anderson order

[SHÖCK]

Originally Posted by Neverhood

So you spend 1000+ dollars on a toy? Good Fucking Greif! There's always a risk with airsoft, yeah maybe Mark should be alittle more forthcoming with info but cut the guys some slack, his hands are tied too.

From what I can tell from the Anderson & Anderson prices charged for AEGs when they were doing orders is that they had the typical 200-300%+ markup. IE: A $275 CA G36K at cost was invoiced for $750 for my friend.

That markup is supposed to be there for retailers to cover for lost/held shipments and is accepted by both buyer and vendor as the price for doing AEG business in Canada.

There is no excuse for not partially refunding people's lost orders when you have the built in margin of safety in that markup. Simply pocketing the markup as pure profit, cutting off communications with your paying and owed customers is even worse and frankly, even criminal. If they really did contest this in court however, I can see legal costs eating up all the money made from any airsoft deals.

I think people just want regular updates and contact regarding the situation so it doesn't spiral into another Props Canada type situation.

[Gunk]

Originally Posted by surebet

My law courses are a tad far this morning, but I'm under the impression that fraud, a criminal act, can be persecuted either at any time without restriction or within a 3/5/10 year window depending on the classification of the offence.

Bah, for the fraud part I'm basicly pretty sure that on a criminal level time is not that much of an issue, however for different recovery methods it might be. I waited something like 45 days before calling quits and asking for the chargeback. Pretty sure you have 3/6/12 months do do so yourselves depending on the institution.

No statute of limitations?

I took a law class back in high school and we touched on that bit briefly, but I don't remember much of it... it was a first period class... the only thing that got me out of bed in the morning.

[infernal]

On one side I understand that there are a lot of people that feel they've been ripped off. It sucks that our fragile sport is infected with this sort of bullshit that continues year after year. I remember around the start of my career, the props canada bullshit that started. I figured people might learn from that and stop getting in on group orders for things that wernt in country. It seems this hasn't happend.

On the other side, I see a guy who definatly needs to get smacked in the mouth. Try your chargebacks and your legal threats, really. If this guy is actually doing what half of you say, he's already thought about it and decided he couldnt care less if you win. Personally, if someone did that to me, I'd find it much easier to let a couple of crackheads loose in his business rather than deal with the slow response times of lawyers.

Good luck to everyone... And sorry to the old boys for dropping the Props bomb

[Brian McIlmoyle]

When you put money down on something that is not in country and ready to ship.. with full knowledge that CBSA can seize anything at any time. You aknowledge that your money may be lost.

You choose to give your money to someone who is willing to take the risk of ATTEMPTING to get restricted items in country. It is unreasonable to expect that person to also accept the financial risk, that is your part of the deal.

If this is not acceptable to you DON'T DO IT... The worst case scenario in all pre-order situations is.. you loose your money and get nothing. The best case is you get what you paid for.

Hounding someone who gambled with your money.. when you were a willing participant in the enterprise it tantamount to harrassment.. you Gambled you lost, move on.

Granted... in this case there may be evidence of Shenanigans... your remedy is legal.. clearly all the hue and cry is proving fruitless.. go to court.

[WARFIGHTER]

I don't think Mark defined that as his terms of services though... Maybe I'm wrong.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by Knyte

I don't think Mark defined that as his terms of services though... Maybe I'm wrong.

Any reasonable person with even the basics of understanding regarding the import of Restricted items would know this.

If they did not.. they simply would have ordered direct themselves.. and found out the hard way.

[Maverick0]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

When you put money down on something that is not in country and ready to ship.. with full knowledge that CBSA can seize anything at any time. You aknowledge that your money may be lost.

You choose to give your money to someone who is willing to take the risk of ATTEMPTING to get restricted items in country. It is unreasonable to expect that person to also accept the financial risk, that is your part of the deal.

If this is not acceptable to you DON'T DO IT... The worst case scenario in all pre-order situations is.. you loose your money and get nothing. The best case is you get what you paid for.

Hounding someone who gambled with your money.. when you were a willing participant in the enterprise it tantamount to harrassment.. you Gambled you lost, move on.

Granted... in this case there may be evidence of Shenanigans... your remedy is legal.. clearly all the hue and cry is proving fruitless.. go to court.

I don't think that's quite fair. I know what you're saying, but unless it's explicitly detailed in a formal agreement between the buyer and the seller that they may not actually get what they want, then they should be entitled to some sort of compensation.

If it's such a crapshoot, why didn't these people simply make the order themselves instead of through A&A? Because through a retailer that has the right permits, it's supposed to be a sure fire thing, however delays are to be expected. Somehow, it seems that these people were led to believe that going through A&A was a sure deal because he is supposed to be legally allowed to import. At least, that's what I understand from all this, and I have to say, I personally thought Mark could bring stuff in the country without problems, save for inspection delays. If it was not guaranteed that the goods paid for would be delivered, that should have been made very clear.

[Drache]

Originally Posted by Maverick0

I don't think that's quite fair. I know what you're saying, but unless it's explicitly detailed in a formal agreement between the buyer and the seller that they may not actually get what they want, then they should be entitled to some sort of compensation.

If it's such a crapshoot, why didn't these people simply make the order themselves instead of through A&A? Because through a retailer that has the right permits, it's supposed to be a sure fire thing, however delays are to be expected. Somehow, it seems that these people were led to believe that going through A&A was a sure deal because he is supposed to be legally allowed to import. At least, that's what I understand from all this, and I have to say, I personally thought Mark could bring stuff in the country without problems, save for inspection delays. If it was not guaranteed that the goods paid for would be delivered, that should have been made very clear.

Here should be the deal! IF ITS SUCH A GAMBLE then why doesn't Mark give back the PROFIT from the guns? If you send him $700 for an AEG, mark buys that AEG from the USA for $200, but it gets confiscated, shouldn't mark give the $500 profit back?

[WARFIGHTER]

Originally Posted by Maverick0

I don't think that's quite fair. I know what you're saying, but unless it's explicitly detailed in a formal agreement between the buyer and the seller that they may not actually get what they want, then they should be entitled to some sort of compensation.

If it's such a crapshoot, why didn't these people simply make the order themselves instead of through A&A? Because through a retailer that has the right permits, it's supposed to be a sure fire thing, however delays are to be expected. Somehow, it seems that these people were led to believe that going through A&A was a sure deal because he is supposed to be legally allowed to import. At least, that's what I understand from all this, and I have to say, I personally thought Mark could bring stuff in the country without problems, save for inspection delays. If it was not guaranteed that the goods paid for would be delivered, that should have been made very clear.

Again, this pretty much sums up what I was gonna say...

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by Drache

Here should be the deal! IF ITS SUCH A GAMBLE then why doesn't Mark give back the PROFIT from the guns? If you send him $700 for an AEG, mark buys that AEG from the USA for $200, but it gets confiscated, shouldn't mark give the $500 profit back?

I guess that would go a long way to making redress... but I expect there are legal costs .. and from all accounts the items are still in Limbo... so the deal may yet be fulfilled... until final resolution is realized.. the money is tied up.

How happy would people be to learn after a partial refund that .. now the stuff is released... what a financial mess that would be.

[Drache]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

I guess that would go a long way to making redress... but I expect there are legal costs .. and from all accounts the items are still in Limbo... so the deal may yet be fulfilled... until final resolution is realized.. the money is tied up.

How happy would people be to learn after a partial refund that .. now the stuff is released... what a financial mess that would be.

I only meant a refund if the item was actually seized and not just in limbo

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by Maverick0

I don't think that's quite fair. I know what you're saying, but unless it's explicitly detailed in a formal agreement between the buyer and the seller that they may not actually get what they want, then they should be entitled to some sort of compensation.

.

I can't dissagree... but clearly that is not the position being taken... again.. I think the remedy is Legal.

If your positions are in opposition.. and there is no meeting of the minds.. the recourse is to take it to court.

[Maverick0]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

I can't dissagree... but clearly that is not the position being taken... again.. I think the remedy is Legal.

If your positions are in opposition.. and there is no meeting of the minds.. the recourse is to take it to court.

I suppose so, but it just sucks to see the courts tied up further for something so easily remedied.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by Maverick0

I suppose so, but it just sucks to see the courts tied up further for something so easily remedied.

If it was easily remedied.. it would heve been

[Zekk05]

You mentioned that when you put down money on something that is restricted... that you accept the chance of it being siezed and should accept the loss if it happens.

I agree.. this is the way it should be, if youre asking someone to do a favor for you, or doing it yourself.

But this is a business. You dont purchase items from a business with the Chance of getting it. If I ordered a rifle from SIR that wasnt in stock, Im not paying money for the CHANCE of getting it! Thats the point of buying through a business; to ensure you get what you pay for.

If you are a business who deals on the principal of chance, that someone can buy something and they MIGHT get it, I would say that business requires a manitoba lottery license, as this is a form of gambling and illegal to do so without.