jkhirsch

No reason to be a druck about it.

Stop drucking around.

Clearly the only way to do this is to smash it out with a hammer (I recommend the dead blow; plus you can get this wonderful 3 piece set https://www.amazon.com/TEKTON-30709-Dead-Hammer-48-Ounce/dp/B00GMN4F3C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1508165079&sr=8-2&keywords=dead+blow+hammer) from the front and then vacuum the pieces out with a shop-vac, I personally recommend the https://www.amazon.com/Shop-Vac-5986000-5-Gallon-Stainless-Vacuum/dp/B00EPH63K0/ref=sr_1_4?s=hardware&ie=UTF8&qid=1508164877&sr=1-4&keywords=shop-vac It is "Amazon's choice" so it can't be wrong and personally I hate the Red/Black/White colorway, but the 4-star rating is inarguable. Don't forget to use smile.amazon.com to provide benefits to the Mooney Summit/Bill Gilliland Foundation.

Do Vic and his friend (whose name embarrassingly escapes me) not own this plane anymore?

Even number.

Caught yah before the edit

According to flightaware the registration is pending in Howell, MI maybe the buyer of his plane decided he wanted the 530.

It's been complicated by the way you chose to deal with it, that's been my singular complaint this entire time.

The second amendment is just vague enough for my liking.

No you posted a passive aggressive response that said roughly, in a perfect world you would have sold it to the person you said you would sell it to for the $6500. At the time you had not admitted to being the second party involved.

New information that you have previously withheld.

You can continually quote that out of context and it doesn't change the fact that he quoted that based on the belief that he could only get $5,500 dollars of value for the unit on trade-in. You also failed to address your hypocritical statement that you are clearly only looking out for your best interests and so was he. If you were considering his best interests you would not have posted your version of the story claiming he has done wrong by you without the actual details disseminated to the public trying to convince everyone he is a "weasel."

That's an incredibly hypocritical thing to say in this situation. He was offering the 530 well below market, you're not considering his interests only your own. I agree that he may have incepted a contract with you, but your issue seems to be that he was only looking out for his best interest, when you have made it clear that you are only looking out for your best interest.

It does add some complexity to the decision making process. If the engine fails do you immediately use the use the chute? What is the decision height if you don't get your glide quite right to your intended landing spot? If your engine fails now the decision is find a spot and get down safely.

And now you have resorted to name-calling.

Again, his original intent was to sell for $500 over whatever value he could get from trading it in. He never explicitly said that he wasn't actively trying to find the best trade-in price. It's amazing that you still use information out of context and only provide your version of the communication of two of you. The situation has not been represented objectively which is why I have yet to "let it rest."

That statement implies that a contract requires something to be "written." Someone's "word" or actions in many cases have legally constituted a contract. Besides that, you have stated that the details were enumerated on this site through a private message, which makes them "written." You've only shared the side of the story which makes it appear that the seller has done something wrong, when it may just be something you don't agree with and then called for public outcry over his behavior. It's also clear that his original post he intended to sell it for $500 more than what the shop would offer him. Quoting him out of that context is not an objective representation of the situation. If you're going to make those implications in public it's only fair that all of the relevant information be presented, especially when you as the accuser are in possession of that information. I am not in favor of either party, only the way it has been represented and the way information appears to have been withheld.

An old friend of mine Matt used to say judge not lest ye be judged. I don't know of all the details but apparently Jon and another person do, and as you said they're really the only two relevant parties here, which is why I don't think it's necessary to provide any commentary unless you are one of those parties and identify yourself as such.

Why bother with the cognitive dissonance?

The only option here is a lawsuit, let's work out the jurisdictional problem now. It's imperative that we keep the legal system funded.

You're using the word "word" to imply he made a contract with someone. I don't think you really intend to have a discussion about mutual assent do you? Let's leave lawyering to the lawyers.

The deposits are held in escrow and refundable.

Anyone got an extra topic to delete?

Here's the best advice I can give you: read the following link and don't listen to a single opinion found here. Some people present facts and those are ok, ignore everything else. http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J Evaluation/M20J_evaluation_report.html

Are you having any specific issues?