A Message From Aero Leather USA

[feltfan]

There are several more cases like this which have come to our attention, it would appear that certain customers... I'm assuming those whose orders were never actually placed with the factory were sent "any jacket" probably one from Mark's small inventory to tide them over, or 'keep them quiet for a while'. You are not the only one sent a jacket wildly off spec .

I don't believe that to have been the case here. The jackets he sent did reflect certain
customizations I requested that are unlikely to have been at hand for him, including removing
the hand warmer pockets, removing the storm cuffs, and most of all putting the horsehide label in the pocket.

I'd bet heavily that that 'your' first jacket was nothing to do with you but was someone else's return or a stock jacket sent to you to but more time, so no shipping loss there.

Don't take that bet in this case.

In all fairness to Amanda, this was in the immediate run up to Christmas when she was swamped with work. Of the 22 staff at Aero 19 work on the product in one way or another, cutting, making linings or sewing the jacket while only 3 at that point deal with administration, we are a very product minded company without layers of bureaucracy, at peak times these folk get stretched to the limit.

And...

We never have the names or contact details for the person who will actually be wearing a jacket when an order comes in from one of our stockists, this makes finding a single jacket in a huge pile of trade orders quite difficult.

A little lesson in international and online trading. First of all, when you can't keep track of which details/measurements
are associated with which customer, you have a problem. Second, you don't need to know a name or contact information
to get the right order to the right person. Do you think Amazon or eBay worry about that level of detail? No, they don't.
They assign a transaction a number and keep it in a big database (the word here is hadoop, but you don't necessarily need
more than something quite simple). That number can be used in all interactions- some email systems can be easily adapted
to pass the number or all interactions can be managed on a web page, like you see on eBay. The information is managed.
These tools are quite affordable now. Mark's eBay transactions could have been tracked. All Aero transactions can be
tracked, saving a lot of time and grief. I don't mean to condescend, but 18 messages is a lot and there was a lot of
unnecessary back and forth. I am left with the feeling that Aero Scotland scaled up without proper infrastructure.

Lots of companies have increased volume leading up to Christmas/end of calendar year. There are ways to manage
the details so that these companies can concentrate on creating and shipping the goods.

I did send Amanda a thank you note. She saved my butt. Or my front quarter anyway.

Sorry to bang on the same drum, but Mark's post that started this thread makes it 100% clear what the relationship was, why would he not try to pass the blame onto Aero Scotland if he thought there was the slightest chance he could??

Mark's post that started this thread arrived after all of our transactions had been made. Mark's post here doesn't count when
considering the perception that Aero USA and Aero Scotland are the same company. The statement that he
represented Aero Scotland was up for years and until last week. I certainly didn't understand the distinction between
the two entities until after I had returned the first jacket and it is clear from the responses in this thread that I was in
the majority. The perception was that these were two branches of the same company, and why shouldn't we think that?
All the statements, logos, company names, product source, etc were the same.

The only 'poor business practice' I feel we can own up to is not checking our trade customers websites on a regular basis but we've got over 70 trade accounts, many other stockists in Europe and Japan we've never even heard of... shops that buy small numbers from some of our major trade customers and resell in their own shop. It would be impossible to check them all and as long as the bills get paid on time there didn't appear to be any reason to check these site.

You haven't addressed this and you don't have to do so here. But when you get two or more orders two or more YEARS
late, you need to be checking that trade customer, especially if he is operating with your good name and trademark and
claiming to represent you for years on the site where he does business. You had indication that there were at least two
orders at least two years late, at least four months ago. Hard to believe there weren't other signs of trouble,
since customers sure were seeing them.

Legally we have no responsibility whatsoever, 100% confirmed by leading NYC Attorney who specialises in this kind of action. However, we are doing everything in our power to sort out the mess Mark Moye left behind, we do not want our good name stained by a stockists actions.

Overall, I'm pleased to hear you've got the jacket you wanted in the end, I'm just sorry it arrived so late and you've had so much trouble. A 20% discount on your next (if any) purchase would seem to be the least we can offer by way of an appology for something that nobody should have gone through.

Holly

As I'm sure you appreciate, legality is not the issue here, though of course two attorneys can differ in interpretation.
It is a matter of your good name and reputation, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I appreciate all the communication from you and from Amanda. I know the operation in Scotland means well, and makes a good product.
I also appreciate your offer of 20% should I have the money for another jacket at another time. I won't beat a dead horse (sorry, had to say that),
but I think I make some important suggestions for you here.

And I do hope you'll ignore this forum for a while and enjoy your holiday. London has a lot to offer - I'm jealous.

Once again, my statements are my opinions only and not intended in any other way.

 

[rippsnorter]

I spoke with paypal about my order and possibly getting a refund through them even though it's past their 45 day time period. (Mine was June/July of 2011)

Paypal recommended that everyone involved file a dispute even IF it's beyond their normal 45 days. In essence it would be paypals version of a class action dispute, the more people the better. I strongly encourage ANYONE that has not received a jacket ordered from Mark to call/email paypal. The more people that do it, the better the chance that paypal will actually take action.

The same should be done with Ebay.

 

[Jim Brown]

how come it's the guys that actually got their jackets are more hostile here then the guys that didn't get their jackets?

 

[jlanderson]

how come it's the guys that actually got their jackets are more hostile here then the guys that didn't get their jackets?

Was wondering the same thing, Mr. Brown.

 

[ButteMT61]

Was wondering the same thing, Mr. Brown.

Because there's more to it than just jackets (and money, which sucks) It's affected personal relationships, Aero's business, the hobby in general, etc. Would it be better if those of us not hosed sit by and giggle? Or should we get no opinion here? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I'll bite. (more in response to Mr. Brown)

 

[billyb]

how come it's the guys that actually got their jackets are more hostile here then the guys that didn't get their jackets?

Why would someone who is owed a refund chastise Mark? Hence, why the guys who care but do not have skin in the game are being more vocal.

 

[Jim Brown]

Why would someone who is owed a refund chastise Mark? Hence, why the guys who care but do not have skin in the game are being more vocal.

you're confusing "Vocal" with "Hostile"

Now, to your question, "Why would someone who is owed a refund chastise Mark?" well maybe to get their money back perhaps?

 

[feltfan]

how come it's the guys that actually got their jackets are more hostile here then the guys that didn't get their jackets?

If you're referring to me (and it would be good form to be clear) I don't believe I am being hostile. After over two years, I have information to share
and have sweated a lot longer than most of you.

 

[billyb]

you're confusing "Vocal" with "Hostile"

Now, to your question, "Why would someone who is owed a refund chastise Mark?" well maybe to get their money back perhaps?

Interesting stance. Wonder if anybody has gotten a refund using the chastising approach. I suspect not.

 

[jimmer_5]

In response to all of the threads regarding whether Moye committed a crime, I think he did. Any money he collected from customers was for purposes of placing orders for them with Aero Scotland, and he should have set aside whatever money he would need for these orders. Using that money before he placed the orders and paid Aero Scotland was theft, plain and simple. Customers gave him their money so that he could order jackets for them, and he did otherwise. Why is there even debate about this?

I think the point that the lawyers among us are trying to make is that Mark has not been formally brought up on any charges, and even if he was, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. At this stage, what we have are allegations. Remember, regardless of how much evidence there is, it still has to be presented in a court of law. I know he stole money from me, but until that evidence is shown in court and a verdict reached, it doesn't mean much in a legal sense.

I would be really surprised if Mark ever sued for defamation, but stranger things have happened.

 

[jimmer_5]

I know we're all angry, but I would entreat everyone to temper our responses towards Holly, Ken, and Aero Scotland. Things may not be perfect, but they are here, and they are actively working to help those of us who have been wronged. I seriously doubt that most companies would be here making this much effort on our behalf. I may still be out a considerable sum of money, but having them fighting on my side has been a great help and a comfort.

I imagine we all will be taking a hard look at our business practices, whether we are customers or manufacturers. I will definitely think twice before trusting a business with a full payment up front when the timeline is longer than 3 months. Calling me a fool doesn't help my situation, and I don't think calling Aero Scotland foolish is helpful either. I work in manufacturing myself, and mistakes happen - it's normal. The only way you make up for it is with great customer service, and I am seeing plenty of that from Aero here.

 

[tater]

Feltfan makes a good point. I'm not a lawyer, and the point is not about legality. The reality is that it would be the rare customer one earth who would make a distinction between Spacely Sprockets, Spacely Sprockets UK, Spacely Sprockets Mars, and Spacely Sprockets Pluto.

It is normal practice, for example, for auto manufacturers to have a country name appended. BMW has bmwusa.com, for example. It's, unsurprisingly the BMW website---not some "unaffiliated" reseller. For any small manufacturers reading this, no reasonable person will assume an overseas company sharing your name is not you as such -USA appendages are SOP for large companies where the branch is clearly affiliated.

So clearly it's not a great idea to allow unaffiliated (uncontrolled) dealers to share your name.

 

[Atticus Finch]

In response to all of the threads regarding whether Moye committed a crime, I think he did. Any money he collected from customers was for purposes of placing orders for them with Aero Scotland, and he should have set aside whatever money he would need for these orders. Using that money before he placed the orders and paid Aero Scotland was theft, plain and simple. Customers gave him their money so that he could order jackets for them, and he did otherwise. Why is there even debate about this?

I’ll take a stab at an answer, but I’m choosing my words carefully because I don't want to sound like I'm defending Mr. Moye, and I don't want to sound like a "know it all", which I probably have in the past. Please note though...I'm not inviting an argument. Someone has asked a question and I would like to answer it as best I can using whatever knowledge and experience I've gained over the years as a career prosecutor.

Almost every breach of contract case centers around someone who has failed to perform a duty imposed upon them by a binding contract. Perhaps a contractor has failed to complete a house on time. Perhaps a seller has failed to ship goods, even after having been partially or even completely prepaid. But the fact that a person has breached a contract isn’t, by itself, criminal. Indeed, North Carolina’s general fraud statute, NCGS 14-100 actually spells out that simple breach is not criminal. Here’s what subsection (b) of our statute says:

(b) Evidence of nonfulfillment of a contract obligation standing alone shall not establish the essential element of intent to defraud.

Most states have comparable sections in their fraud statutes. The reason is simple. It prevents the thousands of people, who annually become embroiled in contract disputes, from dragging the cases into the criminal courts for resolution at the taxpayers’ expense. Indeed, were it not for the fact that criminal intent must be proved in criminal cases, there would be little difference between a breach of contract case and a criminal fraud.

Our courts have interpreted subsection (b) of 14-100 to mean exactly the way it sounds. To prosecute a nonfulfillment (or breach) case as a criminal charge, the State must produce substantial independent evidence of the defendant’s intent to defraud. In other words, you can’t get a fraud case past the defendant’s motion for nonsuit unless you have evidence of fraud other than the fact the defendant didn’t do what he was supposed to do pursuant to his contractual obligations. And please notice that the section doesn’t say “nonfulfillment without good excuse”. Evidence that the defendant breached without a good reason still won’t get the case to the jury.

So how does this apply the Aero USA case? Well, so far I see little evidence of criminal intent. The bare fact that Moye took money for jackets he never ordered from Aero USA is simple breach and nothing more. Criminal intent may one day soon be uncovered by further investigation, but it ain’t quite here yet.

AF

 

[zaman fu]

Atticus,
I am also an attorney, although I practice civil litigation. However, given the circumstances, it seems abundantly clear that he was collecting payment for jackets and then using that money for other things. This is more than a simple contractual breach where someone cannot deliver on a contract because their supplier can't keep up, etc.
ZF

 

[ButteMT61]

Atticus,I am also an attorney, although I practice civil litigation. However, given the circumstances, it seems abundantly clear that he was collecting payment for jackets and then using that money for other things. This is more than a simple contractual breach where someone cannot deliver on a contract because their supplier can't keep up, etc.ZF

You're drawing that conclusion based on forum posts? Like AF, not taking a side here, but this is like posting on NPR over a heated news story. Thank god people don't get put in jail for "evidence" presented on Internet discussions. Sure, it all looks bad, but that's why there are courts and judges etc. We simply do not know all the details of Aero & Aero USA's relationship and business agreements. Each side has a story, and the (legal) outcome won't be decided here.

 

[Peacoat]

Atticus: I also see it differently. As a long time former prosecutor, and one who has now moved to the other side of the bench, I would have had no problem going to trial in a fraud case where deposits, or payments in full, for merchandise were made and the order never placed with the supplier. Especially if this happened in multiple situations, over an extended period of time, such as we evidently have here. In my opinion the failure to place the orders, after having received the funds with which to do so, supplies the necessary intent to defraud. PC.

 

[Jim Brown]

You're drawing that conclusion based on forum posts? Like AF, not taking a side here, but this is like posting on NPR over a heated news story.

I don't get the reference?

 

[ButteMT61]

I don't get the reference?

People get heated over a topic. Tis one is as hot as they get. We get snippets of data, theories, and other speculation. The conclusion seems obvious, but it's never simple. I'm just saying this topic containing a boatload of replies isn't how guilt is decided in a court of law. And with so many lawyers here posting differing opinions, it's obvious that this is not so simple. People want to string someone up on what they think is all the data. It's incomplete. As we've learned, just because someone says something, it doesn't mean it's true. We've got Mark and Aero at odds. We are in no position to know the facts at this point. We're simply at the mercy of the trickle of data.

 

[Jim Brown]

and what does it have to do with NPR?

 

[tater]

Civil vs criminal distinctions I will leave to the professionals. Regardless, this guy Moye is unambiguously in the wrong. There is no possible excuse for not immediately placing orders for product that he was paid for. No excuse, and no possible explanation that is not nefarious. I see zero reason to give him any benefit of the doubt when it is self-evident he wronged many people. Again, no idea if he's criminally liable, but he is certainly ethically deficient.

Had he kept all the deposits in good faith (in a sort of non-3d party escrow), it would be a simple matter to pay all the deposits back immediately. Not having every, single penny means he spent money that was not his. What the legal distinctions are I have no idea, and I don't care.