Kinda sums it up. I guess everything has a price.

It is always interesting to see what that price is...

Remind me not to hire you.

:rolleyes:

I think that we can and have seen both sides to this story. One party (potential buyer) thought they had a done deal, and other party (seller) had been burned by 2 other 'done deals'.

The one thing that I can't really figure out is why someone would go to this German Autofest show with the possible intent of purchasing a vehicle, and not have enough cash on them to leave an appropriate deposit? I don't know of anyone who would accept a personal check from a stranger on a day when banks are closed, and feel confident that this check was any good. I know that it would be concerning to be walking around with $500 - $1000 cash in my pocket, but if I was really looking to make a car deal that day, then this is what I would do to make sure I didn't miss out on something I really wanted.

A gentlemen's agreement is a wonderful thing, but with all of the morons out there it is difficult to not get burned when relying on one anymore. AND I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS POTENTIAL TRANSACTION A MORON! It is just that there are so many folks out there today whose life passion seems to be to take advantage of others. Unfortunately, the gentlemen's agreement is most likely a thing of the past. I am sorry to see it go, but this is reality. I value the word that I give to others, and will continue to do so. In today's society, however, I virtually always look for an ulterior motive in the other party. No, I'm not some paranoid sitting in the corner of a dark, locked room. I am just adjusting for the present day, trying to keep from getting burned, or at least trying to minimize potential losses. I have been burned by both sellers and buyers whose 'word' was not worth what I feel mine is. That is life when buying and selling. Hopefully this thread has enlightened both the potential buyers and sellers, and can lead to less dissatisfaction in future transactions. That is what these BBS's are all about - To learn from others and try to help when possible.

Tom

Reminds me of one my favorite car sales stories-

About 20 plus years ago on quiet summer evening I was sitting around the house while my wife was of at nite school or somewhere.

Sitting in a corner of the driveway, 100 ftback off the road behind some trees was her unregistered '66 Mustang, which had been there for 6 months while we decided what to do.

Along comes a smoking noisy Ford Maverick up the winding driveway with the horns honking. Both doors open - two guys and more smoke comes out ( this smoke smells a lot better).

Conversation goes something like this-

" mister we want that car, we restore em' like we're doing this Maverick how much do you want and when can we get it...."

' I suggest you call back when my wife is here, it's her baby and you'll have to deal with her"

' Can you hold it 'tll tommorow, we'll be back by 4;30 with the money- please hold it , take this deposit'

' It's been sitting here for six months, I'm sure it will be here tommorrow, call my wife then. Keep your deposit.'

' Here's $20 , you gotta hold this until tommorrow, we gotta have it..."

' It's been sitting here for...."

This conversation keeps repeating for another few minutes until I take the $20 just to get rid of these guys.

Never saw or heard from them again. I should have held out for $50, but I guess anytime a stranger drops in and forces you to take money you shouldn't complain.

TMH, a deposit was offered. The seller indicated his bank, Wells Fargo, I believe, WAS open on Sundays, hence, the attempt to verify funds. Believe me, my buddy was so giddy he could barely contain himself! Like Agent indicated, this is water under the bridge and no one is PO'd anymore. Lessons learned.

-B

As a licensed vehicle dealer....I don't play one on TV....a deposit gives you the first place in line. If another buyer comes along with full price, the seller has the obligation to call the depositer and say....$hit or get of the pot...or sumthin' like that.

After fair warning the cash guy gets the car.....

What "I" would have done was call ALL parties and say that the first to get here with "x" amount gets the car.....

While it’s nice of Agent to share his side of the story with us, I don’t really see any new info from him. He made a commitment to sell the car but did not stick to that because of convenience/money. His post explains maybe why he did it, but it still does not go to the fact that he did not stick to his given word. The fact that other buyers have burned him in the past is just another excuse. So I still think Brad choose the appropriate word to describe him on the other board.

I am particularly impressed by Moses' most pertinent -and I might add, surgically precise, remarks... I feel the comments of BlueSkyJaunte, Nostatic, ChrisBennet, KurtV ...and BB80SC... are "right on".

Any of us who would "justify" that course of events with the reasoning that it is the logical application of "realpolitik" i.e. "tough $ugar, that's how the world is", are "de facto" providing encouragement for that unnecessary state of affairs.
The slap on the hands is accepted evidence of agreement in all sorts of business transactions, selling cows, horses....alas not, it seems, "fine automobiles".

As things are, BB80SC clearly mentioned that the matter has been solved and settled, the only conclusion thereof being that those concerned have agreed to be gentlemen. We all make mistakes, but sound procedures should solve the matter of misunderstandings. What, then, would be "sound procedure"?

BTW, I will never cease to be amazed at the common U.S. practice of paying things by cheque (bouncing ones or not)! Over here it is cash (especially to avoid taxes) and account to account bank transfers, possible 24 hours a day, from any bank automat.

And...buying a car sure is a stressful activity! I remember my mishaps...

Hey BB80SC, encourage your buddy, the force be with him, yeah!

I feel that Agent25 needed to be clear to all parties that the game was first person with money on the barrel got the ride.

Would have saved alot of fuss, taken care of his integrity, and allowed all parties to have a even chance at the Car.

OK, here's a transaction I was recently involved in:

I had a vintage BMW motorcycle for sale for $6400. On a Wednesday, Party A calls me and we arrive at a price of $6000, bike to be delivered partway (350 miles) the following weekend. On Thursday Party B calls with an offer of $5800, sight unseen, he'll pick it up the following weekend. I call Party A who assures me we have a firm deal. By now it's Thursday night, no time to get a deposit to me. I call Party B and decline his offer.

I call Party A on Friday, he again assures me he'll be there with cash. I load the bike and head out the next morning. 150 miles from home, my cell rings, Party A is backing out, he "just changed his mind." I briefly think about driving all the way to his home to deliver my response in person, then let it go.

I call Party B to ask if his offer if it's still good, but he just completed a deal on another bike, and he's pissed because he really wanted my bike.

So who's the slimeball in this scenario? When you enter this arena you are very likely to encounter an occasional slimeball. You should always endeavor, as I do, to be a man of your word, but as a seller you also have to be prepared to protect your own interests and take action when the cash is on the table. And as a serious buyer you should be prepared to perform when you make an offer.

Otherwise, everything up to that point is just speculation.

You did the right thing. Party A is a slimeball.

Correct. And I ended up selling the bike to Party C for $5500.00. I should have cancelled the deal with Party A, in which case he could claim I was a slimeball, and taken Party B's offer, who thinks I'm a slimeball because I declined his offer and then wanted to accept it 36 hours later.

My point is that things aren't always so clearcut- there are many gray areas. Some times you have to make choices to protect your own interest, and some times those choices are going to make someone else unhappy. That doesn't make you a slimeball.

I respectfully disagree, I believe the question of integrity is very clear cut. The world of human interaction is full of grey areas this just isn't one of them IMO. You did the right thing by keeping your word at some expense.
-Chris

Exactamundo! Next time you may want to consider the following approach; Tell buyer B you have a potential buyer but if the deal falls through, you'll call. That may have helped.

Sadly, this was not part of the conversation described to us. Would have avoided all the hard feelings.

Again, folks, a deposit was offered, but was not accepted. No, I would not take a personal check for the PURCHASE either, that's why they went looking for a bank. My buddy always has a wad of cash on him. I kid him about being a member of the Mexican mafia. It was odd to me that the seller turned down the offer for a deposit. Unless there was a misunderstanding somewhere, but I do not believe that to be the case.

Anyway, the search is on for a different car and it's my guess that all parties will end up happy.

-B

Jerry:

Was the car you were looking at a silver cab in Edina? If so, drop me an email at wmo1133203@aol.com. I'd like to talk to you.

Mike

In my opinion: previous deadbeat buyers don't have anything to do with a current sale, and the personal check issue is also irrelevant. Either you tell the buyer that you'll hold the car for him, and you do it, or you tell him that without a cash deposit, right now, you won't.

In this case, the seller told the buyer one thing, and then did another. There was an agreement, and the two parties shook hands.

Have other buyers, in the history of car sales, backed out after shaking hands? Who cares. Are there other slimeball sellers and slimeball buyers in the world? Who cares.

Either your word means something, or it doesn't.

It seems very simple, based on what I'm reading here. If the buyer's terms weren't acceptable, then the seller shouldn't have shaken his hand and told him he had a deal.

Do what you say you're going to do, and you'll never have to backpedal, rationalize, or make excuses.

There are few places I take people for there word, work, golf course, & Porsche related activities. None of the people related to these activities have given me any reason to doubt them. As for the rest of the world, I believe it when I see it & I don't give people the chance to screw me. As with most disagreements, I think both parties have some responsibility here. When I found my car, I aggressively persude it the next day calling the seller for information & to let him know I meant business. There was no doubt that the car was mine by the end of the day. My integrity is worth far more than $250 and/or a 60 mile drive. I occasionally have to weed people, with questionable morality, out of my life.

Not a Contract
 

In California any contract for the sale of personal property (cars are personal property), for $5000 or more must be in writing. See Cal Com. Code § 1206. If the contract is not in writing then it is void.

Shake hands with your friends. When conducting business, write contracts.

Douglas

Re: Not a Contract
 

I like it!

I never understood the idea behind a "refundable" deposit. What's the point?

My idea of a deposit is that you're putting up some cash to hold the car until you can finish the deal. Every deposit should have a timeframe attached. If I take a deposit I make it clear that it is non-refundable for say 2 weeks. If the buyer backs out I have the option to keep the deposit. I may or may not return it depending on how things turn out.

PS: I understand CA has refundable deposits. But then again, Cali has alot of weird problems...

This is really what's it's all about.

Lots of good input here, I basically agree w/ Jack's post in that the guy should have been upfront with his terms and there would not be a problem. If I was selling a car at the German Auto Fest, (and I nearly did put mine in the corral but then didn't make it up Sunday), I would not tell anyone "it's yours" w/o cash, unless I knew them already.

When selling, I do not generally believe in deposits, with exceptions. They are fairly meaningless in that people can still change their minds. I prefer to hold the merchandise for a (short) time on my word, like long enough for the buyer to return w/ cash, or just tell them that "first one w/ $$ gets it".

I feel for Brad's friend since he was excited and was certainly going to complete the purchase, but Wayne is right also concerning swap meets. If I went there looking for a car, I would have traveller's checks and/or cash, that is the only way that you ever are going to score. Meaning that if it is a great car or deal, it is a snooze/lose situation. There are a multitude of real buyers at these things, it is a cash and carry scene.

That said, the Porsche scene is a small world and reputation is everything. I would be deeply embarassed if I let down the people that I have gotten to know here. :cool:

On a slightly different tack, most everyone on this board owns a pcar. People who have never owned an "exotic" of any type often want to "test drive" one with no intention of ever buying. So how do you distinguish between joy riders and serious potential buyers? A number of years ago, a friend of mine sold an old Ferrari, and he had lots of people who wanted to "test drive" it. Since he was asking (then) in the $75K range, he decided that anyone who wanted to test drive it had to be able to prove that they had the ability to actually pay for the car. He told potential buyers that they needed to produce either a bank statement showing they had the money, a pre-approval letter from a bank showing they were pre-approved for the loan, or some other means of securing the necessary funds (second loan on the house, etc.) The number of inquiries dropped significantly.

Talking about deposits - here's another example of a sale gone horribly wrong. Our previous neighbors were selling their house - the woman is both a real estate agent and a a home loan provider. They are selling the home with no commission offered so the only buyers are drive by folks who don't have an agent. They get a buyer and take a $5K deposit. Now 2 weeks into a 4 week escrow the buyer requests an additional 10 days in escrow to accomodate the husbands work schedule (Navy seal). In the mean time the sellers have taken a backup offer on the home for a couple grand over the current buyers price. It should be noted that both sets of buyers are cash buyers (no contingencys). The seller cancels the original sale agreement and terminates escrow claiming the 10 day request was unreasonable and immediately goes into escrow with the new buyers. Now here is the kicker - the selling agent had discretely modifed the purchase agreement docs to state that if for any reason the escrow is cancelled the deposit is kept in full buy the seller. Deposits are rarely kept in deals like this so the buyer was duped big time - especially since it was the seller that terminated the agreement.

When working without a licenced realtor always, always have the sale agreement reviewed by a 3rd party who knows what they are doing. Could save you $5K and a ton of aggrevation.

Personally what happened sickens me, and I felt a strong desire to exact retribution from our lousy ex neighbors myself. What comes around goes around. Somewhere down the line they will get theirs. I just hope that day arrives soon - fricking criminals.

Legal or not, the sellers are thieves.

Based on the definition of goods in Section 2105 and the exceptions noted in Section 1206, I think the applicable California Code section is Section 2201 which states:

"Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars ($500) or more is not enforceable by way or action or defense unless there is some writing to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his or her authorized agent or broker."

However, people get confused on what a "writing" has to be. It does not have to be a 4 page written agreement. You can do it with a check. A check is a writing. If the person signs the back of the check and deposits it, it is "signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought." In order to make sure that the writing identifies the goods that are the subject matter of the contract use that little notation box down in the corner of the check. For example, it could easily say: "Initial payment for purchase of Porsche VIN#12345678 for $x,000". Then you have a writing which clearly identifies the subject matter of the contract, the agreed upon purchase price and that agreement has been reached for a sale for which is the first installment.

If you are giving them cash, you can get a simple receipt that says: "Receipt: Received from John Jones, the sum of $500 toward the purchase of Porsche 911 VIN#12345678 for the total purchase price of $12,000. /s/ Sam Smith." This is clearly a writing which evidences a contract for the purchase of goods for a stated price (price is a big deal -- a term which cannot generally be supplied by the UCC) signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.

Also, a writing can be made up of multiple documents. For example, you have an e-mail trail that gives pictures and a description of the car and then an e-mail that says: "I will buy your Porsche 911 for the price of $12,000." and a reply e-mail that says: "OK. " Together all of these documents can be assembled to create a "writing" which satisfies the statutory requirements.

Note that there is no actual requirement that money change hands in order to establish an enforceable contract for sale. So the old saying that you didn't give me any money doesn't count for much.

If you are going to see a car that you think you might purchase, just type up a quick agreement that you can fill in later. Make sure that it identifies the car clearly (VIN# is the best) and states the total purchase price and is signed by the owner (the party against whom enforcement is sought). Conversely, if you are the seller, make sure it is signed by the buyer because he is the one you are going to want to enforce it against.

One other point here regarding your potential recovery which many people tend to ignore. You are only entitled to the amount that you lost. So, if Mr. Smith sells the car out from under you that you could have bought for $12,000 and you can buy a reasonable substitute car for $13,000, you were only harmed by $1000 and that would likely be all you are entitled to recover from Mr. Smith. Plus, you have to prove your damages -- you must demonstrate the cost of a reasonable alternative.

So, unless this a really great deal where you are buying a car for WAY under its fair market value or there really isn't a reasonable substitute (very very very rare situation in the eyes of the court), there is little to be gained by forcing the issue other than the self satisfaction of getting the creep who sold the car out from under you. However, when emotion gets in the equation, sense goes out the window. I have a friend who spent over $100,000 in legal proceedings trying to get $8,000 back. I would suggest that you should never file a lawsuit as a "matter of principle" because you are admitting to yourself that this makes no financial sense.

My $0.02

Rich

One of the biggest land deals in the history of Alaska was drawn up on the back of a napkin at the lunch counter of a greasy spoon in the middle of nowhere. The deal went bad for one of the parties, which is why the case got written up and the story of the napkin gets told. But the other party saved the napkin and produced it in court. It held up as the writing the set forth the contract terms.

The law says one thing but to me that is meaningless unless I'm going to court and dealing with lawyers.
Right vs. wrong is what guides me, not what I can get away with in court. seems like this is no longer a popular way of life but it's mine.
After all, laws are written by lawyers not preachers.
The world is full of things that are wrong but not illegal.
I look in the mirror and don't see someone I'm ashamed of, that's good enough for me.

Hey, that's VERY understandable...when selling a car, cash in hand is the best method...it's too bad the situation has gotten like this (mud slinging on multiple BBS)...like you stated, you were definately b/t a rock and a hard place...

Situations that put a person between a rock and a hard place are often the best arbiters of character and integrity.
I guess when it comes to integrity you either you "get it" or you don't.

Here is a real world example of integrity:
An aquaintence of mine agrees to buy a rare factory race car (one of only 4 they made) from a fellow for $40,000. Before the deal was completed, the seller was offered a lot more ($60K?) by another party but turned it down because he had already said he would sell it to the first party for $40K.

A person of integrity in this situation would not even weigh the idea of going back on his word to make an extra $20K. It just isn't an option.

If you who find this behavior odd/bizarre/poor business/stupid you may consider yourself lacking in integrity. Remind me not to lend you any tools.

-Chris

This laws are written by lawyers cr*p really gets me. Laws are written as reflections of what people believe to be the standards of conduct and have been for hundreds of years. The term "common law" refers to the law "common" to the courts beginning in the 14th century. The fact that some pretty smart people have been thinking and arguing about these issues for almost 700 years to come to the rules we have now is a pretty good indication that both parties interests are well reflected. The fact that you may not understand it does not mean that it is silly.

The requirement that certain types of contracts be in is based on the "The Statute of Frauds" which was enacted by Parliament in 1677 whose full title was "The Statute of Frauds, An Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries" and has been adopted by the United States in essentially every single state and part of the Uniform Commercial Code. The point was to prevent people from making sham transactions to defraud creditors. So, the primary question of "where have all the gentlemen gone" is -- they left a long time ago, at least by 1677.

Additionally, the amounts involved here are small and if you are going to court for a small amount, you can go to small claims and you don't need a lawyer. If you were wronged and want to feel vindicated, go to small claims court and get your money back. However, don't be surprised if everyone does not agree with your position, no matter how right you are.

So, Agent325, just for fun if I can play Judge Wapner here for a minute based on your description of the events:

“I have been aggressively trying to sell my car for the past three months. I was asking a high price, but kept on lowering the price to attract buyer. I had in various magazines and classifieds. I got many people come in and look at my car. Some guys that came where really friendly and were fellow p-car enthusiast and some were just dreamers looking for a free test drive. I’m sure all of you know selling a used car isn’t the funniest experience. I even had people come in and give me deposits on the car and flake out. “

COMMENT: People gave you money and then never came back? :rolleyes: I find this a little difficult to believe. Did you give them a receipt for their money? Did you get their name and phone number? You mean people just came up anonymously, gave you money and then left and you had no way of contacting them to see if they were coming back? Did you make any attempt to return their money? Hmmmm.

”So I decided to take my car out to the German auto fest and see what kind of bite I could get. At the end of the day Brad and his buddy approached me and wanted to know about the car. To make a long story short, we agreed on a price and decided I would deliver the car to his house sometime this week.”

COMMENT: You and Brad agreed on the price and that you would deliver the car. That sounds like a contract to me. (The question of enforceability under the statute is different than whether or not a contract came into existence.) Did you disclose to Brad the fact that someone had made an offer on the car and had given you a deposit? Don’t you think this was relevant? :eek:

“He wanted to pay me by personal check on Sunday, but I don’t think anyone in their right mind would take a personal check from a complete stranger that you met 30 mins ago. So I told them I needed a cashiers check. They told me they would have it ready when I delivered the car. “

COMMENT: You guys came to agreement and he offered to pay you on the spot by personal check. Regardless of your state of mind, the right thing to do was say: I’ll take the check and hold it until you deliver me a cashier’s check.” Then, you would have had a writing to memorialize the transaction for the full purchase price signed by the party against whom enforcement was sought, just like the statute requires. In any event, you still had an agreement to deliver the car to him on a certain date and that he would tender payment in the manner you desired. A check is an enforceable obligation to pay.

”So on Tuesday, the guy that had given me a deposit (who flaked and told me he didn’t want the car) last week calls me and says he is coming in a hour to pay me CASH. I guess under Californian law, all car deposits car refundable. So had to either give this guy his cash back and sell the car to brad’s friend less $250 and then drive 60 miles to deliver the car or wait an hour and have the cash in my hand. I’m pretty sure Brad’s buddy was gonna buy the car, but I did not have a contract nor cash from him. “

COMMENT: The mysterious “guy gave you a deposit” who “flaked” and told you didn’t want the car (when did this happen?) calls up and then says he is coming over with cash. (Who does this sort of transaction in cash except for drug dealers?) When he called and said he didn't want the car anymore, you had the option to attempt enforce the contract against him or relieve him of his obligations under the contract. If Mr. Flake really did call and say he didn’t want the car, you should have arranged with him to return his deposit. Did you think you were entitled to keep the deposit? The fact that you entered into another contract to sell the car to Brad indicates that you had accepted Mr. Flake’s cancellation of the contract and you had accepted the deal with Brad. At this point, your agreement with Mr. Flake was gone. when Mr. Flake called, you should have said, "I'm sorry but the car is sold. You told me you didn't want it." Of course Mr. Flake would not be happy since you still had his $250. Bottom line, you should have honored your deal with Brad and returned Mr. Flake’s deposit. The fact that you then sold the car to Mr. Flake after agreeing to sell the car to Brad seems to me that you breached your contract with Brad. The question of remedies available to Brad, if any, is something else.

”So brad is all upset now, which I understand, and goes on rennlist and calls me a slime ball. Real class act!..........and makes accusations of my car of not being 100%. Nostatic was gonna buy my car a year ago, so you can ask him how clean of a 911 I had. “

COMMENT: Brad has a right to be upset. You entered into an agreement that you didn’t honor. Arguably, you entered into TWO agreements to sell ONE car. At a bare minimum, you owed Brad the honesty to say that you had a deposit and that you would have to check with Mr. Flake to see if he still wanted the car.

If you had simply been honest with Brad about the prior arrangement with Mr. Flake, this would have been completely avoided.

To the aspiring law students out there:

(A) Does Brad still have a cause of action?
(B) The statute says that the contract for the sale of goods over $500 is not enforceable by either party absent a writing – does this matter here?
(c) Is there an contract enforceable by Brad? What are its terms?

Some of you are absolutely rabid in your pursuit of moral integrity to the point of being completely handcuffed by your own opinions on this. It's not a cut-and-dried issue that can be governed by law. A dude backed out of a sale. Big deal.

The guy who was going to buy it is bummed out. Big deal. The only reason this is an issue is because it's someone's friend from the forum, and because it's a 911. If it was some Joe Sixpack disappointed because he couldn't buy a Camaro and wound up missing his mullet-trimming appointment, we wouldn't give a crap.

BlueSkyJaunte, you don't need to throw insults around or make personal attacks.

Aaaaaaack! Someone kill my thread....PLEASE!

It will be really interesting to read future threads where some of you folks get *dissed* by someone and you'll be whining and moaning about the lack of integrity some people have. I wonder if the passive attitudes will still be intact.

As I read the responses I am making mental notes about those folks I'd do business with and those I'd fear to do business with.

-B

Call me "rabid" if you want but I just don't have the "moral flexibility" to consider breaking ones word anything but a "big deal".
I don't think us "rabid" guys are the ones who act like they where raised by wolves... :D
-Chris "foaming at the mouth" Bennet

There are still some gentlemen out there, no doubt a few on this board. When I bought my car out of state, the seller had just been burned by a potential buyer who backed out at the last minute leaving the seller waiting at the airport to pick him up. This guy accepted a down payment from me and told me it was my car to lose. Right up front on the whole deal till the end. He said if I wasn't 100% satisfied that the car was as advertised I get the deposit back. Then after the PPI, it was noted by the mechanic that the pads and rotors were at the limit. My seller felt so bad because he had told me that they had been done relatively recently, he knocked off the cost of the work and I had a great price to begin with. A man of his word willing to stand behind it.

Yeah it might not be illegal but the guy is a piece of crap IMHO.

"laws are written by lawyers not preachers .... "

I'm sorry if that got to you but I believe this statement to be true. It wasn't necessarily meant to be an insult to lawyers.
Most politicians (congresspeople, senators, presidents etc.) are lawyers. These are the people who are reponsible for almost all of our laws. They each have a staff of lawyers and law students who author the bills that eventually become law.
The will of the people may dictate the need for a law but it is the lawyers who author and vote on the law. Most laws are (supposed to be) designed to provide stability and fairness in a society. This is not always directly consistant with what many people consider to be moral. These two measurements are not always parallel.

The exception to this could be when the masses gather enough signatures to get an initiative on the ballot, it is still written by lawyers but voted on by the masses.
In the case of a recent proposition in California this is exactly what happened. The people of the state overwelmingly passed an initiative and then the lawyers got it thrown out because they (or the people who were paying their salaries) didn't agree with the will of the people. it was argued by lawyers that the initiative was unconstitutional and the judges (ex-lawyers) agreed. I did not.
Again, this is not neccesarily an indictment of lawyers, just a statement of my opinion.
BTW, Sorry for take the thread on a tangent.