelevant. A court would likely enforce the amount that Tara "lost" (ie the amount they lost as a result of the conversion of their goods, which would be the retail amount of the cable).

If the cable was misrepresented, then ordinarily the recipient could sue to recover any loss they made as a result of that misrepresentation (or for the return of goods), however in this case (ie a gratuitious loan), the recipient incurred no cost, therefore nothing would be recoverable.

EDIT: Just want to say that this is OT of the thread, but wanted to correct the assertion that there was some kind of contract here. Ie correct the misinformation.

 

[ModulusFan]

I thought my last post would clarify it to people, but I guess not.

Drop it.

 

[Petebass]

Guys I don't have internet access at home at the moment, and I feel this thread needs to be watched. Therefore I'm going to close it temporarily. It will be re-opened soon. Sorry for any inconvenience.

 

[Petebass]

OK, I'm back online and so is this thread. Let's keep it civil folks, and lets please keep private matters private.

 

[bigbeefdog]

And civil it shall remain.

But I feel compelled correct Mark's mistaken "correction" of the information I posted earlier - specifically,

I'm not sure where you are getting this from, but unless the facts are otherwise than as stated in this thread, there is not a contract. In order for there to be a contract there needs to be consideration. There is no consideration flowing from the recipeint of the goods to Tara Labs.

Really? From the first post in this thread...

If you would like to send me one of the cables, I will evaluate it, and also pick 5-10 other respected members to forward the product to, once my testing is done. If you approve this idea, I will contact the moderator of the amps forum, and ask him to sticky a post for me at the top of his forum, with an announcement of the testing being done. I will then make a thread in my forum (recording gear), giving updates on it's travel, and thoughts along the way. I'd like to have this in my forum, as I would be willing to do the moderating this thread apparently needs, and don't want to burden others that don't want to deal with it. In the end, I will write a collective review to be published on talkbass, complete with user comments, and average ratings in several categories.

This is a good opportunity for you to prove to the nay-sayers that you do indeed sell a quality product, and can stand behind your claims. I look forward to working with you, and hope that you find this opportunity to be "your big break".

If I do see a significant difference in the cable, I will commit to buying one myself, as I am sure others will follow. Please contact me ASAP, so I can get you my address out to get this dog underway.

Tim Cole

Five "I will"'s, one "this is a good opportunity for you", and one "your big break".

There's your consideration, Mark. Free advertising. The calling of attention to the product by use of a sticky post. Exposure to potential customers that may not have heard of the product previously. The hope of positive reviews, which would generate sales. Even Tim's commitment to purchasing one himself, should the product impress.

All things of value.

OTOH, if a teenager without two nickels to rub together were to approach Tara Labs and ask for a cable loan "because my friends would think I'm the $#!tz", I think we all know that he would be told no - AFTER they stopped laughing.

Consideration does not always have to be monetary. Nor is it the courts' job to determine if it is equitable - only that it exists. It clearly does.

And since we have consideration in both directions, along with performance requirements, a contract has been created.

I'm done on this subject. If you feel like trying to again forward this peculiar legal theory of yours, be my guest. You can have the last word.

As I've said several times now, the best resolution is for the cables to be located and returned.

 

[ModulusFan]

For all involved: I have contacted Bob, and he has agreed to return the cables immediately.

 

[complexprocess]

Maybe the cables ended up really making a difference and Bob didn't want to eat his words. Probably not the case, but you never know.

 

[Munjibunga]

Maybe the cables ended up really making a difference and Bob didn't want to eat his words. Probably not the case, but you never know.

That's probably it.