Dealings with Long Creek Apiaries

[SurprisingWoman]

A beek in Utah ordered two packages from LCA in May and never rec'd bees and could not get a refund. He went to the news guy that goes after deadbeats. The person at LCA responded to him saying they never talk with third parties. The news guy advised the beek to go to the Utah Commerce Dept and file a complaint. It is against the law to take payment for a shipment that is not made within 30 days and subjects you to a $1500 fine. LCA refunded the $266 to the beek and sent a letter about the "gestapo" state investigator.

It was pretty funny.

I would contact your state commerce dept to see if they can do something for you.

[beemaster01]

Any company that produces live plant or animals can not comply with Utah law that mandates shipment within 30 days of when the order is placed. I paid the balance so I would have the legal right to inform all queen and package producers of the agriculture unfriendly Utah statues. Thanks to posters here and on the web site of the TV station in Utah this valuable information can be passed on to all bee companies.

I find it very interesting that the payment hasn't been posted on the TV station website. Could it be biased as this forum is? No, it couldn't be as everything you read on the internet is fair and balanced. Ha, what a joke.

[SurprisingWoman]

You didn't make a payment, you refunded the man's money after holding onto it for over three months.

The payment is listed on the website. Read the article again, or have someone read it to you.

I am delighted Utah has a statue to protect consumers from bad business practices of deadbeat companies. I hope other states do as well.

http://connect2utah.com/get-gephardt...?nxd_id=164467

[beemaster01]

The original article hasn't been changed. For your 411, the refund was in two payments. I had made a partial payment before being contacted. Also, if all states laws were the same as Utah's, then there would be no bees available as no bee company takes orders and ships within 30 days as it is physically impossible. Maybe bee companies shouldn't take orders from states that have statues like Utah's.

http://connect2utah.com/get-gephardt...?nxd_id=161147

[Desert Viking Ranch]

Any company that produces live plant or animals can not comply with Utah law that mandates shipment within 30 days of when the order is placed.

Incorrect. The law states you must SHIP the product within 30 days (not that it is to be received) after PAYMENT is taken - NOT the order being placed.

Your argument is invalid as it is entirely possible to take orders in advance and take payment only when the product is ready to be shipped.

[riverbee1]

You didn't make a payment, you refunded the man's money after holding onto it for over three months.

The payment is listed on the website. Read the article again, or have someone read it to you.

I am delighted Utah has a statue to protect consumers from bad business practices of deadbeat companies. I hope other states do as well.

http://connect2utah.com/get-gephardt...?nxd_id=164467

every states laws are different, and Utah’s are excellent. it is worth checking with your states consumer protection division, and filing a complaint as he did. your state may have similar remedies as utah’s does. tennessee does not have a refund or delivery policy I can find as Utah does, but has other applicable Tennessee Consumer Protection Laws (you can find them on www.tenn.gov, and go to codes).

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED
© 2011 by The State of Tennessee
Title 39 Criminal Offenses
Chapter 14 Offenses Against Property
Part 1 Theft

39-14-127. Deceptive business practices.
(a) A person commits an offense who, with intent to deceive, in the course of business:

(2) Sells, offers or exposes for sale, or delivers less than the represented quantity of any commodity or service;

(5) Makes a false or misleading statement in any advertisements addressed to the public or to a substantial segment thereof for the purposes of promoting the purchase or sale of property or services;

(c) Deceptive business practices is a Class B misdemeanor.

Title 47 Commercial Instruments And Transactions
Chapter 18 Consumer Protection
Part 1 Consumer Protection Act of 1977
47-18-104. Unfair or deceptive acts prohibited.

(a) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting the conduct of any trade or commerce constitute unlawful acts or practices and are Class B misdemeanors.

(b) The following unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared to be unlawful and in violation of this part:

(2) Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services. This subdivision (b)(2) does not prohibit the private labeling of goods and services;


(3) Causing likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection or association with, or certification by, another. This subdivision (b)(3) does not prohibit the private labeling of goods or services;

(9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;

(10) Advertising goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity;

(17) Advertising of any sale by falsely representing that a person is going out of business;

(22) Using any advertisement containing an offer to sell goods or services when the offer is not a bona fide effort to sell the advertised goods or services. An offer is not bona fide, even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, if the first contact or interview is secured by deception;

(27) Engaging in any other act or practice which is deceptive to the consumer or to any other person; provided, however, that enforcement of this subdivision (b)(27) is vested exclusively in the office of the attorney general and reporter and the director of the division;

(29) Advertising that a business is "going out of business" more than ninety (90) days before such business ceases to operate;

47-18-108. Restraining orders or injunctions -- Penalty for violation.

(a) (1) Whenever the division has reason to believe that any person has engaged in, is engaging in, or, based upon information received from another law enforcement agency, is about to engage in any act or practice declared unlawful by this part and that proceedings would be in the public interest, the attorney general and reporter, at the request of the division, may bring an action in the name of the state against such person to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction the use of such act or practice.

(b) (1) The court may make such orders or render such judgments as may be necessary to restore to any person who has suffered any ascertainable loss by reason of the use or employment of such unlawful method, act, or practice, any money or property, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situated, which may have been acquired by means of any act or practice declared to be unlawful by this part.

(2) The court may also enter an order temporarily or permanently revoking a license or certificate authorizing that person to engage in business in this state, if evidence has been presented to the court establishing knowing and persistent violations of this part.

(3) The court may also order payment to the state of a civil penalty of not more of than one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation.

(4) The court may also order reimbursement to the state for the reasonable costs and expenses of investigation and prosecution of actions under this part, including attorneys' fees.

c) Any knowing violation of the terms of an injunction or order issued pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) shall be punishable by a civil penalty of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), recoverable by the state for each violation, in addition to any other appropriate relief.

47-18-109. Private right of action -- Damages -- Notice to division.

(a) (1) Any person who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situated, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive act or practice described in § 47-18-104(b) and declared to be unlawful by this part, may bring an action individually to recover actual damages.

(3) If the court finds that the use or employment of the unfair or deceptive act or practice was a willful or knowing violation of this part, the court may award three (3) times the actual damages sustained and may provide such other relief as it considers necessary and proper, except that the court may not award exemplary or punitive damages for the same unfair or deceptive practice.

(4) In determining whether treble damages should be awarded, the trial court may consider, among other things:

(A) The competence of the consumer or other person;

(B) The nature of the deception or coercion practiced upon the consumer or other person;

(C) The damage to the consumer or other person; and

(D) The good faith of the person found to have violated the provisions of this part

. 47-18-114. Powers of attorney general.

The attorney general and reporter, at the request of the division, may bring any appropriate action or proceeding in any court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of this part.

[riverbee1]

as paul harvey would say, “and here is the rest of the story!” an update from Utah:

Get Gephardt: How to Fight when the Product you Order Never Arrives

(a portion of the article)
“Winters mailed a letter to Jacob saying, "I recently had a long 'discussion' with your state 'Gestapo' investigator."
And with that letter came a check for Jacob's complete refund.

And, of course, nothing about these state investigators is Gestapo-like. I'm told the investigator simply pointed out that when a company doesn't ship a product within 30 days, the state of Utah has the power to fine the company $1500. That's a lot more than just refunding Jacob's $266, which he clearly deserved back.”

David Winters comment to this article: (copied and pasted in full)

beemaster01 Thursday, 22 September 2011

"No company that ships honeybees can comply with Utah law as it is physically impossible. By the time a bee breeder can ship to Utah and comply with the law, there will be no more bees available. The reason is beekeepers from everywhere else that order months in advance will have take all available bees before the shipping season starts. Another danger is that even though a beekeeper got his bees, the shipper can still be fined because it took longer than 30 days to receive the bees. Ntat is not a very bee friendly situation."

my question is, what law in any state has david winters of long creek apiaries complied with when there are beeks waiting for refunds and bees not shipped for 2 or 3 years?
in my experience, let’s not get into the reasons, list is too long,……danger zone

[beemaster01]

............ I'm told the investigator simply pointed out that when a company doesn't ship a product within 30 days, the state of Utah has the power to fine the company $1500.

Isn't that almost word for word what I posted earlier? To avoid be repetitious and get deleted or warned, refer to earlier posting about how the bee supply industry works.

[riverbee1]

[QUOTE=riverbee1;712254]as paul harvey would say, “and here is the rest of the story!” an update from Utah:

"Get Gephardt: How to Fight when the Product you Order Never Arrives
my question is, what law in any state has david winters of long creek apiaries complied with when there are beeks waiting for refunds and bees not shipped for 2 or 3 years?"

again, what law in any state has david winters of long creek apiaries complied with when there are beeks waiting for refunds and bees not shipped for 2 or 3 years?

[riverbee1]

Might get even more views and dissertations, if beeks knew they might receive a snarly email when beemaster winters sends a ‘partial payment’ to the wrong address because he doesn’t keep good records, and 1-threaten to charge the beek he took money from, for the stop payment of the alleged 10% he sent to the wrong address and also 2-threaten to charge the beek he took money from, for the cost of sending an alleged ‘partial payment’ to the correct address by certified mail.

[beemaster01]

If it is a "wrong address", how could you possibly have received your bees there. Why is your "real address" in MN and your address state listed here and all you web pages listed in WI? The mail has not been returned as undeliverable by the post office. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[krad1964]

As promised, I am posting to say I received a partial refund for the two packages that I ordered this spring but did not receive.

I will post again when I receive the next nine payments.

[beemaster01]

.......... LCA refunded the $266 to the beek and sent a letter about the "gestapo" state investigator.......

Bankruptcy law provides that anyone paid in excess of what others in the class receive within 90 days of filing, will be required to pay back to the trustee the excess amount for fair distribution to others. Also lawsuits and other means of collection will be halted upon filing. So you might want to think about it before spend the money to file a lawsuit or hire a lawyer as they will be automatically dismissed. The payment you mentioned falls in that excess payment classification.

[riverbee1]

Bankruptcy law provides that anyone paid in excess of what others in the class receive within 90 days of filing, will be required to pay back to the trustee the excess amount for fair distribution to others. Also lawsuits and other means of collection will be halted upon filing. So you might want to think about it before spend the money to file a lawsuit or hire a lawyer as they will be automatically dismissed. The payment you mentioned falls in that excess payment classification.

United States Bankruptcy Law does not protect fraudulent debt.

[Jeffzhear]

I got a strange email out of the clear blue from someone claiming to be Barry Carter this morning. dated 10/01/2010, which starts out like this " Because David Winters at Long Creek Apiaries owes me for 7 hives or the money he was paid since 2009, I won’t deal with anyone for anything in Tennessee."...

A few thoughts;

First I came here to see if Long Creek Apiaries" was being discussed and sure enough...I found this thread.

Second, if Barry Carter's intent was to add more pressure by sending an email to all/select Tennessee beekeepers, he might have just done that.

Third, did he get the listing of Tennessee beekeepers from this site or a general search....I can only wonder.

Lastly, I don't think it is right to heap the alleged misdeeds of one individual on others who had no direct or indirect involvement, but in a free market economy Barry Carter can do what he pleases with his money. In any event, I wish him the best and hope he finds a satisfactory resolution.

[beemaster01]

United States Bankruptcy Law does not protect fraudulent debt.

Creditors ALWAYS say that in bankruptcy cases.

[Rodeo]

Just wondering if anyone out there has dealt with Long Creek Apiaries in Parrotsville, TN. I'm having a really bad experience with them. He cashed my check and never sent the package bees. Besides the BBB of Eastern TN, what would be my best avenue to get my money back?

Stay away from Long Creek Apiaries. David Winters will take your money and give you nothing but greif.

[Rodeo]

I paid for eight three pound packages of Russian bees in 2008 and have still not received anything but a bunch of BS. David Winters will cash your check and deliver nothing but empty promises. The sooner he goes out of busniss the better. All I can say is stay away.

[Rodeo]

If anyone has any idea how to take actual legal action against LCA that won't cost an arm and a leg, please let me know. I'm from Missouri and so far the only recourse has been the BBB, who can't do anything and the Department of Commerce and Insurance through the Tennessee Division of Consumer Affairs who can't force Winters to do the right thing. I am super frustrated and really angery about this. He owes me over $700.00.

[Rodeo]

To all 1000+ readers of this thread: Please count the the number of different people on this thread that are complaining. FIVE! That is FIVE out of hundreds of satisfied customers. It is sad that FIVE people can have such influence with only one side of the story. There are others on the tread offering advice based on one side of the story. I have no complaints with them. Such is the double edge of the internet.

We took orders based on our projected capability determined by normal weather. We went from an extreme drought to a surplus in just a few months. Our quality standards demand that we determine that all bees that we ship are the best on the market. I am sorry that some of you feel that bees should be shipped on time irregardless of quality. They did exactly what you wanted them to do, then you bad mouth the company when the stock is bad! We will not intentionally ship bad stock. Period! All our policies are spelled out on our website address that is listed in our ads. Read it!

All I ask is that you have both sides of the story before you make a decision about a company. I do not feel that is unreasonable.

There would be no problem if the money that was paid in good faith for merchandise that was never delivered were returned.