John Wood Audio, a tale of woe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

I think from what he has said previously this is not an option for Geoff. Both parties have stated they do not trust the other so neither will make the first move either re-paying or returning the amp, so as I see it the only way for a resolution without resorting to the High Court would be for a third party, trusted by both of the principles, to both receive the amplifier and the money and distribute them accordingly. Then report the matter as settled to the court.

---

I suggested that in post 129

Clive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

I think from what he has said previously this is not an option for Geoff. Both parties have stated they do not trust the other so neither will make the first move either re-paying or returning the amp, so as I see it the only way for a resolution without resorting to the High Court would be for a third party, trusted by both of the principles, to both receive the amplifier and the money and distribute them accordingly. Then report the matter as settled to the court.

---

Actually I would have already offered to use my Trust Account for that purpose, had I been local. My solution would have been along these lines:

• The full price is paid into a Solicitors Trust Account. The solicitor holds the funds as stakeholder.
• That money is held on Trust and is to be disbursed as follows:

• The Vendor will arrange collection of the Amp, it being his responsibility for the cost and insurance of that;
• He will then undertake all the repairs necessary to provide the goods as initially agreed. It can include parts that are not new (excluding valves) providing they are in perfect working order.
• The Vendor will then have the goods as repaired returned to the Purchaser, again transport and insurance to be to the Vendor's account.
• 14 days after the return the Purchaser will advise the stakeholder to release the funds to the Vendor OR he will provide the Vendor with a written opinion from an expert that the Amp is not of the quality as per the original agreement.
• (The expert will be any person mutually agreed to by the parties, and failing agreement will be a reputable High Street dealer appointed by one of the mods here. The expert will be paid for from the funds in Trust.)
• If the opinion of the expert is that the Amp is not of sufficient quality then the Amplifier is to be returned by the Purchaser to the Vendor, with the cost of delivery and insurance to come from the funds in Trust. The balance of the funds held by the Stakeholder are to be paid to the Purchaser.
• In either event, the Court proceeding, is to be regarded as settled.

That is a framework only and should have built into it some ability to deal with minor variations, for example the timing of some steps.
This obviously involves both parties getting less than what they hope for. That is normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clive197

I suggested that in post 129

Clive

---

Just seen that. Pragmatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clive197

I suggested that in post 129

Clive

---

And a very good suggestion it was. Indeed it seems the only way to resolve this without High Court enforcement. Marco has offered to act as a go-between, which is a considerable commitment, so I don't see why this could not go ahead as things stand.

2 very kind offers from Marco and Andrei which I feel should be more than seriously considered now.

Going via either of these totally trustworthy third parties a resolution should be imminently forthcoming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Marco has offered to act as a go-between, which is a considerable commitment, so I don't see why this could not go ahead as things stand.

---

If I can genuinely help, I’d be glad to. All I need to know is exactly what to do, and for the two parties involved to make contact, and we’re good to go! :)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

I think from what he has said previously this is not an option for Geoff. Both parties have stated they do not trust the other so neither will make the first move either re-paying or returning the amp, so as I see it the only way for a resolution without resorting to the High Court would be for a third party, trusted by both of the principles, to both receive the amplifier and the money and distribute them accordingly. Then report the matter as settled to the court.

---

I also offer to look after the money. But I don't claim to be trustworthy. :eyebrows:

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread...Wood-valve-amp

Couldn't resist posting it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrei

[*]He will then undertake all the repairs necessary to provide the goods as initially agreed. It can include parts that are not new (excluding valves) providing they are in perfect working order.[*]The Vendor will then have the goods as repaired returned to the Purchaser, again transport and insurance to be to the Vendor's account.

---

Isn't part of the problem that it wasn't a new amplifier, but second hand? I don't think that is repairable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thetiminator

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread...Wood-valve-amp

Couldn't resist posting it ;)

---

For what purpose? Other than to try and destroy sales efforts by current owners that is. The chap hasn't bunged a wanted ad on wam looking for a new one.:doh: