I think I'm out, guys (Casino Cancun drama advice requested) (4 Viewers)

Who's chips are these?

  • The chips are yours. Keep them and move on.

    Votes: 158 82.7%

  • The chips are davin's, send them to him.

    Votes: 33 17.3%
  • Total voters
    191
Status
Not open for further replies.
jazzV3 said:
I couldn't read the entire thread...

Shame on you Pastor. When something looks too good to be true, it usually is.
For you to deny you are in possession of stolen property should go against everything you are supposed to stand for.

Edit: I read the first 2 pages and went back and read the rest. I was moving too fast here in that there is a plausible case where the Seller purchased those chips at a Customs auction.
Click to expand...
No. Shame on you. You should retract/delete your first quoted statement.

There is no—repeat NO—reason to conclude the chips were stolen. You owe @luv2breformed a public apology, since you publicly slandered (technically, libeled) him.

Stop saying the chips were stolen. If you are going to say that, then prove it. Otherwise, the only appropriate way to refer to them is “Luv2breformed’s chips.”

Folks, let’s all cool our jets here. All this conjecture about the chips is just that: conjecture. Based on the facts, while these may be the chips from the shipment that went missing, we don’t know that. We can’t even conclude that it is likely that they are the same chips. And even if they are, there is still no evidence whatsoever as to how the eBay seller came to own them. Anyone throwing around the word “stolen” is jumping to conclusions not supported by any evidence.
 
From what I understand...

@davin contracted to buy a bunch of chips.
1 box of those chips went missing.
There was no insurance on the shipped boxes.
Davin received most of his purchase, sold off a good portion of them ( at what I can only assume a nice profit ).

unrelated...
@luv2breformed found an amazing deal on chips and acted on it.
Posted pictures of his chip boxes appear to be the same as the Davin's missing chipment®. (Yup, I called it a chipment® )

That is all we really know.

My opinion:
Since Davin failed to protect his investment ( yes this was a business investment ) with insurance, it should not fall on Luv or any other member here to make him whole. That's on him. Especially since there is no way to be sure the chips in question are Davin's missing chips. Signs point to they probably are, but nothing 100% certain like a serial number or lot number, just a green sharpie "5". And I assume that Davin is not out of pocket any money, it's just that he did not make as much as he could have if he had received his entire shipment. Loss is part of doing business. That is why insurance exists.

And assuming for a second that the chips are Davin's missing chips, unless someone can prove Luv's seller illegally acquired the chips, I'm going to assume that he got them through legit means (custom's auction) and didn't know what he actually had and made a really shitty deal selling them for so little. It's not the first time someone here has found great chips well under market value because the seller didn't know what they had and it won't be the last. I'm pretty sure we all hope to find a score like that someday. When Luv purchased the chips, it was with a clear conscience.

@davin, protect your investments and get the insurance.

@luv2breformed - Great score - enjoy YOUR chips.
 
Ethan said:
Intersection:
Crowd source a ‘great deal’ for luv through either donated chips or small allotments of cash raises to send to Luv as payment in kind for the chips to be sent to Davin. In this situation we don’t ‘fix the past’ but we mend the present.

As a neutral 3rd party I will be happy to start a thread to do the above only IF this post is liked by BOTH @luv2breformed , @davin , and at least 15 other PCF members.
Click to expand...

Thank you, @Ethan. I was about to propose something similar, but since I didn't get any answers to the same question that I asked three times, I did not go forward. I have not "liked" your post yet. But still would be willing to participate if the *relevant* facts became public knowledge.

Many people in this thread have assumed things that either aren't true, or at least have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No, I'm not a lawyer and don't want to be, but I do consider myself a competent critical thinker. As @luv2breformed has said in his title, I am out (of this thread). @Ethan, if your proposal goes ahead then please contact me by PM and I will gladly participate.
 
Maybe I missed this elsewhere but....
Everyone keeps going back to the green writing on the boxes. Isn't it possible the boxes were marked by someone at GPI or the casino (or whomever was in charge of inventorying the chips)
If this is the case then every box would have the same green marker with the same penmanship.
What it doesn't do is difinitively make these chips stolen or the ones that went missing. That said I think it's fair to accept that in the spirit of getting to the truth the parties involved here, and only these two open a dialogue being completely transparent. This starts with Luv giving the contact deets and user name from the eBay user so that the proper people can verify if this seller came upon the goods in a less than legal transaction/happenstance.
 
arch3r said:
From what I understand...

@davin contracted to buy a bunch of chips.
1 box of those chips went missing.
There was no insurance on the shipped boxes.
Davin received most of his purchase, sold off a good portion of them ( at what I can only assume a nice profit ).

unrelated...
@luv2breformed found an amazing deal on chips and acted on it.
Posted pictures of his chip boxes appear to be the same as the Davin's missing chipment®. (Yup, I called it a chipment® )

That is all we really know.

My opinion:
Since Davin failed to protect his investment ( yes this was a business investment ) with insurance, it should not fall on Luv or any other member here to make him whole. That's on him. Especially since there is no way to be sure the chips in question are Davin's missing chips. Signs point to they probably are, but nothing 100% certain like a serial number or lot number, just a green sharpie "5". And I assume that Davin is not out of pocket any money, it's just that he did not make as much as he could have if he had received his entire shipment. Loss is part of doing business. That is why insurance exists.

And assuming for a second that the chips are Davin's missing chips, unless someone can prove Luv's seller illegally acquired the chips, I'm going to assume that he got them through legit means (custom's auction) and didn't know what he actually had and made a really shitty deal selling them for so little. It's not the first time someone here has found great chips well under market value because the seller didn't know what they had and it won't be the last. I'm pretty sure we all hope to find a score like that someday. When Luv purchased the chips, it was with a clear conscience.

@davin, protect your investments and get the insurance.

@luv2breformed - Great score - enjoy YOUR chips.
Click to expand...
This. (y) :thumbsup:
 
I'd like to add one more thing to consider;

I agree that there is a box or two that appear to be exactly the same ones in the two different pictures. However, that only shows that the same box was in one location first, and then in another. It says nothing about how it got from A-to-B. We all know this.

But suppose the sender for whatever reason - no matter what it is - did NOT end up sending that box. Suppose that for a second. The current evidence would be exactly the same as if it was sent. The images would be identical. The communication would be identical.

So, now consider the consequences of what something like this could lead to - if it is enough to show a picture of what you supposedly packed up and sent, then not insure any of it, get no compensation when things that didn't actually go missing at all went "missing", then how do we know this won't be abused in the future? Doesn't this possibly set a potentially dangerous precedent?
 
arch3r said:
From what I understand...

@davin contracted to buy a bunch of chips.
1 box of those chips went missing.
There was no insurance on the shipped boxes.
Davin received most of his purchase, sold off a good portion of them ( at what I can only assume a nice profit ).

unrelated...
@luv2breformed found an amazing deal on chips and acted on it.
Posted pictures of his chip boxes appear to be the same as the Davin's missing chipment®. (Yup, I called it a chipment® )

That is all we really know.

My opinion:
Since Davin failed to protect his investment ( yes this was a business investment ) with insurance, it should not fall on Luv or any other member here to make him whole. That's on him. Especially since there is no way to be sure the chips in question are Davin's missing chips. Signs point to they probably are, but nothing 100% certain like a serial number or lot number, just a green sharpie "5". And I assume that Davin is not out of pocket any money, it's just that he did not make as much as he could have if he had received his entire shipment. Loss is part of doing business. That is why insurance exists.

And assuming for a second that the chips are Davin's missing chips, unless someone can prove Luv's seller illegally acquired the chips, I'm going to assume that he got them through legit means (custom's auction) and didn't know what he actually had and made a really shitty deal selling them for so little. It's not the first time someone here has found great chips well under market value because the seller didn't know what they had and it won't be the last. I'm pretty sure we all hope to find a score like that someday. When Luv purchased the chips, it was with a clear conscience.

@davin, protect your investments and get the insurance.

@luv2breformed - Great score - enjoy YOUR chips.
Click to expand...
Best post in entire thread.
 
Quick question as this detail wasn’t clear to me or I might have missed it written somewhere:

Did the one box get lost en route from original owner of the Cancuns to Davin?
 
The writing on the box is irrelevant. If the chips were stolen, they should be shipped to Davin. If they were held up and lost in customs due to incorrect info supplied by Davin, they should stay with Luv. Either way, Davin shouldn't be lying on his customs forms, and these are the dangers that can happen when we don't insure our chips.

Since there is no way to prove the chips were stolen, they should stay with Luv.
 
Chippy McChiperson said:
The writing on the box is irrelevant. If the chips were stolen, they should be shipped to Davin. If they were held up and lost in customs due to incorrect info supplied by Davin, they should stay with Luv. Either way, Davin shouldn't be lying on his customs forms, and these are the dangers that can happen when we don't insure our chips.

Since there is no way to prove the chips were stolen, they should stay with Luv.
Click to expand...

This should be a lesson for all shippers. I shipped someone 300 Cleveland horseshoes last week and while they aren't extremely expensive neither was insurance so I paid 2 dollars to insure them, obviously international and the value of these chips would make insurance much higher, but It sounds worth it in this case.

Also what really changed my mind was the whole stolen vs not stolen case. They could have been delivered to the wrong place, lost in transit, auctioned off my customs, any numerous situations, and at this point I do not believe the eBay worker is a custom worker that steals packages and sells them for next to nothing, but for the 7th time someone should ask the seller where they came from and report back. There is tons of missing information in this thread but the things we do know are luv didn't steal them or buy them knowing they were stolen or missing.

Imagine if this happened to ABC or apache while shipping something? Do you think they would hunt down an eBay seller or the person that purchased the missing product? Or would they reimburse the buyer regardless of if they had insurance or not?
 
I currently have a message to the seller to try and learn some information. I provided all of their contact info to davin days ago, but I’m not sure what came of that. I have their name and address from the shipped box. If googleFU is to be trusted, seller is a 69 year old RN . . . I will update the thread when they respond back.
 
Chippy McChiperson said:
The writing on the box is irrelevant. If the chips were stolen, they should be shipped to Davin. If they were held up and lost in customs due to incorrect info supplied by Davin, they should stay with Luv. Either way, Davin shouldn't be lying on his customs forms, and these are the dangers that can happen when we don't insure our chips.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Davin, wouldn't it be the responsibility of his supplier to fill out the customs forms? In which case, Davin wouldn't be the one lying about this.

I mean all that detail means to me is Davin needs hold his supplier accountable instead of the auction winner.

But if we're going to throw the word, "liar," (like the word "stolen") around, let's attribute it to the right party.
 
Aplusent said:
I back and she loved every Minute of it... literally every Minute!!!;)
Click to expand...
Pics or it didn't happen:D
(to lighten up the atmosphere a little bit).

On topic now, I think it's quite clear that Luv has been a bona fide buyer, so the chips belong to him, according to any civilised nation's law. Period.
Other parties and Authorities should be responsible for any claims by Davin.

There 's also a remark by @DMack that has stayed unanswered, interestingly.
 
JustinInMN said:
If Davin's supplier did the paperwork, Davin's supplier is the liar, not Davin himself.
Click to expand...

As someone mentioned, you should read the entire thread. I don't think the accusation of lying was related to the supplier at all. It has to do with several statements Davin made to other people.
 
JustinInMN said:
In fairness to Davin, wouldn't it be the responsibility of his supplier to fill out the customs forms? In which case, Davin wouldn't be the one lying about this.

I mean all that detail means to me is Davin needs hold his supplier accountable instead of the auction winner.

But if we're going to throw the word, "liar," (like the word "stolen") around, let's attribute it to the right party.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but in my experience the buyer dictates to the seller what to fill out on the customs form. If I'm mistaken here, I apologize.
 
Only if it's not what should be stated :)

And to be upfront...I do this all the time but in Belgium, customs or just a bunch of incompetent money grabbin' cunts...YMMV ;)
Just so you know, I still have paid enough in fees to feed about 10 families for a very long time
 
MattyMatt said:
As someone mentioned, you should read the entire thread. I don't think the accusation of lying was related to the supplier at all. It has to do with several statements Davin made to other people.
Click to expand...

I've read it end to end a couple times and even left replies about the other instances. This was specifically about lying on the customs forms.
 
Chippy McChiperson said:
Fair point, but in my experience the buyer dictates to the seller what to fill out on the customs form. If I'm mistaken here, I apologize.
Click to expand...

If you're right about that then your charachterization is accurate. I just don't think we know that detail definitively, and I am just assuming that's on the shipper absent knowledge to the contrary.
 
There is only one person who can definitively clear up several issues, and that is the original overseas seller who sold and shipped multiple Cancun Casino chip packages to Davin:
  • The current status of the investigation regarding the missing box conducted by the Israeli postal, US Customs, and USPS authorities
  • If the investigation is closed, what (if any) compensation was made to the seller
  • What (if any) compensation has the seller made to Davin for the missing package
Until that information becomes available -- and directly from the source, not second-hand -- any action taken now is simply premature. This is why I advised Davin to supply Tanner with the original seller's contact info, so that those questions could be answered.

Additionally, attempting to obtain additional information regarding the source and/or means that Tanner's eBay seller obtained the chips he sold to Tanner could prove useful. I believe Tanner has already asked those questions of the eBay seller and is waiting for answers.

Regardless how this turns out....

Davin's only recourse for getting compensation for his missing chips is from the original overseas seller. The various authorities conducting the investigation cannot -- and will not -- help him. It is also not Tanner's responsibility to compensate him in any way.

It is the original overseas seller's responsibility to accurately fill out shipping and customs forms, and to ask that an investigation be conducted when a shipped package goes missing or becomes 'stuck' in one location (as it appears has happened here). The conclusion and results of that investigation are critical in determining the proper actions of the authorities and the original overseas seller/shipper.

Until the investigation has been completed and results known, most of what's happening here is conjecture as to the official status of the missing shipment, along with the status of the chips purchased by Tanner on eBay. This is why I advised Tanner to contact both his eBay seller for sourcing details, and to provide the original overseas seller/shipper with any information that could be helpful in any ongoing investigation that he initiated with the postal authorities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Broski
I Really Hate You Guys
Replies
10
Views
310
Budz77
B
T
First Poker Chip Advice
Replies
9
Views
321
Labrat
L
Booshme
Chip Breakdown for $2NL ----> $20NL, what do you guys think? 500-Chip Set with custom Denoms
Replies
6
Views
130
Booshme
Booshme
M
BCC Modern Clay - I think I've reached the end of the journey
Replies
3
Views
255
mike32
mike32
B
New to the forum
Replies
23
Views
426
Munchies11
Munchies11
Back
Top Bottom