Somehow you are missing the importance of candor. The non-monetary, moral dimension of life matters - far more than the monetary one. In this context, some buyers of cues may care only about performance, but many value knowing that the cue they’ve purchased was made by - and not just designed and inspected by - the advertised cue maker. Upon learning - shortly after purchase or some years later - that their cue was actually not made by the advertised cue maker, how do you think they feel?
As for the monetary side of things, if a cue owner, having learned that the maker of his cue is not “Maker X” as previously (and reasonably) believed, but is unknown, decides to sell the cue at some point, a straight moral compass on his part will require him to tell the prospective purchaser that the cue was made by an unknown cue maker. That isn’t desirable, obviously.
Does “made by” mean “without any assistance”? Of course not. But it certainly means more than designed by and inspected by. As TATE rightly said in an earlier post, transparency is expected. Being transparent is also the right thing to do. Check out Bob Dzuricky’s disclosures about the source of the blanks used in his sneaky pete cues.
http://dzcues.com/prices.html That’s the way it should be done.
Consumer protection laws and agencies came to be, even though fraud had long been the basis for a claim for damages by a purchaser, because of the recognition that unfair or deceptive trade practices cause harm that should be prevented by means other than individual demands for refunds (and lawsuits where refunds are not provided). Among the other victims of unfair or deceptive trade practices are competitors. In the cue selling world, every cue sold by one seller usually means a cue not sold by another seller.
I’m not commenting on this particular situation or the ethics of those involved. But I felt that the “no harm, no foul” view required a response.
