In your message dated: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:25:24 PST you write:
>
>
>We exchanged email covering the "four corners" of the agreement, which is a
>legally binding contract. I'm not a lawyer, but I tithe. :-(
Since you are not a lawyer, are you *sure* you had a legally binding
contract under US *and* Canadian law?
>
>Yesterday, I received email from him, saying he was sorry, but he would be
>returning my check, "because of a too long delay to validate it at the
>bank." I immediately wrote him back, informing him that it's too bad, he
Until you have more than suspicions as to why he is returning your
check, it is best to accept the reasons he gives. It could just be that
he needs the money *now*, and waiting a long time for your check to
clear his bank will create a hardship for him. If you wanted this equipment
so fast, why did you pay by check?
>should have thought of that before making a legally binding agreement with
>me, and that I expected the equipment to be delivered as promised.
>
>I mentioned in my email that for business reasons, I had previously
>retained the law firm of Scott and Aylen in Ottawa, and would not hesitate
>to use them to enforce this agreement. I have received no answer, and today
>I sent more email, giving him 24 hours to respond, and also threatening to
>inform his employer of his behavior, from whose system the email was sent
>and delivered.
>
>I suspect he simply got some better offer after agreeing to sell it to me.
>I think this behaviour is outrageous.
Maybe, maybe not. Your threating to sue him *and* the person who bought
the items seems pretty outrageous to me.... I understand your
frustration at not getting the goods, but IMHO, you are acting like a
kid by throwing a temper tantrum and threating to sue everyone in
sight.
>
>If by some chance, you have made a deal with Mr. Cloutier to purchase this
>equipment, please contact me directly, and perhaps we can work something
>out between us. I have nothing against you personally, but am prepared to
What makes you think the person who bought the equipment is under any
obligation to sell it to you? Your deal was with Mr. Cloutier, and it
would take a very imaginative legal theory indeed to be able to involve
the ultimate purchaser in any legal action.
>spend many times the value of the equipment in enforcing this agreement,
>and the party purchasing the equipment from Mr. Cloutier will most likely
>be named in the suit. If it goes that far, I will be seeking to recoup my
You have GOT to be kidding me. This is not stolen merchandise. The
person who ultimately bought it from him is a *totally* innocent party.
Even if they knew of your offer and bettered it.
Pretty amused that someone would get this worked up over something so
insignificant,
--Lee
(Ooops, I hope Jan doesn't sue *me* for something....)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|