Does anyone know Wayne Yates from Mechanicville, VA

[JAM]

He did contact me and sent me the attached video. Look carefully for the so called "scuff" marks. He told me at that time he was filing a complaint with Paypal and requesting a full refund. These minute marks have absolutely nothing to do with the subsequent damage done to the cue. The hinges you see actually do protrude inside the case by a small margin, enough to scratch the cue. The real proof is that Yates went silent and refused to communicate any longer when confronted with the damaged cue.

P.S. The video will not load on here. It's too big. Send me your email and I'll try to send it to you that way.

Looks like he may be feeling the heat from the pool community to do the right thing. I hope this gets resolved. Best of luck!

 

[JAM]

i just smoked this moron on FB. i'm sure i'll be blocked in minutes. whatta colossal tool.

What pool Facebook group did you post on?

 

[Black-Balled]

I know you Dave? You replied to Jay Helfert's post, who is Dave?

How the hell was he supposed to know it was jay?
Lol

 

[Black-Balled]

Let's say I take pictures of the cue itself, the bubble wrap and / or sleeve the cue is shipped in & the thick cardboard tube that is it's home. Then the triangular box that everything goes into after that for shipping is in perfect condition. I drop it off at the UPS Store, FedEx, USPs just that way.

Go ahead and claim that the damage that occurred can't be determined. I would have a pretty damn good idea where the damage happened between me dropping it off & the package ending up all f'd up before reaching it's final destination.

Now if the recipient is completely dishonest, then I guess all bets are off.

With the detail you've listed the case is definitely stronger.

Even without it, there were two mailings with the same carrier, so you'd think it should be covered under one...though the claim handler might respond otherwise

 

[stevelomako]

Why didn’t the guy just send a Walmart cue or a cut in half house cue in that case and keep the Mike Sigel cue if he really wanted to horsef*ck Jay out of something?

What did this guy get out of this? I imagine he even paid for his shipping costs.

He sent payment.
He received the cue.
Said it was scratched up.
Sent it back.
Jay got it.
Guy got a refund.

What does Jay want now from the guy?
What more can the guy say?

I’ll chip in 5 or 10 bucks for something if we get enough people to do something. This situation sucks but there’s not much to do about it.

 

[jay helfert]

Why didn’t the guy just send a Walmart cue or a cut in half house cue in that case and keep the Mike Sigel cue if he really wanted to horsef*ck Jay out of something?

What did this guy get out of this? I imagine he even paid for his shipping costs.

He sent payment.
He received the cue.
Said it was scratched up.
Sent it back.
Jay got it.
Guy got a refund.

What does Jay want now from the guy?
What more can the guy say?

I’ll chip in 5 or 10 bucks for something if we get enough people to do something. This situation sucks but there’s not much to do about it.

You left out the most important part Steve. The cue was seriously damaged between the time Yates received it and it got back to me. I got back damaged goods! You wouldn't like it either if that happened to you.

 

[7stud]

What did this guy get out of this? I imagine he even paid for his shipping costs.
What more can the guy say?

Let's suppose the buyer sent the cue back to Jay, and the cue was lost in the mail. The buyer can just ghost Jay?? No responsibility on the buyer's part? Your rule "if the buyer didn't get anything out of the transaction, then he is blameless" is faulty reasoning.

The buyer had the responsibility to get the cue back to Jay in the same condition he received it. The buyer's video proves the condition of the cue when the buyer received the cue. Jay's pictures show the condition of the cue when he received the cue back from the buyer.

When the buyer shipped the cue back to Jay, if the cue was damaged in shipping and it was the fault of the shipper, then the buyer can make a claim with the shipper. But even if the buyer can't get any money from the shipper, he still has to make Jay whole again. Why? Because it's the buyer's responsibility to get the cue back to the seller in the same condition he received it. The buyer has the responsibility to choose a reputable shipper and insure the package against loss. And, if the damage was the result of poor packaging, then the buyer is clearly blameworthy and the buyer is responsible for the damage.

No honest buyer would just say "f**k you" to the seller when there was a problem with the buyer's shipment back to the seller.

 

[smoochie]

I know you Dave? You replied to Jay Helfert's post, who is Dave?

Nice catch, I meant Jay Sorry.

 

[smoochie]

It did not arrive to him with the damage shown here. It arrived in near perfect condition

I thought I had posted this on here earlier but I guess not. Pls check out my thread Sigel Cue for sale from January of this year. You will see on there pics of the cue as it was when it was sent to Yates. I also have a video of the cue that Yates sent to me showing the almost imperceptible "scuff" marks he didn't like. It's too large for me to post the video on here but for anyone who would like to see it pls send me your email and I will try to send it to you that way. The cue had no such damage in the video Yates sent to me and he did not say anything about it because it hadn't happened yet. I've got nothing to hide here!

I am and have always been an honorable man in my business dealings and am proud of my good reputation in the billiard world. I made this thread because I ran into someone who was not honorale in how they dealt with me.

First of all, I am sorry I called you Dave. I meant Jay, but mistyped. Anyway, I am also sorry for what happened to you and the cue. I hope that you get the situation resolved in the best way possible for you. Wish you the best.

 

[stevelomako]

You left out the most important part Steve. The cue was seriously damaged between the time Yates received it and it got back to me. I got back damaged goods!

And he said he received damaged goods.

You wouldn't like it either if that happened to you.

I…as well as a shit load of people on here and in life have been f*cked on things. The couple of times I got f*cked out of 6 figures I was young and recovered and learned. Both times from “rich” f*ckers. One I got satisfaction but with neither I got money back.

It sucks but what can you do other than beating the shit out of the guy at some time or another.
He complained and got his money back.

It blows.

 

[7stud]

And he said he received damaged goods.

The buyer said he found some minor scuff marks on the cue--not the heavy damage as shown in Jay's pictures. The buyer took video of the minor scuff marks, so the state of the cue when the buyer received it is not in question. Jay isn't disputing the condition of the cue when it found its way into the buyers hands. If Jay didn't disclose those minor scuff marks to the buyer, then I think the buyer had every right to return the cue. However, the cue that Jay received back from the buyer had extensive damage, so it was not in the same condition as when the buyer received the cue. The question is who is responsible for the damage that occurred during the shipping back to Jay?

In your opinion, would it have been okay for the buyer to have wrapped the cue in a plastic bag, thrown it in the nearest river, hoping it would wash out to sea, and Jay would eventually see it bobbing in the ocean while fishing off the Manhattan Beach pier in California? How low is your bar for the care required by the buyer when sending the cue back to Jay?

 

[RidgeRaider]

And he said he received damaged goods.


I…as well as a shit load of people on here and in life have been f*cked on things. The couple of times I got f*cked out of 6 figures I was young and recovered and learned. Both times from “rich” f*ckers. One I got satisfaction but with neither I got money back.

It sucks but what can you do other than beating the shit out of the guy at some time or another.
He complained and got his money back.

It blow

Quit bein a dick. I'd say you're missing the point, but it's obvious you're just ignoring it to stir the pot.

Jay is nothing but a nice fellow and isn't begging for anyone's sympathy here, and he's sure as hell not askin to get one upped by someone on who got screwed the most in life..

 

[stevelomako]

The buyer said he found some minor scuff marks on the cue--not the heavy damage as shown in Jay's pictures. The buyer took video of the minor scuff marks, so the state of the cue when the buyer received it is not in question. Jay isn't disputing the condition of the cue when it found its way into the buyers hands. If Jay didn't disclose those minor scuff marks to the buyer, then I think the buyer had every right to return the cue. However, the cue that Jay received back from the buyer had extensive damage, so it was not in the same condition as when the buyer received the cue. The question is who is responsible for the damage that occurred during the shipping back to Jay?

In your opinion, would it have been okay for the buyer to have wrapped the cue in a plastic bag, thrown it in the nearest river, hoping it would wash out to sea, and Jay would eventually see it bobbing in the ocean while fishing off the Manhattan Beach pier in California? How low is your bar for the care required by the buyer when sending the cue back to Jay?

I think you are confused.

The guy said the cue was damaged when he received it and he sent it back to get his money back.

This is a “he said she said” situation.

Jay can’t post the video he said. Would you post it for him please. Thanks

As much as this sucks, it’s over unfortunately.

 

[stevelomako]

Quit bein a dick. I'd say you're missing the point, but it's obvious you're just ignoring it to stir the pot.

Jay is nothing but a nice fellow and isn't begging for anyone's sympathy here, and he's sure as hell not askin to get one upped by someone on who got screwed the most in life..

Jay and I are friends.

The dick here is you.

So what’s the solution here? Tell us.

 

[7stud]

I think you are confused.

My post is a summary of the facts that Jay Helfert posted. Because the buyer took video of the cue when he received it, and he sent the video to Jay, both parties know the condition of the cue when it arrived at the buyer's location, and the cue did not have the damage shown in Jay Helfert's pictures, Yes, the cue had some minor scuff marks on it when the buyer received the cue, but Jay was aware of those minor scuff marks when he mailed the cue. The problem is: when Jay got the cue back from the buyer, the cue had extensive damage. The only point of contention is who is responsible for the extensive damage that occurred between the time the buyer videoed the cue and the time Jay got the cue back. The buyer stated his position by cutting off all communication with Jay. On the other hand, right minded people know that the buyer is obligated to pay Jay to have the cue repaired.

Why don't you highlight which of the statements above is incorrect, then Jay can weigh in on the veracity of them?

 

[Quesports]

It did not arrive to him with the damage shown here. It arrived in near perfect condition

I thought I had posted this on here earlier but I guess not. Pls check out my thread Sigel Cue for sale from January of this year. You will see on there pics of the cue as it was when it was sent to Yates. I also have a video of the cue that Yates sent to me showing the almost imperceptible "scuff" marks he didn't like. It's too large for me to post the video on here but for anyone who would like to see it pls send me your email and I will try to send it to you that way. The cue had no such damage in the video Yates sent to me and he did not say anything about it because it hadn't happened yet. I've got nothing to hide here!

I am and have always been an honorable man in my business dealings and am proud of my good reputation in the billiard world. I made this thread because I ran into someone who was not honorale in how they dealt with me.

As I see it this is about principles. Jay is fighting for the principles he believes in. There is right and there is wrong. Obviously he feels he’s been wrongly treated. He’s certain that he’s in the right and is making his case so others may not get involved with someone he feels screwed him.

Personally, even though I’ve never met Jay in person I believe him in this case.

I can’t ever recall him making statements that seemed dubious in any way, and at anytime on this forum.
JMO…

 

[Biloxi Boy]

Ghosting is the operative fact. Not so much as an offer to "split it" or "flip". Not anything . . . nothing to demonstrate the least modicum of good faith.

 

[stevelomako]

My post is a summary of the facts that Jay Helfert posted. Because the buyer took video of the cue when he received it, and he sent the video to Jay, both parties know the condition of the cue when it arrived at the buyer's location, and the cue did not have the damage shown in Jay Helfert's pictures, Yes, the cue had some minor scuff marks on it when the buyer received the cue, but Jay was aware of those minor scuff marks when he mailed the cue. The problem is: when Jay got the cue back from the buyer, the cue had extensive damage. The only point of contention is who is responsible for the extensive damage that occurred between the time the buyer videoed the cue and the time Jay got the cue back. The buyer stated his position by cutting off all communication with Jay. On the other hand, right minded people know that the buyer is obligated to pay Jay to have the cue repaired.

The buyer believes he received a damaged cue and sent it back and got a refund.

So what is the solution to this situation?

Why don't you highlight which of the statements above is incorrect, then Jay can weigh in on the veracity of them?

Can you please post the video so all of us can see the condition of the cue when the buyer received it?
Thanks

 

[dendweller]

So what is the solution to this situation?

Someone already bailed Jay out on the cue. In the beginning, if the cue was good when he shipped it and appeared it was the case that caused the scratches maybe he could of offered to pay to have it refinished.

 

[stevelomako]

Someone already bailed Jay out on the cue.

That’s good. It’s a nice looking cue and it was a good price on it.

In the beginning, if the cue was good when he shipped it and appeared it was the case that caused the scratches maybe he could have offered to pay to have it refinished.

But that’s not what happened so here we all are.

I’m glad someone bailed Jay out on the cue. Hopefully buying it and not just refinishing it.