Jump to content

UW3D

Member
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About UW3D

  • Rank
    Triggerfish

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.undersea3d.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Monterey Bay
  • Interests
    Underwater 3D still and video photography; 3D equipment, display and publishing.

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United States
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Custom 3D cameras
  • Camera Housing
    Custom Housings
  • Industry Affiliation
    Undersea 3D
  1. All valid points Chris. Adam reports that the admins do release information when they determine there has been fraud, so they do make legal calls at times. I am suggesting some clearer rules on classified practices, coupled with a subscriber's agreement stating that when the admins determine the rules have clearly been violated, the subscribers agree in advance to the release of specified personal information. Thus, the admins would no longer have to interpret the law (as they may be doing now in the case of suspected fraud?), which is certainly fraught with risk. Rather, the admins would be able to interpret and apply Wetpixel's own rules in their own discretion. I simply out the concept out there for debate. The Wetpixel classified rules I propose for discussion are: 1) If a seller offers an item for a fixed price and terms, and a buyer accepts the seller's sale offer on the seller's terms with no counter offer, or if the buyer accepts the seller's sales offer after a negotiation over terms, the seller is committed to sell and deliver upon payment. 2) If a buyer accepts a seller's offer to sell an item on definite terms, or if a buyer agrees to purchase an item after a negotiation with seller over terms, the buyer is committed to buy and pay. 3) If either a seller or buyer does not perform a commitment so as to violate the WP rules, they agree in the subscriber's agreement that their specified information may be released to the other party in the administrators' discretion.
  2. As of this morning when I wrote my post, wraptor was in fact still offering the item for sale on Wetpixel. i appologize to the commenter with the classification eagle ray that I could not locate his screen name as I wished to do.
  3. Eagle Ray correctly identifies the general rule that advertisements don't form contracts, but he fails to recognize the exception to the rule. For anyone interested, I refer to this lay article describing when an advertisement is sufficiently definite to form a contract. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/advertisements.html. Eagle Ray opines that there was no present intent to form a contract with this particular advertisement by wraptor, because the general practice is to negotiate the details of the sale, shipping, etc. before entering into a formal agreement. But this advertisement specified those details. There was nothing left to negotiate. Thanks to Moray Eel for his comments too. Based on the minimal responses here, I do think I am wasting my time and that is indeed silly. Moray Eel, it's your call about the hot tub, but if you feel you had a deal with someone, I encourage you not to take that treatment lying down.
  4. Adam, I appreciate your participation in this dialogue. I believe the crux of our difference of opinion about whether there has been a breach of contract may turn on the applicable law. You are apparently in the UK. The transaction in question is in the United States, and because I excepted the sellers offer in California, it is governed by California law. Under both US and California law, the contract is formed when a seller makes an offer of sale and the buyer accepts the offer on the seller’s terms. If this is confirmed to your satisfaction, that should clarify that the seller has breached his contract in an unlawful manner in his country. Since this is an international forum, I can understand that it’s difficult to form a policy for actions may preach the law in one country, but not another. Thank you also for clarifying what Wet Pixel’s policy is with respect to deliberate and fraudulent breaches of contract, e.g., by scammers. It’s entirely possible that the seller in this case is unwittingly violating the law, because he does not understand his obligation to complete a sale once a seller except his offer to sell. Is it your thinking the names should be revealed only in the case of fraud, but not in the case of a breach of contract where no fraudulent intent existed? To clarify, when I spoke of being harmed by the seller’s actions, I’m speaking of being legally harmed as a matter of US contract law. When a seller refuses to perform the seller’s obligation, the buyer is harmed by the difference in price between the price the seller was offering to sell for and what the buyer can buy the item for in the open market. Seller was offering to sell a new and unused item for $500 less than retail store value. The “harm” is $500.
  5. All interested subscribers, I have had a bad experience with a classified seller I want to share. Additionally, I am concerned that the Wetpixel (WP) response will perpetuate problems like the one I have had. I have expressed my concerns to the Administration and am writing at the suggestion of WP to create a dialogue around these issues. THE FACTS On March 7, 2019 a seller listed an item in the Classifieds as follows: "FS: Nauticam NA-502H Underwater Housing for SmallHD 501 / 502 Monitors." The seller's offer to sell included his asking price and shipping terms. " Asking $1100 shipped in US." I was the first to respond in the forum on March 10. I accepted the seller's offer on his terms, writing: "I’ll take it. Please contact me to arrange payment and shipping." I did not counter seller's offering price or his other terms. I gave seller my name and email address. Seller responded by PM, "Hey Mark I can give you a call tomorrow. Let me know a good time." I responded "anytime", but seller did not contact me for days. Then the seller sent me a PM stating: "Hey sorry I have been a bit busy and also have a guy locally that is interested in it. Would rather not ship it so I'm just waiting on him to finalize the sale. Will let you know what happens." I replied "Sorry but that’s not acceptable. I was the first to accept your offer to sell so we have deal. Despite your offer to ship at your cost, I will pay the shipping. Let’s avoid having the administrator involved and tell me how you want to receive payment. " In a private message to seller, so as not to publicly embarrass him, I wrote that if he did not honor his deal I would pursue my legal remedies against him Seller did not reply so I did contact the administrator. While I appreciate the admin reviewing the matter, I think his responses are both legally wrong and raise policy questions that will be of concern to subscribers, as I explain below. THE WP RESPONSE The Admin informed both parties that: Although he is not a lawyer, he believes no contract of sale was formed, because although I accepted the seller's offer on his terms, seller did not accept my acceptance. The contract was not in writing. It was inappropriate for me to tell the seller I would pursue my legal remedies if he failed to live up to our agreement. Wet Pixel won't disclose the contact information of a seller or buyer without the permission of both parties. The administrator did not qualify this statement. Until he does, it should be presumed to apply irrespective of the degree of wrongdoing of a party. THE ISSUES With all sincere due respect to the administrator, his legal position on the formation of a deal is legally incorrect. A contract is formed for the sale of goods when a buyer accepts a seller's offer and the essential terms are present to enforce a deal. Here, the essential terms of price and shipping were established by seller's classified offer and my acceptance on his terms. If I had counter-offered, say for less than the asking price, seller would have HAD to accept MY offer before we had a deal. If he had accepted my counter-offer, then his acceptance would create an agreement between us. But that was not the case. The agreement was formed when I accepted the seller's original offer on his terms. When a party to an agreement does not perform their part of the deal, that is called a breach on contract. Breach of contract is illegal and the party who has been wronged has legal remedies available. For example, a common remedies for values under $25,000 is to file a claim in small claims court. Also incorrect, contracts for the sale of goods do NOT need to be memorialized in writing, but of course this particular offer and acceptance is memorialized in writing in the WP classified forum. You can read it there. The Admin does not want to involve WP in the dispute. That's understandable. But in that case should the administrator be gratuitously providing legal conclusions and basing decisions on them? I accept WP's position that any dispute is between the subscribers. In my case, that means it's up to me to decide whether to pursue my civil remedies against the seller. The seller has my name, email address and phone number, but I don't have his. WP's position is it won't disclose the contact information of a seller or buyer without the permission of both parties, even if one party has the other's information. The seller declines to authorize the release of his contact information to me. Without commenting on what this says about the seller's motivations or character, WP's position effectively precludes me from seeking my legally available remedies against the seller for breach of contract. Given WP's position on my experience has implications for other scenarios. If a seller breaches an agreement by taking a buyer's money and not shipping the goods, the result would be the same...WP would not provide the seller name. And if a seller ships goods and a buyer doesn't pay or writes a bad check, WP will not give the seller the buyers name. In my opinion, this position facilitates buyers and sellers to breach contracts and/or defraud WP subscribers with impunity. If such bad actors get away with this, they will be encouraged. Buyers and sellers alike will know they can screw someone and the other party can't do anything about it. Although WP publishes the user names of known scammers, this does nothing whatsoever to help the scam victims, who need the scammers' actual names and contact information in order to have legal recourse. Does WP's user agreement with subscribers promise that their contact information will never be divulged even if they act illegally? I don't know the answer. But if it does assure that, perhaps it should be changed. My suggestion is that the forum classified rules should be clarified and the subscriber agreement should state that subscribers breaking certain of the rules (e.g., when other subscribers are harmed) may have their contact information released. What do you think? Beyond the WP policy issues I have raised for general discussion, if anyone who sympathizes with my personal experience knows the name of the seller of the Nauticam NA-502H Underwater Housing, please be kind enough to send it to me via PM. Even if WP decides to continue to allow abusive subscribers to get away with illegal activity by protecting their identity, it does not mean that concerned subscribers can't act honorably to try put a stop to it.
  6. wraptor, I accepted your offer of sale on your terms. That forms a contract. Please follow through with the sale by contacting me for payment.
  7. I’ll take it. Please contact ma to arrange payment and shipping. Markb@redshift.com. 831-521-2191.
  8. This is an image of a very rare and unique camera system that many members may enjoy seeing for the very first time. I apologize if this isn't the most appropriate forum to upload it to, but no other forum seemed a better fit. It's not for sale for here (although is on eBay with more images and details), so I have not posted it in classifieds for that reason. Enjoy!
  9. Hello, I'd like to buy your Marine meters in order to get a mount, as mine broke. Will you take $20? If you still have the Sea & Sea cords, those have value to me. Thanks, Mark
  10. Hi, I am very excited by the anticipated release of the Sony S3CA box cameras, as they are reported to be gen-lockable. Just what that means remains to be seen, but hopefully it will be tri-level sync. Although they are probably overpriced for what they are (Sony A7SII sensor in a small box), they will be much more affordable than the Canon full frame box cameras are at $20,000. The UW 3D potential is great! Is anyone else tracking these? Is anyone else still interested in UW 3D? Cheers
  11. Hi Chris, Pinging you again. Thank you, Mark
  12. Hi Chris, Contact me off line. Thanks, markb@redshift.com
×
×
  • Create New...