Horrible Kijiji Tool Box Experience!!

[Squints]

.

was the original box purchase on truck credit?

The story is it was not and is on SO credit, but apparently the selling franchisee is on the hook for a certain percentage?

That's why i assume he was there...the only paperwork he had with him was the original deadbeats statement of account, which i don't think by privacy law that he should of shown me...but he did.

 

[kartracer55]

At the end of the day, it's a box. There is no law that I am aware of that says you can't remove the serial numbers from something you purchased unless laws specifically prohibit (IE Cars, motorcycles etc). The way I see it, your end of the deal was 100% legit, and I'd contact an attorney for a free consultation as to whether you have something you even need to worry about.

In my eyes, they can't really prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Davefr]

In my eyes, they can't really prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's all they would have to prove in civil court. (assuming Canada is similar to US)

My hunch is they won't even try.

 

[Reality Sucks]

Do Snap-On dealers have a legal right to even inspect your property? I would hope not. That is something even the police can't do without a reason. I don't think I could ever buy something that would allow a private party access to my property.

Could a Snap-On truck come to your personal residence and inspect your tool box? What makes it different if it's at a shop?

This may be true, but untill said product or tools are paid for they can and do. If you dont pay for them. I Dont mean they have the right to come look through your stuff,not at all, but if you buy tools and dont pay they will reposses. Untill tools are paid for they still be long to snappy. Just like the banks with car credit. dont pay, they reposses. Snap on gives credit on good faith and sometimes they get screwed.

Now in this case the dealer who came to try to take this guys box would have got his head thumped, he bought it fair regardless of numbers or not. Its not so much of proving it isnt stolen.. its a matter of him having to prove it is.and Thats just hard to do without proper documetation and numbers.

 

[Reality Sucks]

The story is it was not and is on SO credit, but apparently the selling franchisee is on the hook for a certain percentage?

That's why i assume he was there...the only paperwork he had with him was the original deadbeats statement of account, which i don't think by privacy law that he should of shown me...but he did.

Not your problem..he has to prove its his box...no numbers. not your problem.. I love snap on but hes gonna have to eat it. I know theres a few dealers who are GJ members. I wonder what they think?

 

[MrMark]

That's all they would have to prove in civil court. (assuming Canada is similar to US)

My hunch is they won't even try.

Once again, beyond a reasonable doubt is the criminal standard of proof. Civil is much lower or cases would never be decided. It's 51 percent, more likely than not, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

 

[contactme_11]

just sell it for $2,500 this week and free yourself of the worry.

this.

 

[MrMark]

Not your problem..he has to prove its his box...no numbers. not your problem.. I love snap on but hes gonna have to eat it. I know theres a few dealers who are GJ members. I wonder what they think?

Really. It's that easy, huh? Just take the sticker off and everything is fair game? No one can prove anything without that sticker?

So when goods are stolen all the thief has to do is get that number off and he's good it go. Anyone can buy them sans serial number without any consequences?

Some of you need to forget the chest thumping and think about things before posting.

 

[ndoran]

U.C.C. - ARTICLE 9 - SECURED TRANSACTIONS; SALES OF ACCOUNTS AND CHATTEL PAPER
..PART 3. RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES; PERFECTED AND UNPERFECTED SECURITY INTERESTS; RULES OF PRIORITY

§ 9-306. "Proceeds"; Secured Party's Rights on Disposition of Collateral.

(1) "Proceeds" includes whatever is received upon the sale, exchange, collection or other disposition of collateral or proceeds. Insurance payable by reason of loss or damage to the collateral is proceeds, except to the extent that it is payable to a person other than a party to the security agreement. Money, checks, deposit accounts, and the like are "cash proceeds". All other proceeds are "non-cash proceeds".

(2) Except where this Article otherwise provides, a security interest continues in collateral notwithstanding sale, exchange or other disposition thereof unless the disposition was authorized by the secured party in the security agreement or otherwise, and also continues in any identifiable proceeds including collections received by the debtor.

(3) The security interest in proceeds is a continuously perfected security interest if the interest in the original collateral was perfected but it ceases to be a perfected security interest and becomes unperfected ten days after receipt of the proceeds by the debtor unless

(a) a filed financing statement covers the original collateral and the proceeds are collateral in which a security interest may be perfected by filing in the office or offices where the financing statement has been filed and, if the proceeds are acquired with cash proceeds, the description of collateral in the financing statement indicates the types of property constituting the proceeds; or
(b) a filed financing statement covers the original collateral and the proceeds are identifiable cash proceeds; or
(c) the security interest in the proceeds is perfected before the expiration of the ten day period.
Except as provided in this section, a security interest in proceeds can be perfected only by the methods or under the circumstances permitted in this Article for original collateral of the same type.

The OP is in Canada, the last time I checked none of the U.S. laws apply here. As someone has already said this stuff varies from province to province. that said the poster above makes some good points.

 

[MrMark]

this.

That is the worst advice he could ever receive for many reasons. Especially given the criminal code section I just posted. And we have no knowledge of whether Canada in his province has similar laws.

Besides, it's just wrong.

 

[MrMark]

The OP is in Canada, the last time I checked none of the U.S. laws apply here. As someone has already said this stuff varies from province to province. that said the poster above makes some good points.

I expect the Canadian system is very similar given the cross border trade and NAFTA.

 

[Al Bundy]

First of all, even if the OP was a BFP it wouldn't matter because the lien is not extinguished by a sale to a third party, even a BFP for value. And, if you can't understand the difference between a person having a tough time establishing he is a BFP when the box has no serial number and the rest of his sordid story vs another person trying to establish that the essentially stolen goods are his then . . . you fill in the rest. Perhaps you would feel differently if you loaned someone money to buy something and they went and sold off the collateral after ripping off the serial number leaving you with no recourse to get the goods back. One big sign of a stolen item is a missing serial number, the fact that it was missing tends to support the purchaser not being a BFP, AND is not necessary to prove up the identity of the stolen item. It would be nice to have but thieves tend to take them off! Get it?

So to simplify, for those who aren't fluent in doubletalk, the second language for all lawyers - You can't prove it was the box you bought because it has no serial number. But Snap on can prove it's the box they sold despite the fact that it has no serial number.

The OP asked the seller directly if the box was stolen or if there was a lien on it. He was told no. Even without asking those questions, it would be nearly impossible to prove he knew. But don't let evidence get in the way of your argument counselor. After all discovering truth is secondary to practicing your trade.

 

[jhelrey]

They can't do ****! Can't prove anything! Trust me on this! It is a civil issue. Technically they cannot sue you because you don't have the debt. The org. owner does!

 

[MrMark]

So to simplify, for those who aren't fluent in doubletalk, the second language for all lawyers - You can't prove it was the box you bought because it has no serial number. But Snap on can prove it's the box they sold despite the fact that it has no serial number.

The OP asked the seller directly if the box was stolen or if there was a lien on it. He was told no. Even without asking those questions, it would be nearly impossible to prove he knew. But don't let evidence get in the way of your argument counselor. After all discovering truth is secondary to practicing your trade.

Wow!

You wrote:

You can't prove it was the box you bought because it has no serial number.

Is that really the issue? I'm pretty sure he can prove it's the box he bought whether it has a serial number or not. I mean he still has it doesn't he? The issue with regard to the serial number is whether he could qualify as a BFP (even though it doesn't matter here with regard to perfected priority). The fact of the missing number tends to show that he is not.

You further wrote:

The OP asked the seller directly if the box was stolen or if there was a lien on it. He was told no.

And that is somehow definitive or important? Should this be all that is necessary? Would you think a shady fellow or thief would tell the truth?

 

[MrMark]

They can't do ****! Can't prove anything! Trust me on this! It is a civil issue. Technically they cannot sue you because you don't have the debt. The org. owner does!

And you know this because? Despite article 9 to the contrary?

 

[Reality Sucks]

Really. It's that easy, huh? Just take the sticker off and everything is fair game? No one can prove anything without that sticker?

So when goods are stolen all the thief has to do is get that number off and he's good it go. Anyone can buy them sans serial number without any consequences?

Some of you need to forget the chest thumping and think about things before posting.

I didnt say that.. you did. What i said was he bought it fair. And for a dealer to walk in and say give me that box without proof is just ridiculous. The dealer needs to prove its his before trying to take it. And its evadent he could not. Police would have told him the same thing if he would have called them to the shop trying to take. Its not the OP's issue. Its the dealers. Honeslty im agreeing with what every one else said .your on the defensive about it. If SO doesnt like someting like this to happen which is does. They would take the proper steps to document these boxes during assembly, Then there would be no issue of ID on them at this time..

 

[Al Bundy]

Wow!

You wrote:

You can't prove it was the box you bought because it has no serial number.

Is that really the issue? I'm pretty sure he can prove it's the box he bought whether it has a serial number or not. I mean he still has it doesn't he? The issue with regard to the serial number is whether he could qualify as a BFP (even though it doesn't matter here with regard to perfected priority). The fact of the missing number tends to show that he is not.

You further wrote:

The OP asked the seller directly if the box was stolen or if there was a lien on it. He was told no.

And that is somehow definitive or important? Should this be all that is necessary? Would you think a shady fellow or thief would tell the truth?

It is extremely important. It is not a crime to buy stolen property, it's a crime to knowingly buy stolen property. You are a lawyer right?

 

[MrMark]

I didnt say that.. you did. What i said was he bought it fair. And for a dealer to walk in and say give me that box without proof is just ridiculous. The dealer needs to prove its his before trying to take it. And its evadent he could not. Police would have told him the same thing if he would have called them to the shop trying to take. Its not the OP's issue. Its the dealers. Honeslty im agreeing with what every one else said .your on the defensive about it. If SO doesnt like someting like this to happen which is does. They would take the proper steps to document these boxes during assembly, Then there would be no issue of ID on them at this time..

You are agreeing with everyone else who has posted without knowledge or study or research or learning or facts or anything other than "I think" and "I would beat them down."

Try this:

§ 9-306. "Proceeds"; Secured Party's Rights on Disposition of Collateral.

(1) "Proceeds" includes whatever is received upon the sale, exchange, collection or other disposition of collateral or proceeds. Insurance payable by reason of loss or damage to the collateral is proceeds, except to the extent that it is payable to a person other than a party to the security agreement. Money, checks, deposit accounts, and the like are "cash proceeds". All other proceeds are "non-cash proceeds".

(2) Except where this Article otherwise provides, a security interest continues in collateral notwithstanding sale, exchange or other disposition thereof unless the disposition was authorized by the secured party in the security agreement or otherwise, and also continues in any identifiable proceeds including collections received by the debtor.


I guess I'm wrong and everyone else posting without knowledge is correct.

 

[MrMark]

It is extremely important. It is not a crime to buy stolen property, it's a crime to knowingly buy stolen property. You are a lawyer right?

And you think that because someone tells you that it isn't stolen that that somehow ends the inquiry? That answer is definitive? You must understand that it doesn't work that way - I hope. What if you see a guy steal something and he runs over to you with the thing still in his hands. You say did you steal that? He says no, I got it fair and square. You say, "good enough for me." Wow, you wouldn't "knowingly" have received stolen property then, right? You do understand that knowledge, or state of mind is based on all the facts and circumstances, not just what a thief tells you, correct?

Try again, you are not doing very well.

 

[Al Bundy]

And you think that because someone tells you that it isn't stolen that that somehow ends the inquiry? That answer is definitive? You must understand that it doesn't work that way - I hope. What if you see a guy steal something and he runs over to you with the thing still in his hands. You say did you steal that? He says no, I got it fair and square. You say, "good enough for me." Wow, you wouldn't "knowingly" have received stolen property then, right? You do understand that knowledge, or state of mind is based on all the facts and circumstances, not just what a thief tells you, correct?

Try again, you are not doing very well.

You are creating facts to fit your argument counselor. Although not surprising, that's not how the law is supposed to work. I suggest that it is you who is not proving his case.

 

[MrMark]

Pretty weak. Not worth a response. Sounds like someone with a severe envy problem.

 

[Reality Sucks]

MR Mark if you feel SO has a Case. Phone them and offer to represent them on this. Im sure they would love to have you. Maybe they would offer up this box as payment in return for services rendered. Point is you, nor the dealer can prove this box is stolen. He can only prove he sold one LIKE it..That said they didnt stop making them the day the Op bought his so without proper documentaion..ide tell him to go piss in the wind. The op called before purchase and was cleared. So he did more than he should have. If it was documented than that would be a different story..

 

[Al Bundy]

Pretty weak. Not worth a response. Sounds like someone with a severe envy problem.

So now you are going to cop out? I would say I beat you like a drum counselor. Let's at least hear a closing argument. Remember it's all just a dog and pony show. If you quit now you lose.

 

[MrMark]

Why is this so hard?

Snap on has a record and documentation of the sale of the box to the original purchaser, it's a blue KRL with serial number @#$#@$ sold to blankedy blank on blank date at blank place. Then they have the payment history. Numerous co-workers and the Snap-on man see the box and the guy with it.

Next, he sells it to the guy next to him. The guy next to him takes it away. People see him do it. It is a blue KRL blankedy blank. This guy puts it on KIJI. Our boy buys it off this guy. He admits where he got it and the price he paid.

Do you think that it is impossible or hard to prove chain of custody (where it is only three people) for something? Why do you think this would be so hard, especially given the admissions of the OP?

 

[MrMark]

So now you are going to cop out? I would say I beat you like a drum counselor. Let's at least hear a closing argument. Remember it's all just a dog and pony show. If you quit now you lose.

I've done all I can with you. You can only lead the horse to water, you can't make him drink.

 

[Lookin4'67Galaxieconv]

People barter down all the time. In these times, they'll barter a LOT because people need money.

If he had the thing for sale, needed money badly, and a guy says he'll be there with cash-in-hand, it's a done deal.

The reason I would be suspicious is b/c if he had someone calling him when the price was 5K, he had to figure he could unload it for at least $3500. If he absolutely had to have money for it, I think his starting price would've been much lower...say $3500. If you're getting interest at 5 grand, why drop down to half? Big red flag right there.

 

[Reality Sucks]

we never said it wouldnt be hard to prove, i just said without numbers he cant.. If this was true the dealer could have easly called the police and they would have settled it there. They did not because he knows its going to be a hard sale on doing that. Again i wonder what the dealers on this forum would have done..

 

[ishiboo]

You are creating facts to fit your argument counselor. Although not surprising, that's not how the law is supposed to work. I suggest that it is you who is not proving his case.

There's your mistake - thinking the law works how it is supposed to.

It's a far more pathetic situation than you can imagine. MrMark's statements are accurate - your idealistic view of how it should work is not.

 

[MrMark]

we never said it wouldnt be hard to prove, i just said without numbers he cant.. If this was true the dealer could have easly called the police and they would have settled it there. They did not because he knows its going to be a hard sale on doing that. Again i wonder what the dealers on this forum would have done..

You have a lot to learn. Have you ever even been in a court and seen how things are proved? Have you heard people give testimony? Have you seen documents entered into evidence? Have you heard of a subpoena? These people are all alive as far as I know.

Do you really believe that taking the numbers off property means that the rightful owner can never get his property back? How does anyone ever get anything back then? Don't thieves always scratch off the numbers? Does everything even need to have a serial number to be recoverable? What if someone stole your wrenches (without your markings) and then someone was available to testify that they saw so and so steal your wrenches. Would the lack of identifying marks prevent your recover?

The police have nothing to do with this unless the state has a statute like Texas and Kansas posted about where the original purchaser commits a crime by selling.

 

[Al Bundy]

I've done all I can with you. You can only lead the horse to water, you can't make him drink.

Why do we keep changing the argument from chain of custody to whether the OP knew it was stolen and back again? Misdirection only makes your argument seem weak.

You have not convinced me of your argument because I believe you are wrong. That's why we have lawyers and judges and courts in the first place. My argument is that a Snap on box with the serial number missing is in no way unique and therefore can't be positively identified. The supposed chain of custody is nothing but circumstantial. And the OP though he has since admitted reservations, at the time of purchase believed he was conducting a clean transaction. He didn't appear to knowingly be buying a "stolen" box and even with his subsequent admissions surely couldn't be proven to know.

We're likely not going to see any outcome from this whole mess, I just hope you haven't got your ******* too twisted up. I'm only taking the other side of the aisle, it's nothing personal. I rest my case.

 

[Reality Sucks]

I see your One of those "IM ALWAYS RIGHT TYPE OF PEOPLE". So that being said. YOUR RIGHT..goodnight.

 

[MrMark]

I guess I don't understand why everyone seems to be against the lienholder? Is it because it is Snap-on? Why isn't it correct for the lienholder to have priority when he extended credit so that someone could buy goods? Why should someone be able to take away Snap-on's rights to the property by wrongfully selling to a third party? Why should the third party prevail when the lien is a matter of public record and he failed to check?

It seems to me that the system is well conceived, fair and just, and that it apportions risks appropriately.

 

[Reality Sucks]

Why do we keep changing the argument from chain of custody to whether the OP knew it was stolen and back again? Misdirection only makes your argument seem weak.

You have not convinced me of your argument because I believe you are wrong. That's why we have lawyers and judges and courts in the first place. My argument is that a Snap on box with the serial number missing is in no way unique and therefore can't be positively identified. The supposed chain of custody is nothing but circumstantial. And the OP though he has since admitted reservations, at the time of purchase believed he was conducting a clean transaction. He didn't appear to knowingly be buying a "stolen" box and even with his subsequent admissions surely couldn't be proven to know.

We're likely not going to see any outcome from this whole mess, I just hope you haven't got your ******* too twisted up. I'm only taking the other side of the aisle, it's nothing personal. I rest my case.

my point exactly...in bold..and The orig purchaser DID not steal the box. He may have sold something he still owed money on but he did not break into the SO truck at 3am and loaded up.. he was wrong in selling it, and so was the other guy that works with him for buying it and selling it again. the second guy knew the deal. thats why he sold it the very next day he bought it. Im not saying its ok. but the op is in no way at fault for this.

 

[Lookin4'67Galaxieconv]

my point exactly...in bold..and The orig purchaser DID not steal the box. He may have sold something he still owed money on but he did not break into the SO truck at 3am and loaded up.. he was wrong in selling it, and so was the other guy that works with him for buying it and selling it again. the second guy knew the deal. thats why he sold it the very next day he bought it. Im not saying its ok. but the op is in no way at fault for this.

But if the collateral for Snap On is the property, i.e. the toolbox, why shouldn't they go after the toolbox?

Just b/c you didn't knowingly buy stolen property doesn't entitle you to keep it.

 

[MrMark]

Why do we keep changing the argument from chain of custody to whether the OP knew it was stolen and back again? Misdirection only makes your argument seem weak.

You have not convinced me of your argument because I believe you are wrong. That's why we have lawyers and judges and courts in the first place. My argument is that a Snap on box with the serial number missing is in no way unique and therefore can't be positively identified. The supposed chain of custody is nothing but circumstantial. And the OP though he has since admitted reservations, at the time of purchase believed he was conducting a clean transaction. He didn't appear to knowingly be buying a "stolen" box and even with his subsequent admissions surely couldn't be proven to know.

We're likely not going to see any outcome from this whole mess, I just hope you haven't got your ******* too twisted up. I'm only taking the other side of the aisle, it's nothing personal. I rest my case.

You are so confused by this I really can't respond.

All I can do is tell you this:

1) He's likely not a BFP (the issue of the stolen property) and IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THIS CASE, because we have a perfected security interest in goods under Article 9 that states that the lienholder has priority over all subsequent purchasers, even a BFP for value. The subsequent purchaser is given constructive knowledge of the filing just like in a real estate transaction with title.

2) Snap-on has a right to repossess under the contract and the UCC against the goods even if they go to a third party for value because they have a perfected security interest that cannot be defeated by sale

3) the chain of possession will be proved by a mix of circumstantial evidence (which any lawyer will tell you is the best evidence and more powerful than unreliable eyewitness testimony) and direct testimony and admissions of the parties involved.

That's all there is to it.

 

[Reality Sucks]

I guess I don't understand why everyone seems to be against the lienholder? Is it because it is Snap-on? Why isn't it correct for the lienholder to have priority when he extended credit so that someone could buy goods? Why should someone be able to take away Snap-on's rights to the property by wrongfully selling to a third party? Why should the third party prevail when the lien is a matter of public record and he failed to check?

It seems to me that the system is well conceived, fair and just, and that it apportions risks appropriately.

Seriously..i was done with this but i just have to comment. For you to actually think the law is fair and that law actually works in plain our silly. I do see the other guys point. If you really are a lawyer than this is sad, because law is not perfect, law is not fair and sureas hell not just. Give me a break. I love Snap on been supporting there over priced tool market for 10 years. They should sue the orig purchaser. and be done with it.

I worked for a company some years ago where a guy was in debt about 20k with Snappy. Filed chapter 7 and before snap on could collect tools he sold them, case in point nothing they could do legally. Was it wrong yes, immoral yes. Let me ask this what would you have the OP do in this case..Since you have all the answers?

 

[MrMark]

Sorry you feel that way. I don't feel that way at all. I think the law strives to be just and if you disagree then do something about it.

The law is made by legislators and sometimes in limited fashion by judges and they are just men and women trying to do what they believe is right. If you don't like what they do vote them out or run against them or build up grass roots organizations to overturn what you disagree with. It's not a perfect process but it is the best we can do as people.

Give me some examples of unjust laws to ponder.

What should the OP have done? THat's simple, he should have walked when he saw that there was no serial number because that is the hallmark of stolen property and he had no way to check for liens. The deal seemed to good to be true because it was. He admitted he knew the deal was not right but he went forward anyway.

 

[trboxman]

If push comes to shove snappy will be able to repossess the box and the OP is, sadly, out of luck...the seller could be charged with receiving stolen property, the original purchaser could be charged with theft by conversion...

Its not uncommon at all for folks who unknowingly and innocently purchase stolen goods to be deprived of those goods in favor of the original owners getting their stolen property back.

 

[kythri]

I guess I don't understand why everyone seems to be against the lienholder?

It's not so much that folks are against the lienholder, we're FOR the innocent guy who gets shafted.

The lender should be going after the borrower, not the guy who (as sometimes may be the case) who got lied to buy the deadbeat borrower.

If something like this is going to be secured and protected in such a manner, than the manufacturer or creditor should be forced to adopt some kind of legal and transferrable title to the goods that has a specific transfer process so that everything is above board.

Personally, the lack of said title is my big hangup on this - it's unconscionable to me that goods can be secured in such a manner, and that, in order to cover myself, I have to jump through hoops and look up a filing that may or may not even exist in my state, lest I be accosted by an agent of the creditor who wants to take away from me the goods that I purchased with my hard earned money.

Real property has title. Motorized vehicles (mostly) have titles. Trailers (mostly) have titles. A secured interest in the context we've been discussing should, ultimately, have a title. No title? Then it's a shady deal, and you reap what you sow. I mean, I've bought an old car without the seller having the title, and I filed a lost title application. I took the risk that the car could be taken from me because the title wasn't present, but because of the title process, I knew that this was a risk.

Perhaps my frustration in this manner should be directed more towards my Secretary of State and Legislature for not mandating titles for goods secured thusly, but it's hard for me to be sympathetic to someone trying to, in my view, shaft the poor guy who thought he was getting a deal, and did seem to do his due diligence by calling his dealer and trying to verify things were legit.

 

[kythri]

If push comes to shove snappy will be able to repossess the box and the OP is, sadly, out of luck...the seller could be charged with receiving stolen property, the original purchaser could be charged with theft by conversion...

Its not uncommon at all for folks who unknowingly and innocently purchase stolen goods to be deprived of those goods in favor of the original owners getting their stolen property back.

Well, I sure hope the OP doesn't lose the tool box in a tragic boating accident. That sure would ****.