I’m not a lawyer, but maybe next time, before a GB is opened to members to participate, an Agreement of Terms and Conditions for Seller and Buyer can be given to possibly minimize the re-occurrence of this situation. Just a thought……
Also, a Definition of a Group Buy in a way that all Money is to be used Only to Purchase this Specific item. And Exclude any term that may be represented as a ” Promise “.
Armytek Partner is very good quality and I love their WW tint. However, their customer service is hard to get a hold of. Only way to get a response is if you contact their rep on their Facebook page. You may also look at Randy’s Pflexpro S2+ triple emitters. They are costly but it’s very high quality and it is currently my favorite EDC that I use every night. I got the 4000k 219b version and I love the tint and UI. Also the Reylight TiLan with 14500 batteries is a very nice EDC. They have a GB right now for $61. It’s my favorite AA/14500 flashlight in my collection.
For those of you who used PayPal in the GB, and funded the payment with a Credit Card, even if PayPal won’tt refund, you may still have recourse through the Credit Card Company, but you probably need to do it sooner rather than later. I believe the PayPal agreement says you agree not to do this, the reality is that it is an unenforceable condition. Rights granted through Federal Law cannot be signed away, and PayPal knows that, they just hope you aren’t smart enough to know the terms are unenforceable.
I unfortunately paid via my checking account, and as a result probably do not have any recourse. Moral of this story is to always pay on PayPal from a Credit Card (not a Debit Card).
It’s only as good as the paper it is written on. It’s like those people in Nigeria that has $25,000,000 who will give it to you as soon as you give your bank account, social security, etc.
The Reylight TiLan is my most used around the house light and I ordered a second one from that group buy to be sure one is always available.
The first condition is implicit…I pay, you provide…
I like the second part, but any contract, written or otherwise, is only as good as the two participants ability to keep their end of the bargain.
When I sent Texas Ace hundreds of dollars worth of flashlights, and sent him hundreds of dollars of cash, I had nothing more than a promise. I didn’t know him, his reputation or his abilities. I don’t know his real name, never saw his face and he lives too far away for me to go over there and beat his ass (ha!)…we only had TRUST and our WORD.
And that was worth its weight in gold! I have been more than happy to tout his abilities, professional behavior and his magic on these forums!
I still don’t know who he is and we never signed a contract…no need. Two trustworthy parties making a square deal…raw and honest.
“I pay, you provide…”
If I had issues with his costs or offerings, it is simple enough for me not to engage his services.
I understand there can be troubles with such transactions, but that is generally how it should go.
Yes
Seems to me that if you can’t get relief from the vendor, then any big pocket party that enabled the scam is your next logical target.
Just coming from an ex-Kalifornian. Talk to a few others bilked and see about a class action on the reprobate. There are so many hungry lawyers out there willing to work on commission. Just watch all the commercials on TV.
Just because you paid by check doesn’t mean you forfeit recourse.
I apologize for adding more misinformation to this thread. I’ve filed my claim. Unsubscribing from this thread and hoping for the best.
“Escrow”, anyone?
30sec of “research”, so I just pulled this out of my… computer… but this or something like it might be worth it for future GBs.
Maybe change Terry’s online store name to “he said, she said, they said”…haha
Seriously…
|
|
|
|
Just an addendum… in general and not necessarily referring to anything in this thread, but even though most people look to banks, CC companies, PayPal, etc., to get back their bux, there are other ways to “make things right”.
Once when I had some reservations about someone wanting cash in an envelope (ie, no paper trail) to get a manual I wanted/needed, I talked him into accepting a postal money-order. “Good as cash!”, sez me. He accepted. I photocopied the PMO before sending it, of course.
After something like 2wks went by and still no manual, I emailed back to ask, “Oh, I sent it”. Yuh-huh. After week 3, I said I still haven’t gotten it, so can I please have my bux back (no big deal, like 20bux or so), and he pretty much laughed at that. “And what if I don’t want to?”, or something snarky like that.
Well, I pointed out that given our email exchange, there’s clearly a transaction that should have happened: intent, terms, etc. He thought that because it was cross-country that he was “safe” from me taking him to small-claims court or whatever, until I pointed out that it’s interstate, number 1, that email went over comm lines, number 2, that it involved the USPS, number 3, and that this constitutes wire-fraud, and better yet, interstate wire-fraud, that with saved emails on disk as well as on paper, I could make a pretty clear case that the Postmaster General’s office would just loooooove to get hold of (dunno if true, but the PMG is pretty badass as far as going after fraud that involves the USPS in any way), and who knows what other federal offices would like to get involved.
I did get the manual. He probably spit on it and ran it across his crotch and buttcrack a few times before mailing it, but I still got the manual.
But yeah, anything that involves phones, email, snailmail, and happens interstate, gets the feddies involved. Wire-fraud, mail-fraud, anything that involves a clear-cut case of fraud (as in provable in court as deliberate fraud), can be a rather nicer sledgehammer to get back your bux and then some.
Just a couple of points. The reality is in this case there is only about $3200 involved, and at most 100 participants. There is no way a lawyer is going to touch this with the proverbial barge pole. There just isn’t enough money. If you want to go the legal route, the only way it can make any economic sense is via small claims court where you can represent yourself. These days you could easily go through the entire $3200 without a lawyer even starting to draw up the complaint. I also doubt that Terry has a great deal in the way assets that could be attached, and in remote the event we were to somehow secure a sizable judgement, Terry just files for Bankruptcy, and as unsecured creditors, the odds on collecting anything are near zero. Airline Bankruptcies are notorious for leaving unsecured creditors with nothing. It also isn’t clear to me that Haikelite has deep pockets either. The picture I am getting is a small, under capitalized firm that has no legal presence in the US, so while you are welcome to sue them, absent any presence in the US, you’ll get a judgement, but the odds on ever collecting a penny of it are essentially zero. I have a 6 figure judgment against a company in Kuwait from a Court in Southern California . They no longer have any presence in the US (they fled California and the US when the Franchise Tax board came after them for unpaid state taxes), I am resigned to the fact that I am unlikely to see a penny.
I suspect the under capitalization of the company is the real reason the SC26 buy never went anywhere and the bills are unpaid. Haikelite needed the cash for parts to build the product, and has obviously had some trouble even paying TA. They have no money. We aren’t going to see the SC26’s because I suspect they don’t actually exist, and absent the group buy money, Haikelite cannot afford to build them. From my view, the only way we are ever going to see anything is if someone with money buys Haikelite (or at least their intellectual property), and deals with the GB as a marketing/PR expense.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
My guess is that the SC26 XHP35 will happen. Of course a bit of wishful thinking is involved here. :sunglasses:
I help you, because it looks like a nice light.
But the DQG Tiny III is a nice light too. It’s 2cm shorter than the SC26*, which is good.
On the downside it has no ramping and mode spacing isn’t ideal. (missing a 1200LM mode)
The SC26 has 6 modes but while I’ve seen their draw, I don’t know the output in LM.
So both lights seem to have some positive and negative side. Choices, choices, choices 
*=Are the dimensions of the new SC26 the same as the ‘old’ one?
Let me clarify a bit. My guess is that Haikelite already has a couple of hundred anodised SC26 bodies laying around for quite some time now. The problem with Haikelite is the driver design that they outsource. Apparently the XPL variant was under performing, so they just canceled that one and focus on the higher performing XHP35 variant.
A sample was already sent to a BLF member: Haikelite SC26 *** CLOSED For U.S.A. and Canadian Customers only*** Haikelite cut me off at 100 units so GB is closed. - #535 by Pok
So if a sample is already sent out, then I’m guessing it will happen.
I dont understand after the mto9r fiasco how they could produce a light claimed 1300 lumens and still fail that… if they are that bad with drivers etc why even bother making flashlights? competition is hard but when u read stuff like this i just dont get it… I do like my mt09r even tho its not producing the claimed 7500 its still bright enough and throws quite good but i wish they would just buy it a real drivers either from the TA dude or someone else and stop embarassing themselves like this over and over again…
I do like they switched to XHP35 and increased the lumens perhaps it will be a good light afterall.
I think every company has they failed projects.
The real mistake here is that specs are released before the product is ready (and tested).
If a company designs a 2000lm light and it turns out only outputting 1000lm, they still can sell it. Many people like that output.
But if they start making 2000 claims and they deliver 1000, then they look bad.
Just some thoughts I wanted to share and I think I might be restating what others have said already. I think that HL will produce the SC26 in one form or another based on all the sample videos we’ve seen so far. We just have to wait and see what source we can get it from. Keep in mind, the manufacturer won’t change so you will be supporting HL, when you purchase the lights if the light becomes available for purchase. If you have a problem with that you shouldn’t think about buying the SC26.
I think BLF is a great community and despite their short or long term membership here, that there is a lot of trust among its member. For me I tend to give more trust to members that contribute to the forum with their opinions, knowledge, projects, and other resources, and who are not just out to make an extra buck from forum members. I think where this works against BLF is that even though there are alarms bells going off because of fishy behavior like Terry or people voicing warnings about something not being right, forum members shouldn’t automatically rise up to defend the accused without reading all the posts or looking at all the facts. I think that this would have nipped this GB in the bud a lot sooner and buyers wouldn’t have to go through the drama of a PP claim or at the least more people would have had an easier time recovering their money.
I don’t think it’s necessary to get all legal for GBs since GBs are already difficult to manage and it would complicate matters more. I also think that goes against the BLF spirit.
Now if that doesn’t convince you, let me get more specific on the reasons why. Unless the GB deals with a lot more money, it would be difficult for any attorney to take the matter on contingency (attorney’s fees only on recovery fee structure) because their attorney’s fees will be based on the damages/recovery and it wouldn’t make business sense for the attorney. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t foresee any of the GBs being worth more than $10,000 or even close to that amount. Even at $10,000, I’m not sure many attorneys would take the case. To further complicate matters, the attorney would also factor into account whether or not the defendant, aka scammer, is solvent to collect the judgment from. That would mean the attorney would have done all that work for no monies. So the only way an attorney would take a case like this would be if we paid the attorney his/her fees, which probably would end up being more than what the GB is worth and this is not to mention that there is no guarantee that we would be able to recover the full amount from the scammer if anything at all. Also, one of us would have to work together with the attorney throughout the lawsuit and report back to everyone here.
So having a contract wouldn’t help matters because you would still need an attorney’s help to get the money back. So the contract would be a waste of time unless you were willing to litigate against the scammer. Now for those who think that you could get a federal, state, or city prosecutors to investigate and prosecute criminal charges against the scammer, unfortunately that would be difficult as well. Most of the times prosecutors will tell you that these kind of matters are civil and you would have to hire a private attorney to handle the matter. Unless you can show that the scammer has hurt a lot of people and is continuing to hurt a lot of people, and scamming the public out of a lot of money, prosecutors won’t lift a finger. That’s why most business deals are left to the civil courts to deal with and are not considered criminal.
However, I have seen some being successful at getting local law enforcement involved in the matter. But I think it was due to personal contacts that they had with the local police.
Anyways, I hope most if not everyone is able to eventually get their money back. I hope HL is paying attention to this thread to see what kind of havoc was created by having Terry run a GB for their products and maybe HL will change their business practices accordingly.