|
Post by larryrehfeld on Dec 14, 2006 20:28:31 GMT -5
finally,
you out of all people should know what it is like to have sponnsors flake out on you, I am sure it has happend to you before.
|
|
|
Post by Denise Wattles on Dec 14, 2006 20:46:49 GMT -5
I guess someone giving you their word that they will pay and trusting someone is, unfortunately, a thing of the past. Has the World really come to pre-payment and COD for EVERYONE when something is ordered? You guys seem full of advice..What would you do when someone wants to order something and they want to pay after the event?
|
|
|
Post by larryrehfeld on Dec 14, 2006 20:48:46 GMT -5
Please refer to my previous post
I think everyone should look into other vendors that operate in a professional manner
|
|
|
Post by larryrehfeld on Dec 14, 2006 20:55:08 GMT -5
Read section 3 everyone and tell me who this reminds you of.
ยง 806. Harassment or abuse [15 USC 1692d]
A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(1) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person.
(2) The use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer or reader.
(3) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 603(f) or 604(3)1 of this Act.
(4) The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce payment of the debt.
(5) Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number.
(6) Except as provided in section 804, the placement of telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the caller's identity.
|
|
|
Post by larryrehfeld on Dec 14, 2006 20:55:43 GMT -5
I b elieve section 5 is relavant as well
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Dec 14, 2006 21:21:41 GMT -5
3 and 5
Man this has been a tough issue to decide where i stand.
If pete owes them money, or anyone....then they owe the money. and shouldnt have ordered something that they didnt have money for before hand.
However, Pete did pay so much already. If your going to use an honor system on your debts....then trust that he will pay you. as you trusted what he already paid you.
But i obviously have to make my stand and side with the law.and poor professionalism. Sounds like you guys could be in a serious bind, if people try to sue you. which according to those laws......this isnt looking so hot.
I guess if anyone had a vendetta against you guys....now would be there time to act.
Good luck to alll in this battle.
|
|
|
Post by larryrehfeld on Dec 14, 2006 21:24:43 GMT -5
Ryan,
It is not about a vendetta, it is about not humiliating good people in public. I have talk to pete and I am sure he will pay the balance. There is no good to come of it.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Dec 14, 2006 21:47:31 GMT -5
I know your not interested in a vendetta. I was just saying people like travis pete could act on it and "any other armwrestling org" could prolly benifit from it
|
|
|
Post by leonard on Dec 15, 2006 1:51:54 GMT -5
It is a damn good thing you guys are not lawyers or you would all be out of a job or in front of a disciplinary committee. That law is about debt collectors. If you read more than just the small area that the genius Frank gave you, the definition of a debt collector is there. It also says who is not one. The following is in the definition of who is not a debt collector.
The term does not include -- (A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor;
(B) any person while acting as a debt collector for another person, both of whom are related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the person acting as a debt collector does so only for persons to whom it is so related or affiliated and if the principal business of such person is not the collection of debts;
I as the creditor am excluded from this law and what was posted was completely legal.
Now on to the next issue. It seems that Vic Sargent, Larry Rehfeld and Frank Hirst are saying that Pete is honest and will pay me so just be patient. So put your money where your mouth is guys. Each of you pay 1/3 of the honest Pete's bill (251.33) and you can hold his debt and he will pay you. How about that guys? No? Didn't think so, real big when it is my money being with held. Maybe the reason, Pete's Lie's about paying me when he got the jackets, made me so upset stem from me personally giving the NAA a great break on the jackets. My cost on this order without any payment for my time is 1800.00 of a 1954.00 bill. So I give the jackets basically at cost on the stipulation that he pay the final amount at the time of delivery. Pete assured me that he was "No Travis Bagent" (sorry Travis his words not mine) and I could trust him. So when he burns me is not my profit he is burning but actual money out of my pocket.
|
|
|
Post by larryrehfeld on Dec 15, 2006 2:29:09 GMT -5
Leonard, How long has it been since pete has paid you. Most companies work on a 30/60/90 day ledger!!!
|
|
|
Post by leonard on Dec 15, 2006 2:50:30 GMT -5
His terms was payment upon receipt of goods. I gave him the ability to send in the money rather than making the box COD but the bill was due upon receipt of the goods.
|
|
|
Post by larryrehfeld on Dec 15, 2006 3:06:49 GMT -5
Whatever... He paid you 1200, and he will pay you the rest. Do everyone a favor and handle your business privatly
|
|
|
Post by larryrehfeld on Dec 15, 2006 3:08:59 GMT -5
it has been 30 days, his sponsor flaked, and he is stuck footing the bill. Hope he defaults on his mortgage, cant buy xmas presents for his kids, and the city turns of his power and gas so you can get paid right away. Give the guy a break!!!! I heard about all your PM's too!!! Real nice
|
|
|
Post by leonard on Dec 15, 2006 3:15:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jamesretarides on Dec 15, 2006 8:22:59 GMT -5
Leonard, the story about the sponsors is not bogus and is the primary reason why you will never see another tournament at the Black Bear again. It took four tournaments for that place to finally show their true colors and they did not deliver what was PROMISED. Ryan says that Pete should not have ordered the jackets if he did not have the money in his hand. If that were the case we would have had to wait until one week prior to the tournament because that is how the Black Bear operates. A few people asked me why I was so sarcastic when I was reading the sponsors names on the mic because the black bear put off their end of the bargain until the last minute and got them to commit so late that I didn't even know who they were. That is why on the mic I kept thanking "Insert random beer company here" and then following it up with a "head for the mountains," "Rocky Mountain High," "Tastes great, less filling," or the obligatory "Champagne of Beers" reference. The Black Bear delivered what was promised in the past, albeit very late in the process, but not so this time. I can PM you info of someone you know that can verify the story. With all that being said, I will say that Pete relied WAY TOO HEAVILY on that promise and that fact created quite a wedge in our friendship. But friends forgive and forget. And last year when Dan Fortuna and I were at odds and said some horrible things to each other after the Big Apple Grapple. I remember saying to Tim Bresnan, "I like Dan, but I am really pissed at Dan right know." His response: "You guys are friends. Friends get past these things so you will be friends again." Irony is like a feather to my balls. When I heard the news of what you posted on your website yesterday, I erupted into laughter, sorry, but it is true and not for the reason one might think. I have a soft spot in my heart for irony and oh boy was I tickled yesterday when I thought of how ironic it would be if Pete Milano (of all people) could actually be the benefactor in a defamation lawsuit. Mercury must truly be in retrograde. Though not punctual with payments, I will say that no one has let Pete borrow more $ than me in the past and he has always paid me back....eventually. Because he has an entire school bus worth of children under his roof, Pete receives a tax check yearly that rivals the annual salary of Barry Bonds. That is what you get when you enter "17" on the little black line on your W4s entitled "dependents." I would guess that the check would be in mail sometime mid to late January Leonard.
|
|