Tony (Spartan) Manikis Should be banned from TRF forum

[mbuckley]

Like watching a car accident in slow notion---pay the 200 dollars and hope the mods lock this thread so you can't dig yourself in deeper! The whole episode is shameful! Wes is correct---only one reputation has taken a self inflicted hit.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

Not going to happen and sorry you are off about forum's reputation taking a hit. We allow members to sell and buy here as a convenience. We have nothing to do with it or the accuracy of any listing. This responsibility lies solely between the buyer and seller.

True, but TRF has certain rules; to wit: "Any non-genuine, replica or fake watches or any other goods are not permitted to be sold on TRF and will result in a ban." I interpret this to apply to aftermarket parts as well.

Also ..."Anything that is not original to the watch must be disclosed." Again, an aftermarket crystal, as in this case, is not original to the watch and was not disclosed in the ad.

In addition to the ban referenced previously, the penalty for any violation of the TRF buy/sell rules is as follows: "Any violation of the rules will result in an immediate removal of the thread and/or the right to post any further items in this sub-forum."

Given the rules and the facts as we know them to be, what is the position of TRF on any possible violation of the rules here?

[springer]

Originally Posted by Jocke

That's a greater chance that you get better parts if you do not buy original Ford.

Yes sir Jocke!!!!!!!!!!!

And how about all those Harleys with non-OEM parts.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by Tridor

True, but TRF has certain rules; to wit: "Any non-genuine, replica or fake watches or any other goods are not permitted to be sold on TRF and will result in a ban." I interpret this to apply to aftermarket parts as well.

Also ..."Anything that is not original to the watch must be disclosed." Again, an aftermarket crystal, as in this case, is not original to the watch and was not disclosed in the ad.

In addition to the ban referenced previously, the penalty for any violation of the TRF buy/sell rules is as follows: "Any violation of the rules will result in an immediate removal of the thread and/or the right to post any further items in this sub-forum."

Given the rules and the facts as we know them to be, what is the position of TRF on any possible violation of the rules here?

So you're quoting the rules of TRF to a moderator? You're walking a very fine line...

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by Tridor

True, but TRF has certain rules; to wit: "Any non-genuine, replica or fake watches or any other goods are not permitted to be sold on TRF and will result in a ban." I interpret this to apply to aftermarket parts as well.

Also ..."Anything that is not original to the watch must be disclosed." Again, an aftermarket crystal, as in this case, is not original to the watch and was not disclosed in the ad.

In addition to the ban referenced previously, the penalty for any violation of the TRF buy/sell rules is as follows: "Any violation of the rules will result in an immediate removal of the thread and/or the right to post any further items in this sub-forum."

Given the rules and the facts as we know them to be, what is the position of TRF on any possible violation of the rules here?

You've seen three mods just chillin' around this thread.

What more is needed?

We are not fundamentalists here. The rules are a good guide to keep things on an even keel.

I don't think that Tempo deliberately sold a watch with a non-rolex crystal.

Neither is there yet tangible proof from Rolex to this watch's status.

It's an argument that's been allowed to play out and will be locked when it's just not getting anywhere.

[Tridor]

Rules exist for a reason, particularly where they impose a specific penalty. If they were merely a guide, then there would be no need for penalty provisions. I don't see how it is walking a very fine line by asking a question concerning the enforcement of those rules since the answer may have value in directing future conduct.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by Tridor

Rules exist for a reason, particularly where they impose a specific penalty. If they were merely a guide, then there would be no need for penalty provisions. I don't see how it is walking a very fine line by asking a question concerning the enforcement of those rules since the answer may have value in directing future conduct.

Proceed, by all means.....

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

Proceed, by all means.....

I will refrain from further inquiry.

[Gaijin]

Originally Posted by JohnBaker3

I think it is time for the moderators to step in and settle this whole thing once and for all. Sort of like "judge Judy"; review the rules of the forum for sale section and make it happen.

I think we have heard plenty (almost too much) from both sides. Please make it happen before the forum's reputation takes a hit too.

Be safe.

John. Sir, I don't think the forum's reputation will take a hit. The moderators have handled this well I believe. The seller. No. His reputation is at this point almost unfortunately irreparably damaged.


Sad. All for $200.

[chaisson]

Relatively new here. See a lot of recommendations to "Buy from a trusted seller" on this site. Kind of of makes you second guess after reading this........just saying.

[ArcticMoose]

Originally Posted by chaisson

Relatively new here. See a lot of recommendations to "Buy from a trusted seller" on this site. Kind of of makes you second guess after reading this........just saying.

It is threads like these that keep the "trust" in "trusted sellers". The ones that remain, that is.

Guys like justrolexes and Mosco have gone way beyond what has been required of them to keep me happy, which is why I do not have any problem wiring either of them $20k. Again.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by chaisson

Relatively new here. See a lot of recommendations to "Buy from a trusted seller" on this site. Kind of of makes you second guess after reading this........just saying.

There is no such thing as an absolute Trusted Seller. That's a myth.

What there are, however, are prevailing Trusted Sellers.

These are sellers who have stood the test of time and have handled several (perhaps many) difficult situations with any of us even knowing about them. All that is broadcast are the exemplars of service they provide.

The title is both provisional and honorific.

It also vanishes easily.

[kleman]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

The title is both provisional and honorific.

It also vanishes easily.

Yes, exactly, with that I agree very much. One has to deserve it.

[Gaijin]

DavidSW has done 4 deals with me. Perefection. Trustworthy. Did way more than he needed to on two of my deals. Trusted seller.

[mfnj]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You sell long enough, you inevitably will have a problem or two with a buyer. It is how you handle those problems that give new potential buyers the confidence to deal with you. It doesn't matter if you've done hundreds if deals before because you are only as good as your last deal. Even if a buyer was exaggerating a problem, if I was a dealer I would call a $200 problem a cost of doing business and pay without thinking twice!

[geneinnc]

This thread should come with Aspirin. Headache time.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[seabreeze]

Originally Posted by mfnj

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You sell long enough, you inevitably will have a problem or two with a buyer. It is how you handle those problems that give new potential buyers the confidence to deal with you. It doesn't matter if you've done hundreds if deals before because you are only as good as your last deal. Even if a buyer was exaggerating a problem, if I was a dealer I would call a $200 problem a cost of doing business and pay without thinking twice!

Yes ..setting aside whether the claim has merit, as a seller would you spend $200 to avoid a 4 page thread about your reputation? Big companies, little companies alike, miss this fundamental business lesson.

And the internet has changed everything forever...fairly or unfairly

[unclesallie]

Anastasios is a person of the highest integrity. He once sent me three rolex bracelets, each worth $1200.00 prior to payment, and told me to "pick one" and send him a check and the other two back(I chose none and just returned the bracelets...not a "peep" from A.)....so He lost his temper, maybe he should be renamed, "Temper King"? That , however, does not mean he has done anything wrong ethically, or legally. In fact, my legal analysis shows he is correct, if the buyer is indeed a "merchant". That is if Anastasios and the Buyer are both "merchants", the buyer had almost one (1) year to discover the defect and revoke his acceptance of the goods. If the Buyer(whom I don't know and make no assumptions about him good or bad), had equal knowledge and expertise, Buyer loses in Court. Here's why:

If this went to Court or an Arbitration Board(most usual path for a small claim), the case would be governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in some form or another in 50 States. I will give you the law below. You decide.

My take is that where you have 2 "merchants", the buying "merchant" has to revoke within a "commercially reasonable time", which did not happen here. You may find otherwise ladies and gentlemen of the Jury:

2-314. IMPLIED WARRANTY: MERCHANTABILITY; USAGE OF TRADE.

(1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.
(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as
• (a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and
• (b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and
• (c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and
• (d) run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and
• (e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and
• (f) conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.
(3) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.

§ 2-313. EXPRESS WARRANTIES BY AFFIRMATION, PROMISE, DESCRIPTION, SAMPLE.
(1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows:
• (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.
• (b) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description.
• (c) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.
(2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as "warrant" or "guarantee" or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goodsor a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty

§ 2-104. DEFINITIONS: "MERCHANT"; "BETWEEN MERCHANTS"; "FINANCING AGENCY".
(1) "Merchant" means a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill.
(2) "Financing agency" means a bank, finance company or other person who in the ordinary course of business makes advances against goods or documents of title or who by arrangement with either the seller or the buyer intervenes in ordinary course to make or collect payment due or claimed under the contract for sale, as by purchasing or paying the seller's draft or making advances against it or by merely taking it for collection whether or not documents of title accompany the draft. "Financing agency" includes also a bank or other person who similarly intervenes between persons who are in the position of seller and buyer in respect to the goods (Section 2-707).
(3) "Between Merchants" means in any transaction with respect to which both parties are chargeable with the knowledge or skill of merchants.

§ 2-315. IMPLIED WARRANTY: FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose

§ 2-608. Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part.
(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unitwhose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it
•(a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
•(b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances.

(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.

(3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goodsinvolved as if he had rejected them.

[Tridor]

Even if the buyer were a merchant and based upon the facts adduced so far, the goods fail to comply with UCC 2-314 (2)(a) regarding the implied warranty of merchantability. Specifically, the aftermarket crystal does not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description. The entire watch was represented, either expressly or implicitly, as an authentic Rolex. The aftermarket part was not disclosed, and Rolex deemed it to be a counterfeit crystal as confirmed independently by at least one member here. To date, the seller has not disputed that the crystal was aftermarket; therefore, his silence is deemed to be an admission as a matter of law.

Further, the goods were rejected within a reasonable period after discovery of the defect. The watch was represented by the seller as being in excellent condition; therefore, the buyer had no reason to take it in to Rolex until the battery died. Certainly, the buyer could not have discovered the defect upon reasonable examination, but it was the seller's responsibility to ensure that the watch was as advertised, even if that meant taking it apart or sending it in to Rolex for authentication. Apparently, the watch was not as advertised and the seller did neither of those things. Once the buyer was apprised of the non - conformity, it appears that he notified the seller timely, thereby satisfying the statutory requisites.

[unclesallie]

Understood, and that's what Court/Arbitration is all about.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by unclesallie

Understood, and that's what Court/Arbitration is all about.

My analysis is based on the facts as we know them to be now. The seller has not denied that the crystal was a fake, thereby admitting that the watch was not genuine. Case closed.

[unclesallie]

Revocation of acceptance must be done within
a reasonable time, especially true where buyer
is a merchant.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by unclesallie

Revocation of acceptance must be done within
a reasonable time, especially true where buyer
is a merchant.

It is a reasonable time from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered. That is far different than simply counting the period from the date of delivery.

[seabreeze]

its so funny to have lawyers in here....i wonder how gardeners would have settled this.

I see more than $200 in billable time spent on this thread

[unclesallie]

Originally Posted by seabreeze

its so funny to have lawyers in here....i wonder how gardeners would have settled this.

I see more than $200 in billable time spent on this thread

You got that right!
BTW, I'm done with this now.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by seabreeze

its so funny to have lawyers in here....i wonder how gardeners would have settled this.

I see more than $200 in billable time spent on this thread

Easily more than $200 in time. However, let me state for the record that my comments in this thread do not establish an attorney-client relationship with any person or entity.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by unclesallie

You got that right!
BTW, I'm done with this now.

Yeah ... me, too. Even attorneys can argue just so much.

[FTX I]

The seller should have solved the 200 bucks issue before this mess. No question. But, at this point and reading both stories (no proof yet presented here) I can easily say I would avoid Tony "Spartan" Manikis at all cost and would buy a watch from Tempoking.

[FTX I]

If you buy a less than 5 years old watch it can sit on your wrist for some weeks and have to go to service. Always. But, if you buy vintage, it cannot sit on your wrist and must go straight to service. Every vintage collector knows that. Having done that, Tony would have means to approach Tempoking to fix any issue or demand his money back. One year later is unacceptable IMHO if we talk about vintage.

[Jocke]

This deal is not crystal clear.