dew4au
Flush
Last edited:
I think I'm out, guys (Casino Cancun drama advice requested) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter luv2breformed
- Start date
- Status
But we only have 12 pages of analysis!
I need at least 23 pages before a formal judgement has occured
Some people like to jump to conclusions without all the evidence, or base decisions on partial evidence that is disputable. That's their right, I guess. It's also why it generally takes all 12 jury members to convict.
hope this all works out
one thing i think we can all agree on is that these unsailed ships are kryptonite to a great community..send all the Cancuns,AS,ES,PS to me and i will dispose of them (i’ll cover shipping) 
my mama says boat chips are the devil
one thing i think we can all agree on is that these unsailed ships are kryptonite to a great community..send all the Cancuns,AS,ES,PS to me and i will dispose of them (i’ll cover shipping) my mama says boat chips are the devil
My only comment that relates at all:
"Wow.... 13 pages."
"Wow.... 13 pages."
SCORE!!! Got these suckers for a klondike bar
I officially hate when people changes prof pics, major tilt!
Just brought it back! Pump fake!
Steamtrain
3 of a Kind
Luv's chips were never owned by davin.
ChipEnvy
Full House
^^^ This above all else is the underlying reason why luv should keep the chips until instructed to do otherwise by the authorities.
Davin has as much claim to these chips as I do.
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
Those are the same chips I had that went missing when I thought about purchasing them in one of my more vivid dreams. I will pay you the Klondike bar you're out plus a mounds bar to cover shipping.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
That’s a solid offer.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
It depends. This is the missing part of the puzzle as to what Davin paid for and what went down with his supplier. These details have not been shared, was he compensated for the missing box earlier this year? If not, why not?
While it seems I am siding with Luv, I still don't think framing the question with this post title and a poll is the greatest way to handle this either. And I think it's fair to assume these were part of the lot Davin attempted to purchase.
If the investigation is ongoing then I would tend to agree the chips are Davin's, and he should find a way to reward luv for the find. If one of us didn't find them, they would be gone.
If the investigation closed and Davin accepted any renumeration, his claim to ownership ends there.
If the loss was due to anything other than theft: Loss package/customs issue, and even if he's not renumerated, then his claim is with his supplier, not luv, imo. The chips if found again are "in the wild" as far as I am concerned.
Last edited:
justsomedude
Straight Flush
^^^^^ Great post. Nails the hot points.
I think the only spot that is rubbing people the wrong way is this...
Davin has mentioned that he'd be willing to reimburse Luv his $50... and what... so he can resell the chips for $2,500 to another buyer? That is the absurdity that really chaps my ass.
If Davin wants to "make good" here, I think an offer of $800-$1,200 is more than fair. He can still resell Luv's find for a decent profit, and Luv2 can move on to fund his first Paulson set with a nice little bankroll.
That's what I call a win-win scenario.
I think the only spot that is rubbing people the wrong way is this...
Davin has mentioned that he'd be willing to reimburse Luv his $50... and what... so he can resell the chips for $2,500 to another buyer? That is the absurdity that really chaps my ass.
If Davin wants to "make good" here, I think an offer of $800-$1,200 is more than fair. He can still resell Luv's find for a decent profit, and Luv2 can move on to fund his first Paulson set with a nice little bankroll.
That's what I call a win-win scenario.
gkitt80
Flush
I think what you may be missing from your equation is what Davin may already have paid for these chips, which is frankly none of our business unless he wants to share. For discussion purposes though, lets just say he had $2,000 in these chips already ($2 / chip assumption) - does that change your thought process here?
ChipEnvy
Full House
No. It doesn't. The only one that even remotely could have a claim to the chips is the mysterious "overseas seller" IF the chips were a) the chips intended for Davin in the first place and b) not confiscated and legitimately resold for whatever reason.
These were never Davin's chips. Chips are the responsibility of the seller to deliver successfully to the buyer. That never happened so ownership/responsibility for the chips never changed to Davin.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
Based on post #2 of this thread, Davin has $1,000 invested in this specific set (if it is indeed Davin's set). Offering $800 to Luv2 puts his total exposure at $1,800, which would still give him room for profit on a resale of 900 minty Paulsons.
OP
OP
luv2breformed
Two Pair
Although it hasn't been made clear here, I am 99% sure davin has been remunerated for the missing box from the seller/supplier. He told me over the phone that it is his "buddy" who is out of pocket here. Now, I don't know if that the seller, or what but I distinctly remember in our initial conversation him saying that he had already been made whole. You can see the I am under this impression in my OP when I say:
I apologize that I didn't make this more clear sooner, but I honestly expected davin to clarify this for everyone. Instead, he seems fairly MIA right now.
I apologize that I didn't make this more clear sooner, but I honestly expected davin to clarify this for everyone. Instead, he seems fairly MIA right now.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
These two comments are the reason I am leaving the door open a crack to the idea that Davin may be the rightful owner. If the supplier "stiffed" him over the loss, then I think Davin has a claim with him and Luv's ownership becomes somewhat murky. (Though in fairness to Luv, I think he's stated he's open to returning the chips if it's "the right thing" and in this one circumstance I would say it would be.)
And I fully support that before you commit to returning anything you deserve satisfaction on this question. Even if we're satisfied these chips we're intended for Davin in the first place, what happened once the loss was assumed opens huge questions onnownership, imo.
OP
OP
luv2breformed
Two Pair
As for my own satisfaction to this question I am confident and am resting easy on this point. Whether or not there is enough evidence for others to feel the same is a different matter. Unfortunately I spoke to him over the phone regarding this fact and so I have nothing in writing.
The only "loose" end that I am really still interested in personally is the legitimacy of the eBay seller. I hope they get back to me soon . . .
I would not worry about it anymore. If he in fact told you something that eased your mind then move on and enjoy the chips. You will have others that disagree but at the end of the day if you are a good person and you know that then it does not really matter what the rest of us think.
As for everyone else, We can stop the proverbial "Beating a Dead Horse". Those that choose to continue this then I recommend purchasing this....
Depends on if the buyer instructed the seller to undervalue. In that case they are both being dishonest.
johnjohn
Full House
Don't want to continue to beat the dead horse here, but I think your statement above is ironic considering the following:
PS: Ultimately, establishing the validity of the eBay seller's acquisition of the chips, if it's possible, would determine the correct outcome here.
If no foul play, major find by Tanner.
I voted that the chips belong to Davin and should be returned to him, because they really do appear to be part of the shipment that he's missing. The thinking being that as a member of the community, looking out for each other is in everyone's best interest. In that world, Davin would pay you the price you paid for his missing chips that you found and everyone is happy.
But if he's already been compensated by insurance, then it get's a bit more complicated. But they would still be his chips. Maybe there's no legal reason to return them, I don't know, but being a good guy has benefits of it's own. In that case, he could pay you a good price for them, maybe half of the insurance claim, and you both win.
They do appear to be the chips that were supposed to be sent to him. So in the end, you should recognize this and work something out that maintains your integrity, and instill confidence in the membership here. If you want to make the claim that there's no "proof" that these are the same chips, then maybe this isn't the place for you and you're making the right decision to leave.
But if he's already been compensated by insurance, then it get's a bit more complicated. But they would still be his chips. Maybe there's no legal reason to return them, I don't know, but being a good guy has benefits of it's own. In that case, he could pay you a good price for them, maybe half of the insurance claim, and you both win.
They do appear to be the chips that were supposed to be sent to him. So in the end, you should recognize this and work something out that maintains your integrity, and instill confidence in the membership here. If you want to make the claim that there's no "proof" that these are the same chips, then maybe this isn't the place for you and you're making the right decision to leave.
johnjohn
Full House
^^this.
Oh, the irony.
SixSpeedFury
Full House
Disagree. This thread needs more opinions!!!
That's what they said about the politics thread
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
This really isn't true. If someone pays a claim on stolen property, they generally own it if recovered.
If the loss was accepted, either through payment or a refund, or through accepting the risk of an uninsured shipment, that ends the ownership claim.
I think if Luv is satisfied that Davin was renumerated he is free to do as he pleases and I don't think the community should disparage him for that position.
If Davin was stiffed somewhere along the way. (Supplier didn't refund for the shortfall, for example) which I haven't really seen so I reserve judgement either way. Then I get the claim of ownership in an instance like that.
- Status
