Your honor....If I sell a radio and show you by using a Webcam LIVE webcam said Radio, and all other equipment, and you say, I'll take it. And you also say to me, the seller, "YOU have taken good care of the unit, I can literally SEE that obviously are a concerned person about your equipment and how it looks and works.
Then, when the radio comes to you, you write an email saying, "the radio, just happens to need alignment and has also been sent to the painter, and BTW ALL filters SWITCHES don't work on the Speaker", Wouldn't it behove you to tell me "the seller" take the radio back, I want my 600.00 returned.
Now on the other hand, 5 days later, I received by registered mail, only 600.00. I call you the buyer, ask you, where is the other 300.00 you told me you were sending me, and you tell me OH, I sent it the very day, I received the radio, via regular mail even though that was not a part of the agreement.
Where in the verbal contract did we agree that you would keep a portion of the funds in case the radio equipment needed to be "FIXED". Oh, but wait!!! How did you come to the conclustion that the equipment you were about to receive would have issues. And...WHY AGREE TO BUY BROKEN EQUIPMENT?
Why not just tell the seller to give you their radio equipment, you'll fix it and then it's all yours because you fixed it but not tell the seller it's actually your equipment because you fixed it. WHATTTTTTTTT?
David's plot thickens:
a week and 1/2 later when I "TRY" to contact the buyer and ask "OK, so where are the rest of the funds you said you were sending by "regular mail that very day", and the buyer starts bouncing back the emails and will not respond. Why would you tell me that?
If you knew the radio would have problems and you made the decision to keep 300.00 to fix the radio equipment, why wouldm't you tell me at the time of the verbal agreement, so I could make the decision to sell you the radio if indeed it actually had issues.
Is it right for the buyer to hold funds from the sell incase there are radio issues, but NOT TELL THE SELLER? Dang, I gotta try that one.
Doesn't that seem a bit funny, when the buyer should have said, OH, the radio is not what you said it would be, because I have just happened to "find all these issues", that were never there when the seller had said radio, These issues just happened to appear out of the thin air does that also seem a bit odd even though the buyer SAW 1st hand the very unit they bought.
Your honor....This radio is a collectors item and the internal parts are expensive. 6 meter module goes for 350.00 on ebay. The radio goes for 650.00. Sp6 go for 100.00. And this radio had the original box in good condition (oh, I'm sure he'll argue that too. Still this unit would sell for easy 1000.00 on ebay. but I sold the whole radio, kit and kabodal for 850.00 + shipping. Yes and very good deal in deed.
Oh but now the radio just happens to need "adjusting, painting and filters on speaker don't work".
So, then who do we believe,
On one hand there is a verbal agreement of payment of goods rendered but only a portion of the funds are received, kinda like ransom, right?
N0IRS JD, says...No you sold me equipment that was known defective and MADE me fix everything. I'd rather fix it then send it back. Therefore, I'm gonna keep 300.00 but tell you the 300.00 is on the way. I "really know" that there would be problems with the equipment, I have the right to hold randsom.
Did David, knowingly and with malicous content, know all of these problems with equipment and is trying to "get one over someone."
Or, Does JD, N0IRS using discountation and excuses to not have to pay what he said he would pay buy using the 300.00 he owes David to fix radio equipment that actually WASN'T BROKE IN THE 1st PLACE!!!
One thing is sure, David does not have the agreed upon price. JD on the other hand has one hell of a radio, and he knows it. JD also knows that he is MILES away and in a different state and also knows that David cannot drive to his location and demand funds agreed.
Just an old man trying to deal with someone stealing 300.00 that could have been used to buy some equipment that was not working and not send the funds to someone because it is not working but then fix to make it work with the 300.00 you bought it for. Even though there was not wrong with the equipment in the first place.
David Allen Tausworthe