5 ms·

Basically this entire article comes down to the fact that agents of KitSplit lied to his face in an online chat, and he wasn't savvy enough to keep a transcript

by tofof 8y ago

Basically this entire article comes down to the fact that agents of KitSplit lied to his face in an online chat, and he wasn't savvy enough to keep a transcript of that chat. I honestly don't feel any sympathy for the guy. Any time you're concerned about something and an agent of a company assures you of a particular outcome, e.g. "the insurance will cover it", you'd be completely foolish to a) use that assurance to make your decision while also b) not keeping a record of that assurance. I try to do all my support by chat or email just for the papertrail. It's worth noting that, at least in my state (IL), the criminal statute for consumer fraud explicitly does not require mens rea (criminal intent) - merely a deceptive statement that leads the company toward financial gain. What's more, the statement doesn't actually have to be false (just deceptive), and the employee making it doesn't have to be aware if it's false. That criterion would obviously be met here, and I would not hesitate to write the attorney general's consumer fraud department in this situation -- with the transcript I would have kept, of course. I've done so before for a health insurance dispute that basically mirrored the events in this story (being correctly wary, being assured by a corporate drone that things would be covered, then finding they are not covered). Obviously criminal prosecutions under that statue are quite rare, but even so it's amazing how a company's "last offer" quickly becomes "here, let us give you literally everything you initially asked for" when it's a (free!) moderator from the AG's office writing on your behalf.

FireBeyond 8y ago
Absolutely, the company acted entirely disingenuously too, "you should have coverage for this kind of thing", and then "no insurance will cover gear rental". And then he still uses the service. As too does the thief, apparently (who still has an active profile with them).
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  So KitSplit is actively enabling a thief that has warrants out for their arrest? Sounds like a wretched company, I can't believe this isn't front and center in the article.
  - spuz 8y ago
    That's because it's not true. KitSplit blocked the their from thief website according to their response.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      And then if you look at Reddit[1], or PetaPixel's comments, you'll see people finding his profile well after that point. He's also active on multiple social media sites - his parents are even commenting on some of his Facebook photos about how proud they are of his talents... [1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/9sewqu/this_doesnt_seem_right_legally_stolen/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/9sewqu/this_do... And this, about an hour ago: http://disq.us/p/1wyb1h3 http://disq.us/p/1wyb1h3
      - spuz 8y ago
        I guess I'm as much of a sucker for believing KitSplit's statement as the guy who lost his gear was.
poulsbohemian 8y ago
>I honestly don't feel any sympathy for the guy. Really? Not even a little? Guy generously loans out his expensive gear and gets it stolen, but you don't feel even a little sorry that was the outcome? Rather, you think it was his fault because he somehow should have known better? I continue to be in awe of HN readers.
- tofof 8y ago
  I would feel sympathy for the guy you describe! However, that's not the author of this article: 1) Not 'generously'. He was entirely profit-driven. In the article he describes his motivation as "I could possibly corner the film camera rental market" and his initial experience as "the side business was going great — I made over $1,200". 2) Not nebulously 'somehow'. He did know better, which is why he explicitly sought further information from the company. Then, he voluntarily threw away that information after it was in his posession, and only afterward chose to risk $4500 to gain $95. No, I don't feel even a little bit sorry for him.
- x0x0 8y ago
  As a sibling mentions, there was nothing generous about this. You loan things to friends, but don't charge. That's generous. Renting is just a business transaction. If you rent your apartment on AirBnB, congrats, you're in the landlord business. If you rent your equipment on whatever-the-site-is, congrats, you're in the equipment rental business. Both of those businesses have jerks in them, who are negligent and/or malicious. If you don't want to deal with the negligent and/or malicious, you shouldn't be in the rental business. So -- unlike sibling -- I'm sympathetic, but really, dude wants to make money from the rental business without the downsides and he really ought to have known that's not how the world works.
  - rdlecler1 8y ago
    This is why you go through an intermediary.... becuase you don't want to be in the camera renting business because of all the risks etc -- which is why the intermediary should have covered this.
maxxxxx 8y ago
You should have sympathy for the guy. Maybe he didn't do everything right to protect himself but he entered that transaction in good faith and was screwed over by the company and by the renter. I think it's a bad tendency to blame victims because they weren't savvy enough. KitSplit seem to be just a bunch of a..holes who don't take responsibility for their business.
- tofof 8y ago
  It's not merely that he didn't do everything right. This is a victim that still uses the service and doesn't seem to have bothered to get the insurance he's now been very clearly warned he needs.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >and doesn't seem to have bothered to get the insurance It might not be possible to get insurance that covers "voluntary parting" if all the companies are doing that (or asking for crazy premiums without this clause). It's not irrational to take on the risk vs. buying insurance. His equipment is not that expensive (say, people renting out their cars on Turo are in a different league); it still might make enough sense to vet renters more and cover the risk out-of-pocket.
- carapace 8y ago
  I have to agree with totof. I think the author is a fool, and doubly so for taking the time and effort to carefully document his own foolishness. He spent $4500 to learn that you shouldn't lend $4500 to random strangers with "no feedback", no collateral, no credit card, no way to collect... on the say-so of some random startup. That's pretty foolish. It sucks that he got ripped off, and it sucks that the company rep lied to him in the chat. From what he says though it seems to me like they're trying to do right by him after the fact. Maybe they are a bunch of amoral jerks, or maybe they're just "a small team of filmmakers and photographers who ... work hard to make KitSplit as safe as possible" and who just messed up, eh? I also think it's a bit lame for him to take the $2000 they offered him and keep using the service but write a blog post complaining that that's not good enough. At least he learns from his folly! That's encouraging. > I feel like everyone is to blame, including (and especially) myself. I should have read the fine print better and protected myself. $4500 is a lot to pay for such a basic life lesson, but at least he wasn't physically hurt, and if he sticks with it and is careful he may yet break even on KitSplit, eh? I would say that the person to blame is the dude who ran off with the camera. I don't blame Peter H. for getting ripped off, but I do think it's his responsibility to look out for his own camera, and that he made a foolish mistake.
spuz 8y ago
It's too much to expect users to read all the agreements they sign with a fine tooth comb. If we were to do that then we would also expect business transactions to slow down considerably. That is why there are laws against egregious hidden clauses in contracts. There are also cases you can make when it's clear both sides had differing understandings of the terms of a contract regardless of what they actually signed on paper. In other words, there are legal grounds for this guy to sue based on misrepresentation of contract terms.
- tofof 8y ago
  I fully agree with your assessment. Note that I characterized KitSplit's actions as a clear violation of criminal law, if they had ocurred in my state. Certainly if KitSplit is criminally liable, there's also a sound civil case against them. But without the record that he had but didn't keep of the assurance he was given that illustrates what the "understandings of the terms" were, he won't get past first base.
danShumway 8y ago
> Basically this entire article comes down to the fact that agents of KitSplit lied to his face in a direct chat, and he wasn't savvy enough to keep a transcript of that chat. This is a very easy mistake to make, especially since many companies try to do the majority of their negotiation over the phone or in person. I 100% agree with you that you should demand paper evidence of all of this stuff, but I don't see how that precludes feeling bad for people who haven't learned not to get burned yet. People aren't wired by default to think this way, and our society by and large makes no effort to train them to think this way. Quite the opposite, companies put a lot of effort into teaching people to trust them implicitly instead of reading fine print and seeking clarification. I think it's reasonable for people to mess up on that. Author probably thought, "A ton of people use this service. If my scenario wasn't covered, somebody would have noticed and complained already." Which I sympathize with. I read TOS agreements, I make 'unreasonable' requests about not agreeing to things over the phone, I reply back to leasing agreements and ask questions about terms. People think I'm weird for stuff like that, it's not at all common for normal people to approach contracts that way. There are times I wonder if I'm just a weird paranoid person, and then stories like this come out. > I had this guy’s info and pictures, so I tried filing a police report for the stolen equipment, but they told me the same thing: it’s not a criminal matter, it’s a civil matter, and my property was technically not stolen. Absent KitSplit's reaction, this alone would be worth sharing, since this wasn't immediately obvious to me. It's not just a dispute at this point, the thief is outright gone. How can you file a civil suite if you can't find the person to serve it to them? Does it really still count as fraud after the person skips town and starts hiding from you?
wmf 8y ago
If a company's TOS says one thing and their support drones say another, having a transcript won't help you.
- tofof 8y ago
  Thankfully, this isn't true. Employees cannot engage in deceit, intend that you rely on the deception (i.e. 'making the sale' once you believe them), and have their business profit from the action. This is the cornerstone of consumer fraud protection. A transcript demonstrating false statements made by an employee helps tremendously when forming a cause of action against that company, as it establishes all of the required elements (other than the actual damage you suffered) by itself. Critically, consumer fraud protections do not typically even require the employee to have made a materially false statement (only a deceptive one). Nor do they even require that the employee is aware of the falsehood! In common law fraud, both of these are required, making it a far more burdensome charge to plead.

by tofof 8y ago

FireBeyond 8y ago

Absolutely, the company acted entirely disingenuously too, "you should have coverage for this kind of thing", and then "no insurance will cover gear rental". And then he still uses the service. As too does the thief, apparently (who still has an active profile with them).

StudentStuff 8y ago
So KitSplit is actively enabling a thief that has warrants out for their arrest? Sounds like a wretched company, I can't believe this isn't front and center in the article.
- spuz 8y ago
  That's because it's not true. KitSplit blocked the their from thief website according to their response.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    And then if you look at Reddit[1], or PetaPixel's comments, you'll see people finding his profile well after that point. He's also active on multiple social media sites - his parents are even commenting on some of his Facebook photos about how proud they are of his talents... [1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/9sewqu/this_doesnt_seem_right_legally_stolen/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/9sewqu/this_do... And this, about an hour ago: http://disq.us/p/1wyb1h3 http://disq.us/p/1wyb1h3
    - spuz 8y ago
      I guess I'm as much of a sucker for believing KitSplit's statement as the guy who lost his gear was.

poulsbohemian 8y ago

>I honestly don't feel any sympathy for the guy. Really? Not even a little? Guy generously loans out his expensive gear and gets it stolen, but you don't feel even a little sorry that was the outcome? Rather, you think it was his fault because he somehow should have known better? I continue to be in awe of HN readers.

tofof 8y ago
I would feel sympathy for the guy you describe! However, that's not the author of this article: 1) Not 'generously'. He was entirely profit-driven. In the article he describes his motivation as "I could possibly corner the film camera rental market" and his initial experience as "the side business was going great — I made over $1,200". 2) Not nebulously 'somehow'. He did know better, which is why he explicitly sought further information from the company. Then, he voluntarily threw away that information after it was in his posession, and only afterward chose to risk $4500 to gain $95. No, I don't feel even a little bit sorry for him.
x0x0 8y ago
As a sibling mentions, there was nothing generous about this. You loan things to friends, but don't charge. That's generous. Renting is just a business transaction. If you rent your apartment on AirBnB, congrats, you're in the landlord business. If you rent your equipment on whatever-the-site-is, congrats, you're in the equipment rental business. Both of those businesses have jerks in them, who are negligent and/or malicious. If you don't want to deal with the negligent and/or malicious, you shouldn't be in the rental business. So -- unlike sibling -- I'm sympathetic, but really, dude wants to make money from the rental business without the downsides and he really ought to have known that's not how the world works.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  This is why you go through an intermediary.... becuase you don't want to be in the camera renting business because of all the risks etc -- which is why the intermediary should have covered this.

maxxxxx 8y ago

You should have sympathy for the guy. Maybe he didn't do everything right to protect himself but he entered that transaction in good faith and was screwed over by the company and by the renter. I think it's a bad tendency to blame victims because they weren't savvy enough. KitSplit seem to be just a bunch of a..holes who don't take responsibility for their business.

tofof 8y ago
It's not merely that he didn't do everything right. This is a victim that still uses the service and doesn't seem to have bothered to get the insurance he's now been very clearly warned he needs.
- romwell 8y ago
  >and doesn't seem to have bothered to get the insurance It might not be possible to get insurance that covers "voluntary parting" if all the companies are doing that (or asking for crazy premiums without this clause). It's not irrational to take on the risk vs. buying insurance. His equipment is not that expensive (say, people renting out their cars on Turo are in a different league); it still might make enough sense to vet renters more and cover the risk out-of-pocket.
carapace 8y ago
I have to agree with totof. I think the author is a fool, and doubly so for taking the time and effort to carefully document his own foolishness. He spent $4500 to learn that you shouldn't lend $4500 to random strangers with "no feedback", no collateral, no credit card, no way to collect... on the say-so of some random startup. That's pretty foolish. It sucks that he got ripped off, and it sucks that the company rep lied to him in the chat. From what he says though it seems to me like they're trying to do right by him after the fact. Maybe they are a bunch of amoral jerks, or maybe they're just "a small team of filmmakers and photographers who ... work hard to make KitSplit as safe as possible" and who just messed up, eh? I also think it's a bit lame for him to take the $2000 they offered him and keep using the service but write a blog post complaining that that's not good enough. At least he learns from his folly! That's encouraging. > I feel like everyone is to blame, including (and especially) myself. I should have read the fine print better and protected myself. $4500 is a lot to pay for such a basic life lesson, but at least he wasn't physically hurt, and if he sticks with it and is careful he may yet break even on KitSplit, eh? I would say that the person to blame is the dude who ran off with the camera. I don't blame Peter H. for getting ripped off, but I do think it's his responsibility to look out for his own camera, and that he made a foolish mistake.

spuz 8y ago

It's too much to expect users to read all the agreements they sign with a fine tooth comb. If we were to do that then we would also expect business transactions to slow down considerably. That is why there are laws against egregious hidden clauses in contracts. There are also cases you can make when it's clear both sides had differing understandings of the terms of a contract regardless of what they actually signed on paper. In other words, there are legal grounds for this guy to sue based on misrepresentation of contract terms.

tofof 8y ago
I fully agree with your assessment. Note that I characterized KitSplit's actions as a clear violation of criminal law, if they had ocurred in my state. Certainly if KitSplit is criminally liable, there's also a sound civil case against them. But without the record that he had but didn't keep of the assurance he was given that illustrates what the "understandings of the terms" were, he won't get past first base.

danShumway 8y ago

> Basically this entire article comes down to the fact that agents of KitSplit lied to his face in a direct chat, and he wasn't savvy enough to keep a transcript of that chat. This is a very easy mistake to make, especially since many companies try to do the majority of their negotiation over the phone or in person. I 100% agree with you that you should demand paper evidence of all of this stuff, but I don't see how that precludes feeling bad for people who haven't learned not to get burned yet. People aren't wired by default to think this way, and our society by and large makes no effort to train them to think this way. Quite the opposite, companies put a lot of effort into teaching people to trust them implicitly instead of reading fine print and seeking clarification. I think it's reasonable for people to mess up on that. Author probably thought, "A ton of people use this service. If my scenario wasn't covered, somebody would have noticed and complained already." Which I sympathize with. I read TOS agreements, I make 'unreasonable' requests about not agreeing to things over the phone, I reply back to leasing agreements and ask questions about terms. People think I'm weird for stuff like that, it's not at all common for normal people to approach contracts that way. There are times I wonder if I'm just a weird paranoid person, and then stories like this come out. > I had this guy’s info and pictures, so I tried filing a police report for the stolen equipment, but they told me the same thing: it’s not a criminal matter, it’s a civil matter, and my property was technically not stolen. Absent KitSplit's reaction, this alone would be worth sharing, since this wasn't immediately obvious to me. It's not just a dispute at this point, the thief is outright gone. How can you file a civil suite if you can't find the person to serve it to them? Does it really still count as fraud after the person skips town and starts hiding from you?

wmf 8y ago

If a company's TOS says one thing and their support drones say another, having a transcript won't help you.

tofof 8y ago
Thankfully, this isn't true. Employees cannot engage in deceit, intend that you rely on the deception (i.e. 'making the sale' once you believe them), and have their business profit from the action. This is the cornerstone of consumer fraud protection. A transcript demonstrating false statements made by an employee helps tremendously when forming a cause of action against that company, as it establishes all of the required elements (other than the actual damage you suffered) by itself. Critically, consumer fraud protections do not typically even require the employee to have made a materially false statement (only a deceptive one). Nor do they even require that the employee is aware of the falsehood! In common law fraud, both of these are required, making it a far more burdensome charge to plead.