Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New scam from Brooklyn dealer

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 7:46:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

From the e-mail link at the bottom of my web page of Brooklyn Store Fronts,
I get an e-mail every couple days. Often from people that have already
placed an order from a Brooklyn dealer, then afterwards do some web
searching.

I just got an e-mail from a fellow that is biting his nails as he waits for
a lens from digitalliquidators.com, one of the Broadway Photo names. He may
have been okay until he saw the picture.

Anyway, he writes about his experience trying to buy a D70 from
royalcamera.com. This is one of the names that CCI uses. He writes:

"What amazed me was the guy at royalcamera.com actually asked me what
FIRMWARE I wanted on the camera. The price was over $200 to get the Nikon
firmware vs. some aftermarket firmware. Quickly canceled my order."

Now I doubt any aftermarket firmware exists for the D70.

Don <www.donwiss.com&gt; (e-mail link at home page bottom).

More about : scam brooklyn dealer

May 4, 2005 10:23:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don:

Just spent a half hour reading reviews of digitalliquidators.com. Feels
like I've been in a sewer. I don't need to check out Broaway and some of
the other scam artists to know what I will find.

About 30 years ago the leading photography magazines began to refuse
advertising from companies like these, yet today many of them are
prominent advertisers in several digital photography publications
including Shutterbug, which photographers often rely on. It seems to me
that the best tactic would be to start putting pressure on them to
certify that their advertisers meet basic codes of ethics and
reliability -- some very fundamental truth in advertising. it's pretty
hard to stop what is sold on the web, but there's no reason why material
sent through the US mail should be filled with advertisements from
companies which stoop to the bait and switch and simply dishonest
practices we're finding with these guys. A few hundred angry digital
camera buyers could make a difference. It would also be good if the
reliable dealers like B&H could be persuaded to threaten to pull their
ads. After all these sleeze merchants are harming the entire industry.

/ron

Don Wiss wrote:
> From the e-mail link at the bottom of my web page of Brooklyn Store Fronts,
> I get an e-mail every couple days. Often from people that have already
> placed an order from a Brooklyn dealer, then afterwards do some web
> searching.
>
> I just got an e-mail from a fellow that is biting his nails as he waits for
> a lens from digitalliquidators.com, one of the Broadway Photo names. He may
> have been okay until he saw the picture.
>
> Anyway, he writes about his experience trying to buy a D70 from
> royalcamera.com. This is one of the names that CCI uses. He writes:
>
> "What amazed me was the guy at royalcamera.com actually asked me what
> FIRMWARE I wanted on the camera. The price was over $200 to get the Nikon
> firmware vs. some aftermarket firmware. Quickly canceled my order."
>
> Now I doubt any aftermarket firmware exists for the D70.
>
> Don <www.donwiss.com&gt; (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:50:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> "What amazed me was the guy at royalcamera.com actually asked me what
> FIRMWARE I wanted on the camera.

once they asked me what kind of lens I want add to Minolta 7Hi "body only"
order at this moment I just hang up. Never happened such a think with B&H
Photo

cheers :-)) emski
Related resources
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 2:48:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:059i711hoqp20lf3pmiu6eck8qfdhgpea9@4ax.com...

> "What amazed me was the guy at royalcamera.com actually asked me what
> FIRMWARE I wanted on the camera. The price was over $200 to get the Nikon
> firmware vs. some aftermarket firmware. Quickly canceled my order."

Very creative scam. Reminds me of some of the stuff that car dealers try to
pull. The "salesperson retirement fee" was one of my favorites.
May 5, 2005 2:48:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I remember some years ago, trying to buy a Polaroid instant camera. When the
salesman asked me if I wanted to buy a booklet of film developing and printing
vouchers for the Polaroid, then I knew it was time to say so long.

Morton



"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

> "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
> news:059i711hoqp20lf3pmiu6eck8qfdhgpea9@4ax.com...
>
> > "What amazed me was the guy at royalcamera.com actually asked me what
> > FIRMWARE I wanted on the camera. The price was over $200 to get the Nikon
> > firmware vs. some aftermarket firmware. Quickly canceled my order."
>
> Very creative scam. Reminds me of some of the stuff that car dealers try to
> pull. The "salesperson retirement fee" was one of my favorites.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 4:11:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mort wrote:
> I remember some years ago, trying to buy a Polaroid instant camera. When the
> salesman asked me if I wanted to buy a booklet of film developing and printing
> vouchers for the Polaroid, then I knew it was time to say so long.
>
> Morton
>
>
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
>
>
>>"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:059i711hoqp20lf3pmiu6eck8qfdhgpea9@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>"What amazed me was the guy at royalcamera.com actually asked me what
>>>FIRMWARE I wanted on the camera. The price was over $200 to get the Nikon
>>>firmware vs. some aftermarket firmware. Quickly canceled my order."
>>
>>Very creative scam. Reminds me of some of the stuff that car dealers try to
>>pull. The "salesperson retirement fee" was one of my favorites.
>
>
Right up there with free gas for life, for your electric car.... Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 5, 2005 6:29:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <059i711hoqp20lf3pmiu6eck8qfdhgpea9@4ax.com>,
Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

>From the e-mail link at the bottom of my web page of Brooklyn Store Fronts,
>I get an e-mail every couple days. Often from people that have already
>placed an order from a Brooklyn dealer, then afterwards do some web
>searching.

You paint "Brooklyn dealers" with a pretty broad brush. Some of the
best online shopping experiences I've ever had were from an outfit in
Brooklyn, B&H.

I think you're talking about Digital Liquidators. Judging from the
harsh reviews (whose accuracy I do not doubt), I wonder why nobody has
followed through and tried to prosecute for fraud? Complaining is one
thing, and writing bad online reviews is another thing, but if the
stories I've read are true, this sounds like it could be an actual
criminal case of a fraudulent racket. Specifically, they quote one
price when the order is made, and another much higher price appears on
the invoice. And the misrepresent the country of origin of the product.
And they unbundle items like batteries and software CD's, while still
representing the product as a specific manufacturer's item. All of
these things, if done on a mail order outside of New York, could be the
kind of thing that can lead to huge fines or prison for the people
responsible.

I suspect they just barely have their toe on the side of what's legal,
though. I have trouble doing business with New Yorkers in the best of
circumstances. (The brusque manner just doesn't work for me.)
But *any* salesperson who gets the LEAST BIT aggressive with me, loses
my business on the spot. I mean, I draw that line at "Can I help you?"
twice, or, continuing to suggest an extended warranty after I've said
"no." The stuff these guys are reported to have done would never have
gotten past my tolerance level for salespeople. Call to confirm order?
Okay, but the first hint of upselling, or anything else that's not
simply a confirmation of the thing I ordered, and a tracking number,
would set off my annoyance reaction, if not alarms.


>I just got an e-mail from a fellow that is biting his nails as he waits for
>a lens from digitalliquidators.com, one of the Broadway Photo names. He may
>have been okay until he saw the picture.

What picture?

>Anyway, he writes about his experience trying to buy a D70 from
>royalcamera.com. This is one of the names that CCI uses. He writes:
>
>"What amazed me was the guy at royalcamera.com actually asked me what
>FIRMWARE I wanted on the camera. The price was over $200 to get the Nikon
>firmware vs. some aftermarket firmware. Quickly canceled my order."
>
>Now I doubt any aftermarket firmware exists for the D70.

Are they an authorized Nikon dealer? This sounds like the exact kind of
thing that should cause them to *stop* being a Nikon dealer.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:29:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:29:57 GMT, fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

>>I just got an e-mail from a fellow that is biting his nails as he waits for
>>a lens from digitalliquidators.com, one of the Broadway Photo names. He may
>>have been okay until he saw the picture.
>
>What picture?

I gather you are new here. I have pictures on the web of almost all
Brooklyn camera dealers, and many of the ones in Manhattan. Since I live in
Brooklyn, the Manhattan ones are a pain to get. And often not very
interesting, as many are offices within a large office building. But here
in Brooklyn they are usually store fronts. If you don't remember the URL,
simply put "Brooklyn Store Fronts" (quotes not needed) into Google and it
will be the first one listed. Or click here:

http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/

digitalliquidators.com is nothing but Broadway Photo. And Broadway Photo
happens to be THE most popular picture in the album. See it here:

http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/h0006.htm

This was one of my earlier pictures. Those fellows weren't paying any
attention to my taking their picture. Now I am well known among the
Brooklyn dealers. If I'm seen taking a picture they know my name. And once
I was chased by a fellow in a car that took my picture and told me not to
put their picture up. But he wouldn't tell me who he was, so I didn't know
which to not put up. Hence all are up.

The most important picture I need to take is Cambridge Camera. They had
been in Manhattan but moved to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Not as convenient as
the ones located in Borough Park. But I will make it up there in the next
couple weeks.

Don <www.donwiss.com&gt; (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:43:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:Fyfee.15718$_K.4954@fed1read03...

> You paint "Brooklyn dealers" with a pretty broad brush. Some of the
> best online shopping experiences I've ever had were from an outfit in
> Brooklyn, B&H.

B&H is in Manhattan.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 7:22:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:Fyfee.15718$_K.4954@fed1read03...
> In article <059i711hoqp20lf3pmiu6eck8qfdhgpea9@4ax.com>,
> Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
>
> >From the e-mail link at the bottom of my web page of Brooklyn Store Fronts,
> >I get an e-mail every couple days. Often from people that have already
> >placed an order from a Brooklyn dealer, then afterwards do some web
> >searching.
>
> You paint "Brooklyn dealers" with a pretty broad brush. Some of the
> best online shopping experiences I've ever had were from an outfit in
> Brooklyn, B&H.
>

I buy from B&H all the time -- but only on the days of the week when they're in
Manhattan....
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 12:18:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

>http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/
>
>...once I was chased by a fellow in a car that took my picture and told me
>not to put their picture up. But he wouldn't tell me who he was, so I
>didn't know which to not put up.

Great story. Kind of sums up the way these people think and work.
Thanks for your web page, BTW. Good idea and very educational. :) 

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:10:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bernard Rother wrote:

>
> Now I'm starting to get a little worried. On 22 April I placed an
order
> with B&H for a Sigma 18-125 lens for $323,00 ( incl. postage to South

> Africa ) The following day the money was deducted from my credit
card.
> YESTERDAY, 10 days later, they ask me to email a copy of both sides
of
> the card to them for verification. I would have thought you need
> verification first and THEN make the deduction.
> My fingers are crossed !
> Bernard

B&H is fine. In my experience, I'd be more worried about getting
something of value through the SA Post Office...)

/S
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 2:51:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MarkĀ² wrote:

> "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
> news:059i711hoqp20lf3pmiu6eck8qfdhgpea9@4ax.com...
>
>>From the e-mail link at the bottom of my web page of Brooklyn Store
>>Fronts,
>>I get an e-mail every couple days. Often from people that have already
>>placed an order from a Brooklyn dealer, then afterwards do some web
>>searching.
>>
>>I just got an e-mail from a fellow that is biting his nails as he waits
>>for
>>a lens from digitalliquidators.com, one of the Broadway Photo names. He
>>may
>>have been okay until he saw the picture.

snip

Now I'm starting to get a little worried. On 22 April I placed an order
with B&H for a Sigma 18-125 lens for $323,00 ( incl. postage to South
Africa ) The following day the money was deducted from my credit card.
YESTERDAY, 10 days later, they ask me to email a copy of both sides of
the card to them for verification. I would have thought you need
verification first and THEN make the deduction.
My fingers are crossed !
Bernard
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 2:51:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bernard Rother <bprotherREMOVE1@intekom.co.za> writes:
> Now I'm starting to get a little worried. On 22 April I placed an
> order with B&H for a Sigma 18-125 lens for $323,00 ( incl. postage to
> South Africa ) The following day the money was deducted from my credit
> card. YESTERDAY, 10 days later, they ask me to email a copy of both
> sides of the card to them for verification. I would have thought you
> need verification first and THEN make the deduction.

They were closed for religious holidays for the past week.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:35:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bernard Rother wrote:
> MarkĀ² wrote:
>
>> "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:059i711hoqp20lf3pmiu6eck8qfdhgpea9@4ax.com...
>>
>>> From the e-mail link at the bottom of my web page of Brooklyn Store
>>> Fronts,
>>> I get an e-mail every couple days. Often from people that have already
>>> placed an order from a Brooklyn dealer, then afterwards do some web
>>> searching.
>>>
>>> I just got an e-mail from a fellow that is biting his nails as he
>>> waits for
>>> a lens from digitalliquidators.com, one of the Broadway Photo names.
>>> He may
>>> have been okay until he saw the picture.
>
>
> snip
>
> Now I'm starting to get a little worried. On 22 April I placed an order
> with B&H for a Sigma 18-125 lens for $323,00 ( incl. postage to South
> Africa ) The following day the money was deducted from my credit card.
> YESTERDAY, 10 days later, they ask me to email a copy of both sides of
> the card to them for verification. I would have thought you need
> verification first and THEN make the deduction.
> My fingers are crossed !
> Bernard
I would be concerned as well, since if they have already charged your
card, they have NO NEED for any further verification, at least none I
can see. Companies that do international business do, however, have
some rather unusual challenges, and government regulations, to deal with.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:37:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 05 May 2005 03:49:01 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; in <7xis1yt0bm.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
wrote:

>Bernard Rother <bprotherREMOVE1@intekom.co.za> writes:
>> Now I'm starting to get a little worried. On 22 April I placed an
>> order with B&H for a Sigma 18-125 lens for $323,00 ( incl. postage to
>> South Africa ) The following day the money was deducted from my credit
>> card. YESTERDAY, 10 days later, they ask me to email a copy of both
>> sides of the card to them for verification. I would have thought you
>> need verification first and THEN make the deduction.

The verification is if there are problems later. It is easier than you
think to get an electronic transaction to go through, but if you don't
have the supporting information it can get pulled afterwards.

>They were closed for religious holidays for the past week.

I am sure that their website made that clear as well.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 5/5/05 3:51 AM, in article d5cmre$lgi$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net, "Bernard
Rother" <bprotherREMOVE1@intekom.co.za> wrote:


> Now I'm starting to get a little worried. On 22 April I placed an order
> with B&H for a Sigma 18-125 lens for $323,00 ( incl. postage to South
> Africa ) The following day the money was deducted from my credit card.
> YESTERDAY, 10 days later, they ask me to email a copy of both sides of
> the card to them for verification. I would have thought you need
> verification first and THEN make the deduction.
> My fingers are crossed !
> Bernard

Don't worry, if you are dealing with B&H they will ship the order! It is
standard practice for B&H to hit your credit card immediately, often even on
back ordered products. This is somewhat counter to the practice of many
other merchants to not hit your credit card until your order ships (at least
that is what they say!). B&H, however, is up front about this - at least
they have told me that they will charge the card right away. And, they have
always shipped the goods!
Chuck
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright wrote:
> On 5/5/05 3:51 AM, in article d5cmre$lgi$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net, "Bernard
> Rother" <bprotherREMOVE1@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Now I'm starting to get a little worried. On 22 April I placed an order
>>with B&H for a Sigma 18-125 lens for $323,00 ( incl. postage to South
>>Africa ) The following day the money was deducted from my credit card.
>>YESTERDAY, 10 days later, they ask me to email a copy of both sides of
>>the card to them for verification. I would have thought you need
>>verification first and THEN make the deduction.
>>My fingers are crossed !
>>Bernard
>
>
> Don't worry, if you are dealing with B&H they will ship the order! It is
> standard practice for B&H to hit your credit card immediately, often even on
> back ordered products. This is somewhat counter to the practice of many
> other merchants to not hit your credit card until your order ships (at least
> that is what they say!). B&H, however, is up front about this - at least
> they have told me that they will charge the card right away. And, they have
> always shipped the goods!
> Chuck
>
It is generally considered a suspicious business practice to charge a
card until the product is ready to ship. They CAN run a 'preapproval',
however, which will expire in a few days if the actual transaction
doesn't happen.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 10:14:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:WCuee.9996$cZ6.6362@fe02.lga...
>C Wright wrote:
>> On 5/5/05 3:51 AM, in article d5cmre$lgi$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net, "Bernard
>> Rother" <bprotherREMOVE1@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Now I'm starting to get a little worried. On 22 April I placed an order
>>>with B&H for a Sigma 18-125 lens for $323,00 ( incl. postage to South
>>>Africa ) The following day the money was deducted from my credit card.
>>>YESTERDAY, 10 days later, they ask me to email a copy of both sides of
>>>the card to them for verification. I would have thought you need
>>>verification first and THEN make the deduction.
>>>My fingers are crossed !
>>>Bernard
>>
>>
>> Don't worry, if you are dealing with B&H they will ship the order! It is
>> standard practice for B&H to hit your credit card immediately, often even
>> on
>> back ordered products. This is somewhat counter to the practice of many
>> other merchants to not hit your credit card until your order ships (at
>> least
>> that is what they say!). B&H, however, is up front about this - at least
>> they have told me that they will charge the card right away. And, they
>> have
>> always shipped the goods!
>> Chuck
>>
> It is generally considered a suspicious business practice to charge a card
> until the product is ready to ship. They CAN run a 'preapproval',
> however, which will expire in a few days if the actual transaction doesn't
> happen.

It also might be illegal.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:04:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 5 May 2005 18:14:30 -0400, "Peter A. Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:WCuee.9996$cZ6.6362@fe02.lga...
>>C Wright wrote:
>>> On 5/5/05 3:51 AM, in article d5cmre$lgi$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net, "Bernard
>>> Rother" <bprotherREMOVE1@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now I'm starting to get a little worried. On 22 April I placed an order
>>>>with B&H for a Sigma 18-125 lens for $323,00 ( incl. postage to South
>>>>Africa ) The following day the money was deducted from my credit card.
>>>>YESTERDAY, 10 days later, they ask me to email a copy of both sides of
>>>>the card to them for verification. I would have thought you need
>>>>verification first and THEN make the deduction.
>>>>My fingers are crossed !
>>>>Bernard
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't worry, if you are dealing with B&H they will ship the order! It is
>>> standard practice for B&H to hit your credit card immediately, often even
>>> on
>>> back ordered products. This is somewhat counter to the practice of many
>>> other merchants to not hit your credit card until your order ships (at
>>> least
>>> that is what they say!). B&H, however, is up front about this - at least
>>> they have told me that they will charge the card right away. And, they
>>> have
>>> always shipped the goods!
>>> Chuck
>>>
>> It is generally considered a suspicious business practice to charge a card
>> until the product is ready to ship. They CAN run a 'preapproval',
>> however, which will expire in a few days if the actual transaction doesn't
>> happen.
>
>It also might be illegal.
>

They fully disclose it pre-purchase. If you don't like it,
despite the generally good reputation held by the rest ot their
operation, there are other shops.

If you'd like to cite an applicable law disallowing
prepayment, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:33:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:9hc081t26u7auba757ia069qog90vfiv78@4ax.com...
>
> They fully disclose it pre-purchase. If you don't like it,
> despite the generally good reputation held by the rest ot their
> operation, there are other shops.
>
> If you'd like to cite an applicable law disallowing
> prepayment, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Take a chill pill, I merely suggested that it might be a violation of law.
May 10, 2005 4:56:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
news:e60ge.323$Ee6.235@fe12.lga:

><kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:9hc081t26u7auba757ia069qog90vfiv78@4ax.com...
>>
>> They fully disclose it pre-purchase. If you don't like it,
>> despite the generally good reputation held by the rest ot their
>> operation, there are other shops.
>>
>> If you'd like to cite an applicable law disallowing
>> prepayment, I'd be interested in seeing it.
>
> Take a chill pill, I merely suggested that it might be a violation of
> law.

I too would be interested in knowing if you can back up you suggestion!

What I mean is that it seems you are suggesting that something might be
illegal; if it is not illegal then it seems bad to suggest such a thing.

I am not too sure why you are getting so defensive about someone
questioning your suggestion about this practise being possibly illegal. Is
it a case of what you say cannot be questioned here? If this is the case
then you would be better off not making suggestions without knowing the
facts.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
May 10, 2005 9:38:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <2Vwee.9408$Hf6.4427@fe11.lga>,
Peter A. Stavrakoglou <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>> It is generally considered a suspicious business practice to charge a card
>> until the product is ready to ship. They CAN run a 'preapproval',
>> however, which will expire in a few days if the actual transaction doesn't
>> happen.
>
>It also might be illegal.

It could conceivably cross the line into fraud if a merchant charges for
an item that he knows won't ever be delivered. But there is enough
reasonable assurance in a back-order situation for this to not be a
problem.

But there could hardly be a valid law with language that made it illegal
for a merchant to charge in advance for goods or services. Imagine
yourself being on the other end of that law.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:45:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:9hc081t26u7auba757ia069qog90vfiv78@4ax.com...

> >It also might be illegal.
> >
>
> They fully disclose it pre-purchase. If you don't like it,
> despite the generally good reputation held by the rest ot their
> operation, there are other shops.
>
> If you'd like to cite an applicable law disallowing
> prepayment, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Of course it is not illegal. There are many companies that require
pre-payment when you order, even when the ship date is in the future.
Sometimes it's because the company doesn't even go out and get the item
until someone buys it.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:18:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
news:o c2ge.1503$mx4.2@fe02.news.easynews.com...
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:e60ge.323$Ee6.235@fe12.lga:
>
>><kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:9hc081t26u7auba757ia069qog90vfiv78@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> They fully disclose it pre-purchase. If you don't like it,
>>> despite the generally good reputation held by the rest ot their
>>> operation, there are other shops.
>>>
>>> If you'd like to cite an applicable law disallowing
>>> prepayment, I'd be interested in seeing it.
>>
>> Take a chill pill, I merely suggested that it might be a violation of
>> law.
>
> I too would be interested in knowing if you can back up you suggestion!
>
> What I mean is that it seems you are suggesting that something might be
> illegal; if it is not illegal then it seems bad to suggest such a thing.
>
> I am not too sure why you are getting so defensive about someone
> questioning your suggestion about this practise being possibly illegal.
> Is
> it a case of what you say cannot be questioned here? If this is the case
> then you would be better off not making suggestions without knowing the
> facts.

You need a pill too! It was merely a SUGGESTION, no statement that it was
gospel truth. There are 50 states with thousands of local governing
authorities in the USA, to know all consumer laws is impossible. Again, it
was only a SUGGESTION, get it? BTW, credit card companies such as VISA
prohibit merchants from charging before shipping.
May 10, 2005 10:50:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <123j71hqb0t9oj2rtmtsn0ut1apqohsbl2@4ax.com>,
Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

>http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/

Oh my! Some don't look so bad... And some of those houses look pretty
nice for NYC. But I get the picture now.
May 10, 2005 10:50:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <xjgee.4157$dH6.658@trndny07>, SamSez <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote:

>I buy from B&H all the time -- but only on the days of the week when they're in
>Manhattan....

My mistake, sorry.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:14:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:22:05 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "SamSez"
<samtheman@verizon.net> in <xjgee.4157$dH6.658@trndny07> wrote:

>
>"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
>news:Fyfee.15718$_K.4954@fed1read03...
>> In article <059i711hoqp20lf3pmiu6eck8qfdhgpea9@4ax.com>,
>> Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From the e-mail link at the bottom of my web page of Brooklyn Store Fronts,
>> >I get an e-mail every couple days. Often from people that have already
>> >placed an order from a Brooklyn dealer, then afterwards do some web
>> >searching.
>>
>> You paint "Brooklyn dealers" with a pretty broad brush. Some of the
>> best online shopping experiences I've ever had were from an outfit in
>> Brooklyn, B&H.
>>
>
>I buy from B&H all the time -- but only on the days of the week when they're in
>Manhattan....

All six, right? (The other day they are probably in Brooklyn, but they
are closed anyway, so it does not matter.)



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
May 11, 2005 2:06:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in news:cr6ge.607
$LO1.561@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

>
><kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:9hc081t26u7auba757ia069qog90vfiv78@4ax.com...
>
>> >It also might be illegal.
>> >
>>
>> They fully disclose it pre-purchase. If you don't like it,
>> despite the generally good reputation held by the rest ot their
>> operation, there are other shops.
>>
>> If you'd like to cite an applicable law disallowing
>> prepayment, I'd be interested in seeing it.
>
> Of course it is not illegal. There are many companies that require
> pre-payment when you order, even when the ship date is in the future.
> Sometimes it's because the company doesn't even go out and get the item
> until someone buys it.

In fact Canon have a lens that you can buy, but you have to pay for it
before they build it. This means that you part with your money for an item
that does not exist.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
May 11, 2005 1:51:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
news:grage.423$Ee6.36@fe12.lga:

> You need a pill too! It was merely a SUGGESTION, no statement that it
> was gospel truth. There are 50 states with thousands of local
> governing authorities in the USA, to know all consumer laws is
> impossible. Again, it was only a SUGGESTION, get it? BTW, credit
> card companies such as VISA prohibit merchants from charging before
> shipping.

Too often people make comments about what they think is the case, when it
is completely wrong.

I know credit card companies have certain rules, but that is different to
what is legal or illegal. In other words: violation of credit card company
policy is not the same as breaking the law.

Once again: If you can't take your suggestions being questioned then you
need to stop making those suggestions in a public forum. Especially when
you incorrectly suggest something you can expect someone to call you on it.

You have incorrectly suggested something and been called on it, your
response is to criticise the posters who are providing the correct info.
This is not a very good way to behave. Shouting that your falsehoods were
only a suggestion is pretty poor IMO.

My SUGGESTION:
Accept that you have no basis for your suggestion and stop being so damn
defensive about it.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:51:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
news:RAkge.28807$mx4.10692@fe02.news.easynews.com...
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:grage.423$Ee6.36@fe12.lga:
>
>> You need a pill too! It was merely a SUGGESTION, no statement that it
>> was gospel truth. There are 50 states with thousands of local
>> governing authorities in the USA, to know all consumer laws is
>> impossible. Again, it was only a SUGGESTION, get it? BTW, credit
>> card companies such as VISA prohibit merchants from charging before
>> shipping.
>
> Too often people make comments about what they think is the case, when it
> is completely wrong.
>
> I know credit card companies have certain rules, but that is different to
> what is legal or illegal. In other words: violation of credit card
> company
> policy is not the same as breaking the law.
>
> Once again: If you can't take your suggestions being questioned then you
> need to stop making those suggestions in a public forum. Especially when
> you incorrectly suggest something you can expect someone to call you on
> it.
>
> You have incorrectly suggested something and been called on it, your
> response is to criticise the posters who are providing the correct info.
> This is not a very good way to behave. Shouting that your falsehoods were
> only a suggestion is pretty poor IMO.
>
> My SUGGESTION:
> Accept that you have no basis for your suggestion and stop being so damn
> defensive about it.

Pardon me, but my suggestion may certainly turn out to be correct. Of
course since I made the suggestion then it would be incumbant upon me to
prove my point but it has not been disproven either. As I noted there are
literally thousands of governing authorities that can and have enacted
consumer laws and regulations. To know what all of these laws and
regulations are is not possible. It is possible that in some jurisdiction
this practice is illegal.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 5:56:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:xk6ge.26394$fI.24706@fed1read05...

> It could conceivably cross the line into fraud if a merchant charges for
> an item that he knows won't ever be delivered. But there is enough
> reasonable assurance in a back-order situation for this to not be a
> problem.

I believe that there are already federal laws that say that if a merchant
takes an order for an item that it turns out cannot be delivered within 30
days, the merchant must offer the customer the opportunity to cancel the
order and pay nothing--not even the cost of a stamp or phone call. I have
several times ordered something and, a while later, gotten a post card with
a message along the following lines:

Dear Customer,

The left-handed blivet that you ordered is on back-order at the
manufacturer.
The estimated ship date is July 17. If you wish to wait for the
merchandise to
arrive, you need not take any action. If you wish to cancel the order,
call
1-888-PLS-STOP and mention order number 314159.
May 12, 2005 1:24:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
news:m7lge.681$Ee6.425@fe12.lga:

>> My SUGGESTION:
>> Accept that you have no basis for your suggestion and stop being so
>> damn defensive about it.
>
> Pardon me, but my suggestion may certainly turn out to be correct. Of
> course since I made the suggestion then it would be incumbant upon me
> to prove my point but it has not been disproven either. As I noted
> there are literally thousands of governing authorities that can and
> have enacted consumer laws and regulations. To know what all of these
> laws and regulations are is not possible. It is possible that in some
> jurisdiction this practice is illegal.

It is also possible that this practice is perfectly legal everywhere.
In fact I can think of many cases where it would be necessary for a
merchant to be paid before they get the goods in, if the practice was
illegal then they would have trouble operating.

I agree that if you want to assert some possibility that the practice is
illegal then it IS incumbent upon you to provide some basis for that
theory. In fact I don't believe it is possible for anyone to prove you
wrong. Even if I could find a legal statute that states that charging a
customer before supplying goods is allowed, you could say that there
could be individual states where there is another rule that forbids it
(despite providing no evidence of that).

Do you really think that Canon will manufacture a 1200mm lens for you
without receiving payment first? You must pay for it before they start
manufacture, otherwise you could change your mind and they could have a
lens with no buyer. They don't sell that lens every day (or week, or
month, or even year).

Do you think that an importer will track down a rare car worth several
million and buy it for you then hope you will pay them once they have it
in their possession? I am sure they can legally ask you to pay for it
before they have to pay for it, especially if they have no way of
affording the purchase themselves.

If a chronic bad debtor wants to buy something from me and I insist on
receiving payment before ordering the item, I am sure that I am not
acting illegally.

Do you have ANYTHING that backs up your theory? I have plenty of basis
for believing my point of view (including the fact that some large
retailers use the practise), do you have ANY basis at all for your
suggestion?


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:34:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:56:52 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:

>"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
>news:e60ge.323$Ee6.235@fe12.lga:
>
>><kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:9hc081t26u7auba757ia069qog90vfiv78@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> They fully disclose it pre-purchase. If you don't like it,
>>> despite the generally good reputation held by the rest ot their
>>> operation, there are other shops.
>>>
>>> If you'd like to cite an applicable law disallowing
>>> prepayment, I'd be interested in seeing it.
>>
>> Take a chill pill, I merely suggested that it might be a violation of
>> law.

Only pompous asholes think they're so cool thay can use inane
phrases like "chill pill".

>
>I too would be interested in knowing if you can back up you suggestion!
>
>What I mean is that it seems you are suggesting that something might be
>illegal; if it is not illegal then it seems bad to suggest such a thing.
>
>I am not too sure why you are getting so defensive about someone
>questioning your suggestion about this practise being possibly illegal. Is
>it a case of what you say cannot be questioned here? If this is the case
>then you would be better off not making suggestions without knowing the
>facts.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:34:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:gic5819rd425vfo3vhmi0e3i89a0as2qgc@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:56:52 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>
>>"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
>>news:e60ge.323$Ee6.235@fe12.lga:
>>
>>><kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:9hc081t26u7auba757ia069qog90vfiv78@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> They fully disclose it pre-purchase. If you don't like it,
>>>> despite the generally good reputation held by the rest ot their
>>>> operation, there are other shops.
>>>>
>>>> If you'd like to cite an applicable law disallowing
>>>> prepayment, I'd be interested in seeing it.
>>>
>>> Take a chill pill, I merely suggested that it might be a violation of
>>> law.
>
> Only pompous asholes think they're so cool thay can use inane
> phrases like "chill pill".

I won't resort to childish insults like you, suffice it to say that you've
demonstrated your lack of intelligent thought on this one.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:36:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:28:39 -0400, "Peter A. Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>"MarkH" <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
>news:RAkge.28807$mx4.10692@fe02.news.easynews.com...
>> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:grage.423$Ee6.36@fe12.lga:
>>
>>> You need a pill too! It was merely a SUGGESTION, no statement that it
>>> was gospel truth. There are 50 states with thousands of local
>>> governing authorities in the USA, to know all consumer laws is
>>> impossible. Again, it was only a SUGGESTION, get it? BTW, credit
>>> card companies such as VISA prohibit merchants from charging before
>>> shipping.
>>
>> Too often people make comments about what they think is the case, when it
>> is completely wrong.
>>
>> I know credit card companies have certain rules, but that is different to
>> what is legal or illegal. In other words: violation of credit card
>> company
>> policy is not the same as breaking the law.
>>
>> Once again: If you can't take your suggestions being questioned then you
>> need to stop making those suggestions in a public forum. Especially when
>> you incorrectly suggest something you can expect someone to call you on
>> it.
>>
>> You have incorrectly suggested something and been called on it, your
>> response is to criticise the posters who are providing the correct info.
>> This is not a very good way to behave. Shouting that your falsehoods were
>> only a suggestion is pretty poor IMO.
>>
>> My SUGGESTION:
>> Accept that you have no basis for your suggestion and stop being so damn
>> defensive about it.
>
>Pardon me, but my suggestion may certainly turn out to be correct.

Keep digging.

> Of
>course since I made the suggestion then it would be incumbant upon me to
>prove my point but it has not been disproven either. As I noted there are
>literally thousands of governing authorities that can and have enacted
>consumer laws and regulations. To know what all of these laws and
>regulations are is not possible. It is possible that in some jurisdiction
>this practice is illegal.

And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:36:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:9mc581pd16v2uu9l7fcbs09arj4i18ns7s@4ax.com...
>
> And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

And she would have two more than you do.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:55:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005 22:22:10 -0400, "Peter A. Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

><kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:gic5819rd425vfo3vhmi0e3i89a0as2qgc@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:56:52 GMT, MarkH <markat@atdot.dot.dot> wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in
>>>news:e60ge.323$Ee6.235@fe12.lga:
>>>
>>>><kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:9hc081t26u7auba757ia069qog90vfiv78@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> They fully disclose it pre-purchase. If you don't like it,
>>>>> despite the generally good reputation held by the rest ot their
>>>>> operation, there are other shops.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you'd like to cite an applicable law disallowing
>>>>> prepayment, I'd be interested in seeing it.
>>>>
>>>> Take a chill pill, I merely suggested that it might be a violation of
>>>> law.
>>
>> Only pompous asholes think they're so cool thay can use inane
>> phrases like "chill pill".
>
>I won't resort to childish insults like you, suffice it to say that you've
>demonstrated your lack of intelligent thought on this one.
>

No more so that your trite use of "chill pill" to emphasize
your superiority.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:55:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005 22:24:00 -0400, "Peter A. Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

><kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:9mc581pd16v2uu9l7fcbs09arj4i18ns7s@4ax.com...
>>
>> And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
>
>And she would have two more than you do.
>

No, she'd be your aunt, with balls.
!