Complaints Against Anthony and Janice Naoum
Belgrade, Maine

QUESNME@aol.com

If you have questions about the complaint,
please contact the person who filed it.

February 17, 2000
Complaint filed by: Richard Lunt (lunt.r@adlittle.com) and Tracy Lunt (lunt@virginia.edu)

eBay Fraudulent Seller

The sellers at the E-mail address quesnme@aol.com (Janice and Anthony Naoum in Belgrade, Maine) who sell antiques by auction at eBay are frauds. They purposefully misrepresent what they sell and then offer in their ad a phony "money back guarantee" that they never intend to honor. We were sold a "fine condition" Civil war sword that is not even a whole sword. They purposefully omitted problems such as the hilt and blade being manufactured in different eras and simply stuck together with filler putty to try to disguise the poor fit - which does not make this a whole sword. There were many other problems, all of which were omitted or flat out lied about. Due to the terrible condition of the item, its worth about 1/10th of what was paid. When contacted to try to work out these problems (to try to take them up on the"money back guarantee") they wrote one letter back stating that they "adamantly refuse" to consider a refund and now they won't respond to mails. I was shocked by the condition of the sword, but even more shocked by the seller's response, especially with their explicit guarantee and their high eBay feedback. We have filed an eBay fraud report and are pursing legal action, however it will take some time for it all to be processed to have their account closed. Meanwhile they are free to post new ads, as they have, with the same bogus "guarantee" in them. Avoid these people!

eBay Item #: 232132147
Sale Date: Jan-13-00 12:25:42 PST
Cost: $716
Item: Civil War Sword

False statements in the ad:

1) The seller called this a "Civil war sword". It was not. In fact it is a collection of pieces. The blade and hilt were manufactured decades apart and simply stuck together (as attested to by an expert in Civil war swords - we have a copy of his official report which we also sent to the seller).

2) The sword was described as being "in fine condition" with no other disclaimers as to problems with the item. However, the hilt and blade did not fit (for the above mentioned reason). There was a crude attempt to hide the fact that this blade and hilt were so ill-fitting; putty was used to help seal the gaps and was painted over to make it look like leather instead of putty.

3) In a private E-mail prior to bidding, my parents asked specific questions regarding the condition of the blade and hilt. They were told (and we have copies of the original mails) in an E-mail dated January 9, 2000 that "Leather and wire wrapping on handle [sic] appears original and intact". In addition to the problems with the hilt mentioned above, there was almost no wire wrapping left on the hilt, only 2-3 strands. This would have been obvious for anyone to note.

4) The seller stated "Money refunded if not as pictured or stated." The item was not at all as the seller described. The seller both lied and purposefully omitted important information. I believe they have specifically worded their "guarantee" in such a way so they can omit details and claim that the item was "as described". For instance, a missing throat on the scabbard was never mentioned. They have tricked at least one other buyer (as seen early in their feedback) refusing the honor their guarantee. Thus, it seems that this seller never has any intention of honoring the "guarantee" and simply add it to their auctionsv to lure in buyers with a false sense of safety.

Actions we have taken:

A) Attempting to work this out with the seller. In good faith we contacted them many times and tried to explain why we felt this item was not properly described. That was not sufficient for the seller, so we had an expert sword appraiser (whose particular expertise is the Civil war era) examine the item and write an official appraisal report. In response, the seller stated that they "adamantly refuse" to consider a refund and now refuse to respond to E-mails.

B) We waited as long as possible (a month) and finally gave up hope of any sort of resolution with the seller. We just left them appropriate feedback.

C) We used eBay's Fraud reporting web form and submitted a report last week. However, no indication was made whether this was sufficient action on our part to ensure that the seller's account would be closed. We don't want to simply leave feedback and allow this seller to continue to list false "guarantee"'s that they will never honor.

----------------------------------------------------

We are filing through the police and courts to regain the money we have lost. However, that will undoubtedly be a lengthy process. We don't want others to get taken in the meantime.

Tracy Lunt

February 17, 2000
Sword Appraisal
From: "sworddoctor" <sworddoctor@email.msn.com>

To: Richard Lunt/ADLittle@ADLittle

Subject: e-bay purchase

I have carefully examined your e-bay purchased sword. I find it to be a "put together". It has an authentic Ames 1860 cavalry blade married to an 1840 type import handle, guard, and pommel.

If one looks closely on the tang, one can see where the sword has been repeened. The handle is ill-fitting to the pommel and has been filled with plastic wood and painted black to resemble leather. Only three strands of the original wire remain.

The scabbard is missing the throat and has been painted black. The guard, part of the blade, and pommel have been at one time painted to resemble gold gilting.

I base the above on 35 years of sword collecting and as currently a dealer in Civil War swords. I wish I had better news for you, but this is the true situation as I see it.

Larry Mealor
The Sword Depot
120 College Street
Adairsville, GA 30103

We are responding to your e-mail. The following is the response we gave to safe harbor regarding the calim of the Lunts. In additon to the infomation, we would like to add that the way Mr. Lunt describes the swords handle and its looseness is not in the condition we shipped. We honor what we say and by no means have we intentionally or untentionally misrepresented or fraudulently described this item to the Lunts. We can not stress this point enough, furthermore, we beleive that most if not all of the Lunt's accusations were contrived.We are responding to a recent fraud reporting and insurance claim# 14328. Our e-Bay user ID is quesnme@aolcom. The item (#23213247) being a Civil War Sword lat was listed on January 7th 2000. The listing, which we assume you have a copy, is as follows as quoted: Civil War Sword in fine condition. The blade measures 40 inches. The blood grove is 27 inches. Leather and brass handle. Stamped markings on the sword include "U.S. ADK 1862". Scabbard is stamped with the number "37". Buyer prepays plus shipping, handling, and insurance. Money refunded if not as pictured or stated. On 1-9-00, the following was added. The sword measures 40 inches from the end  of the grip to the tip of the sword. The acabbard is 37 inches long and stamped with the number 37. On the opposite side of the date stamp, would appear to be the letters Ames over some other undistinguishable letters. This was followed by a picture of the sword and scabbard.Our policy, as you well know, is money refunded if not as pictured or stated. This item was describe correctly followed by a picture of the sword and scabbard. And to the best of our knowledge nothing was misrepsented to the buyer. We might add, Mr. Lunt began complaining about the sword from the time he first received it, saying the sword was bent, the handle was loose, the the blade had nicks. We mentioned to him, that the sword had no nicks, and when shipped, it was not bent, or loose and suggested he pursue a postal claim. Since then, miraculously, now according to him, the sword was not bent, the handle was not as loose as originally stated, and we don't know anything  about nicks, they were not mentioned again. Questions were asked prior to the auction's close, and we feel we gave Mr. Lunt honest and detailed answers. Should you need further information please contact us. Sincerely, Anthony and Janice Naoum

Frankly, nicks or bowed (bent) blade are very minor issues compared to the two major ones which the Naoum's don't bother to address:

1) This is not an single whole sword. It is a blade from one era stuck to a hilt from another. What my father, as a layman, noticed about the sword is that it appeared the blade and hilt did not fit well and he described it as "loose" to the Naoum's. He then sent the sword to a renown Civil war sword expert who determined that the reason that the blade was loose fitting to the hilt is that the blade and hilt were manufactured 20 years apart. Thus this sword is a reconditioned "put together".

2) The supposedly "original and intact" wire wrapping had only 2-3 strands left, most of it was gone. This is something that even a layment would notice and they did specifically state that it was intact when it was not.

Further, the sword expert found 2 more problems that we did not originally mention.

3) The scabbard is missing the throat and has been painted black.

4) The pommel have been at one time painted to resemble gold gilting.

The Naoums claim that the sword was "damaged in shipping" but shipping damage would not cause the hilt to be from a different model year. My father's story didn't change, he simply was able to put into proper words the problems the sword had after the sword was profesionally examined.

We have contacted Mr. Lunt and will refund his money. We have offered to meet him in Portsmouth N. H. or have him send the sword via mail. Janice and Anthony Naoum

From Message Board
Re: eBay Fraudulent Seller
Monday, 21-Feb-2000 16:59:18

I have corresponded with the Naoums and the Lunts, and the Naoums have agreed to give the Lunts a full refund.

Internet Fraud Mediator, Pat

The Naoums have now reneged on the deal to return the money for the fake sword. We are still left   without the $737.50 paid for the item despite their guarantee of refund. Tracy Lunt

February 25, 2000
Response from: QUESNME@aol.com

We are currently seeking information from e-Bay to possibly escrow our funds until we are able to examine the sword.
Anthony and Janice Naoum

Feb. 28, 2000
Response from Anthony and Janice Naoums

We have offered Mr. Lunt a refund in 2 methods: 1. he may return the sword and after inspection we would send him his monies. or: 2. We would meet him in Lexington MA., his home, at his convience at a place that is comfortable to him and then give him his monies on the spot. Could you please tell us why he has refused to do this and secondly, how this conflicts with our offer that we conveyed to you to him. After all, we just want to be sure this is the same sword we shipped to him and by his discriptions it certainly sounds like a completely different sword.

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:01:07 -0500
Response From: Richard Lunt <lunt.r@adlittle.com>

I think it would be best for you to be not only accurate but also truthful in your descriptions of what has transpired since February 9, when you, Anthony, sent me an e-mail "adamantly" refusing to refund my money.

1) You have never offered me a refund of my money except for that very brief period on February 19 (after ten days of stonewalling and one day after receiving the e-mail from Pat Edgerton) when you "temporarily" decided to "abide by the mediator's decision and refund the money". In this respect, your statement that "We are willing to refund Mr. Lunt's monies not because of any wrongdoings or what you have said, merely because we are honest and believe it is good policy." is not truthful. In response to your e-mail stating that you would refund the money, I immediately e-mailed you to request that you send the money and I would return the sword. One day later, after you realized that Pat Edgerton is not a representative of eBay, the offer just evaporated. Then, on February 20, it turned into an offer to meet with me another week later "to resolve the issue with the sword". If you were honest and decent Traders, you would have simply sent me the money and I would have sent you the sword. "It would have been good policy" as you say.

Somehow the need to have a meeting to "resolve the issue" eludes me. There was no need of a meeting a week later unless you were intending to negotiate something other than a complete refund. I have no need to negotiate this; nor to be handed a check which may not be good in exchange for the sword "on the spot"; nor to be told that the sword is somehow damaged, so you only want to refund part of my money. The transaction was handled by internet, e-mail, UPS and US Mail. Why could not the reversal of the transcation be handled the same way? I guess you should explain that. Somehow your "rules" work only one way. Your statement of February 9 continues to echo, i.e., "I really can not nor will I refund what you paid for the sword." This is either an indication that you are insolvent; or an opening to a negotiation; or a clear rejection of your own purported "good policy".

2) There was never an offer made to me about "... he may return the sword and after inspection we would send him his monies..." Such a statement was never made to me in any form; but then that would not have been acceptable anyway. This statement simply underscores your intent of having a meeting as noted above. I sent you money on good faith and expected you as a good trader to do the same. Aside from the fact that such an offer was not extended to me, what you're basically saying in this statement is that you believe that I, or the expert, has somehow defaced or damaged the sword; or switched swords; or that the expert doesn't know what he's talking about. Frankly, you're not sword experts as you've clearly demonstrated and that's one of the reasons we're in this mess now. (At least, I choose to believe this reason for your behavior rather than the obvious alternative.) You didn't know what you had and didn't know how to properly describe it. Since you don't know the difference between a Model 1840 and Model 1860 handle and couldn't even see the clear mismatch between the Model 1840 handle and Model 1860 blade that I pointed out to you immediately after inspecting the sword not to mention the plastic wood, what good would your inspection do.

You've adamantly refused to refund money for 10 days. And, for the last 18 days you still have not offered to reverse the transaction in the same fashion that you insisted it be handled at the outset. I trusted you once to send me the item "as described". I then trusted you again to honor your guarantee. And then, I trusted you a third time when you felt forced by acts of retribution to refund my money. That's three times you have acted in bad faith. And, now you're not even telling the truth about your own actions when there is a written audit trail. You suggest that I should do this again? No, you are not honest people and your statement about "good policy" is hollow. Your offer of inspection prior to sending the money is clearly an attempt to again not act in good faith. It is just an excuse to contrive some reason to either reject the sword or reduce the refund; or perhaps charge a hefty restocking fee as you did to one of your former customers when they requested a refund.

3) Of course the sword is still in Georgia. First, I simply presumed that when you got back from vacation on February 9, that you would honor your money back guarantee because the sword was blatantly not what you claimed it to be. The sword expert, being a decent person, offered to ship it directly back to you and save me extra shipping costs. He knew I didn't want it; and we really believed your money back guarantee. Then, when we found out you had no intention of honoring your guarantee, it was necessary for him to prepare a written report. Now it may be necessary for him to follow up on questions as they develop in the ensuing litigation that I fully expect will occur as a result of the charges that have been, and are continuing to be filed against you. I don't intend to be shipping that sword back and forth. Shipping charges alone will shortly overtake what little value the sword has for its parts, if it hasn't already.

You have had every opportunity to act honorably, honestly and in good faith as you would want from your customers; and you have chosen not to do so.

All you have needed to do is send me the money, as I stated in my e-mail of February 19, and the sword would have been shipped to you.