Since Mr. Chesters has chosen to bring this to the MMD, then all
of you need to hear the other side of the story and make you own
determinations as to who is the injured party.  Mr. Chesters discusses
the legal issue and fails to discuss the moral and ethical side of
this.  There is more to the story in both of these areas.   As Mr.
Chesters stated the music box was not is pristine condition but at no
time did he indicate that it wasn't a restorable box.  If you take the
time to read through the extracts from the email exchange below, you
will see where the real problem between Mr. Chesters and myself lies.

 [ The letter from Brian Chesters appeared in Digest 980425. ]

The following are direct quotes from the email exchange that initiated
the transaction (D=Danckaert, C=Chesters):


 [ (During shipment the packing box was split open on two sides.)
 [
 [ Since the extracts are quite lengthy and simply background for
 [ the main text, I've deleted them from this article.  Ken says
 [ that he plans to place the complete article soon at his web site:
 [
 [    http://research.umbc.edu/~kend/
 [
 [ -- Robbie


Discussion:

There were a number of Email messages exchanged and Mr. Chesters did
in fact send a fine follow-up letter to Parceline [the UK shipping
company].  However, it became clear that the only way to get this
resolved was to go to court, which I could not do from the States.  My
lawyer also informed me that I could not legally go to court [against
the shipping company] because their contract was with Mr. Chesters and
not with me.  Mr. Chesters was willing to proceed only if I paid all
the bills.  I was not willing to do this because I believe he bears a
great deal of the responsibility for the problem in the first place and
is accepting none.

There are several issues here.  I believe they can be stated as below:

1.  The legal issue with respect to the shipper.  Clearly the shipper
should be held responsible for the damage to the music box sustained in
shipment.  Insurance was paid for.  The shipper has the right to
inspect the manner in which a package was packed and should do so on
high-value items.  However, Mr. Chesters did a poor job in packing the
music box and as a result the damage was much more severe than it would
have been otherwise.  He should have never unscrewed the bed plate from
the music box and the motor from the bed plate, put a little bubble
wrap around each of them and laid them in loose Styrofoam "peanuts"
inside the box.  The cast iron governor support was broken; the endless
screw was broken; 13 additional teeth were broken; all the comb weights
were flattened; the inside of the box was severely damaged.  I believe
he also bears responsibility since a dealer should know how to properly
pack the merchandise that he sells.  My lawyer indicated that I could
not pursue this because the contract [with the shipping company] was
made by Mr. Chesters and therefore he is the only one that can take
legal action.

2.  Mr. Chesters presents himself as a reputable dealer and even has
a web page to sell them.  He never once informed me of his position
on ownership ("At the time that your funds cleared with my bank, the
property became yours.  On your behalf, I contacted the shippers and
they sent it by six and also 'insured' it for you."), customer
acceptance of the item and right of return.  As you can see above,
I was never once appraised of his position before the "Problem"
occurred.  I have discussed this with many dealers, and the over-
whelming majority say his position is counter to the norm.  Virtually
all of them indicate that they assume responsibility for proper
packing; they assume responsibility for taking out the insurance and
making sure there is proper coverage even though the customer pays for
it; and they provide the customer the right of return at the customer's
expense.  All of this is contrary to Mr. Chesters' position.  Note
that Mr. Chesters _does not_ point out his conditions of sale on his
web page.  I also know others that have inquired of Mr. Chesters
regarding the purchase of music boxes and none have been told of his
conditions of sales

Concluding statement:

I believe that Mr. Chesters is unethical in not openly stating his
conditions of sales in both email transactions and on his web page
since they go against the norm of reputable dealers.  I believe that
Mr. Chesters assumed the responsibility to properly pack the music
box and to take out the insurance, and if he didn't get the proper
insurance coverage, for whatever the reason, then it is his responsi-
bility and his cost to work it out.  I do not believe it is proper or
ethical for him to take the "high ground" and assume no _personal_
liability.  If he cannot get payment from the shipper, then I believe
that he bears the financial responsibility for the cost of the goods
lost.  Mr. Chesters indicates that he is "quite willing to spend my
time to go through court proceedings and being called as the main
witness for the prosecution."  I believe that he should too.  He and
his lawyer should be trying to get this straightened out, but at _his_
expense.

I would welcome the thoughts of this group on this matter.

Ken Danckaert
kend@lemur.org


 [ Ken also told me that later he would like to post a sample contract
 [ at his web site, and he invites suggestions from MMDers.  A purchase
 [ and shipping agreement in writing would help to prevent these
 [ unhappy situations.
 [
 [ -- Robbie