A cautionary tale about Borrow Lenses.com

S.Horton wrote in post #14282230
My business is (anti) counterfeiting and supply chain diversion -- to me, it does sound quite a bit like this vendor has a problem. A lot of scams for theft involve over-packing and shipping to confederates who keep the items and eBay them.

It very well could be OP encountered hostile people because, gasp, they over-packed to him instead of the "right" recipient, namely one of their confederates in the diversion scheme. So, the owner of the company would be wise to conduct a physical audit now, and look hard for packages were OVER weight upon shipment.

Yeah, that sounds about right.... Is also possible that maybe there are only 2 to 3 people working in the packaging and shipping. So, you don't have another supervisor to re-verify what is inside the container. Verifying the weight won't work because they would need to know the original weight before the package is sealed up. The only time they know about the weight is when the package is sealed up already and ready to get sent out. Nothing would look suspicious at all.

TooManyShots wrote in post #14282349
Yeah, that sounds about right.... Is also possible that maybe there are only 2 to 3 people working in the packaging and shipping. So, you don't have another supervisor to re-verify what is inside the container. Verifying the weight won't work because they would need to know the original weight before the package is sealed up. The only time they know about the weight is when the package is sealed up already and ready to get sent out. Nothing would look suspicious at all.

Well, if you know that the weight of an order for a single lens is supposed to be 3.5 lbs and the package gets weighed in closer to 9 lbs (just throwing numbers off) you know there was an issue when the item was sent.

Also, in reading up on the site, this might not be protected under FTC (or at least as straight-forward as we thought). The lenses aren't 'sold', they're leased and remain the property of BL. Because of this, and because you're NOT being charged for it, if the OP were to admit to having their property and failing to return it upon demand (since he doesn't technically own it, and hasn't been charged for it), then I could see some more confusing things happening..

You-by-Lou wrote in post #14282007
Pretty sure I'm reading the company did not promise him anything rather a misguided employee did.

A company can hardly be responsible for that..

Actually, yes they can. It can be an agency issue and by law someone who is reasonably perceived to be an agent of the company can speak for that company.

Imagine that you go into a bank and deposit $1000 with a teller. Later the bank comes back to you and says that the teller really snuck into the bank and pretended to be a teller and stole $50,000 in cash deposits, of which your $1000 was part.

Do you think the bank can just tell you "well too bad, that person was not authorized to do that, and he got away with your money..."

Nope....doesn't work like that.

CMfromIL wrote in post #14281751
Are you kidding me? The FTC regulates this very type of situation. Companies are FORBIDDEN from sending merchandice to consumers unordered and then 'demanding payment'.

At what point was payment demanded?

Perhaps, before allowing your panties to get knotted, you should read the actual thread and understand what happened. They never demanded payment...

So Borrow Lenses decides that the guy in the shipping department is engaged in theft. Accordingly, they throw him under a bus. They fire him and file chages against him. Now the lenses become evidence.

It wouldn't be a first time and, depending on the value of the lenses, could certainly be plausible...

Numenorean wrote in post #14282411
Actually, yes they can. It can be an agency issue and by law someone who is reasonably perceived to be an agent of the company can speak for that company.

Imagine that you go into a bank and deposit $1000 with a teller. Later the bank comes back to you and says that the teller really snuck into the bank and pretended to be a teller and stole $50,000 in cash deposits, of which your $1000 was part.

Do you think the bank can just tell you "well too bad, that person was not authorized to do that, and he got away with your money..."

Nope....doesn't work like that.

What an absolutely ridiculous scenario...

Nw guy here with a quick? Is it OK to bash businesses or discuss deals gone bad on the forums?

And FWIW, to the OP, I'd be pissed too.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Foodguy wrote in post #14282495
Nw guy here with a quick? Is it OK to bash businesses or discuss deals gone bad on the forums?

And FWIW, to the OP, I'd be pissed too.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Surprisingly enough, you're not allowed to do it for people with whom you have private dealings on the forums (i.e. if I had actually sold you my 50 f/1.4 last week and I scammed you somehow, you couldn't come on here and say 'don't buy from that MistaBernie guy, he's a scammer'), but when you have a difficulty, etc, with a company (such as in the OP's case), it's apparently allowed.

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14282480
What an absolutely ridiculous scenario...

Almost as ridiculous as getting two Zeiss lenses included with your rental with a retail value of $8000+, right?

In seriousness, I agree, even if the example was a little far-fetched. Why shouldn't the company hold the employee accountable? If I were a manager and someone who reported to me made a mistake that cost a customer money, I would do whatever I could to satisfy that customer and rectify the situation because of the error that the person reporting to me made (and also because it's good business sense)>

I've had some interesting experiences with Borrowlenes as well.
I rented a Canon radio transmitter last winter and accidentally dropped it. It kind of broke but I was able to superglue the hotshoe attachment back on and it worked alright. When I went back to return it I informed them of the mishap and they said they would be contacting me about repair price. So for about four months I was worried about having to pay an insane amount of money to them for the repair and time that the unit was in repair but on a random day I got sent an email from them notifying me that my rental had been "resolved" which gave me some sort of relief. I'm still weary of the fact that I didn't have to pay them, which made me wonder why. As for renting from them again, They're HQ is close to where I live but unless I need a lens or what have you in two hours I'd, rather go to Lensrentals or Calumet SF.

Mistabernie wrote in post #14282609
Surprisingly enough, you're not allowed to do it for people with whom you have private dealings on the forums (i.e. if I had actually sold you my 50 f/1.4 last week and I scammed you somehow, you couldn't come on here and say 'don't buy from that MistaBernie guy, he's a scammer'), but when you have a difficulty, etc, with a company (such as in the OP's case), it's apparently allowed.

>

Got it!
Thank you sir.

Foodguy wrote in post #14282495
Nw guy here with a quick? Is it OK to bash businesses or discuss deals gone bad on the forums?

And FWIW, to the OP, I'd be pissed too.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Happens all the times. Look under "BH" and "Adorama"... They are great vendors. However, once in a while, they will get dissatisfied customers and they would rant here.

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14282480
What an absolutely ridiculous scenario...

True, but it's to illustrate that yes the company may be responsible. If someone is acting as an agent of a company and a person has reasonable cause to believe they are doing so, then yeah the company can be responsible for what that agent says.

bikeboynate wrote in post #14282704
I've had some interesting experiences with Borrowlenes as well.
I rented a Canon radio transmitter last winter and accidentally dropped it. It kind of broke but I was able to superglue the hotshoe attachment back on and it worked alright. When I went back to return it I informed them of the mishap and they said they would be contacting me about repair price. So for about four months I was worried about having to pay an insane amount of money to them for the repair and time that the unit was in repair but on a random day I got sent an email from them notifying me that my rental had been "resolved" which gave me some sort of relief. I'm still weary of the fact that I didn't have to pay them, which made me wonder why. As for renting from them again, They're HQ is close to where I live but unless I need a lens or what have you in two hours I'd, rather go to Lensrentals or Calumet SF.

so you're going to take your business away from the company that didn't charge you for breaking their rental equipment??

NounStudio wrote in post #14283276
so you're going to take your business away from the company that didn't charge you for breaking their rental equipment??

Yeah, because if I go back there who knows what they might do? Especially after reading the OP's statements and seeing the treatment they've given him? That's just not right. Plus, Calumet SF is a lot friendlier to me

I think the company handled this totally inappropriately and with zero professionalism.

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14282436
At what point was payment demanded?

Perhaps, before allowing your panties to get knotted, you should read the actual thread and understand what happened. They never demanded payment...

I did read it. Clearly you got lost in the details. Payment wasn't demanded. I never implied that it was. But the FTC does forbid a company 'demanding payment' for unordered goods. Accidental or not.

BreitlingFan wrote in post #14282436
So Borrow Lenses decides that the guy in the shipping department is engaged in theft. Accordingly, they throw him under a bus. They fire him and file chages against him. Now the lenses become evidence.
It wouldn't be a first time and, depending on the value of the lenses, could certainly be plausible.. .

You watch too much TV. First, BL would need to know where the lenses went. Seeing as they didn't even know that they left the warehouse it would be a little difficult to pin that on the OP.

Secondly, they would have to prove some sort of collusion between the OP and the shipping person. That would be if they even got anywhere.

You seem to belive that if BL had managed to figure out the lenses had been shipped somewhere they could call the police, and SWAT, FBI, NTSB, Delta Force, Green Berets, a contingent of SEALs, and the third brigade would storm onto the OP's property (probably THAT NIGHT), execute a search warrent -most likely a no-knock because God Knows what else he'd be hiding, try him in the front lawn, and most likely execute him before the break of dawn.

That's how it would go down.

Mistabernie wrote in post #14282359
Also, in reading up on the site, this might not be protected under FTC (or at least as straight-forward as we thought). The lenses aren't 'sold', they're leased and remain the property of BL. Because of this, and because you're NOT being charged for it, if the OP were to admit to having their property and failing to return it upon demand (since he doesn't technically own it, and hasn't been charged for it), then I could see some more confusing things happening..

The issue isn't about failing to return it after notifying the company. Although if he were to write them (Per the FTC) and give a time frame such as 30 days and they don't act on it...they would be his. The lease agreement doesnt change the facts.

In this case, he did notify them, and they did want to pick it up. Thus he loses any 'claim' to them. If he didn't bother to call them, he would be $8,000 richer in lenses. That of course is not the 'moral' thing to do, but it is 100% LEGAL.

http://www.ftc.gov …sumer/products/​pro15.shtm

From a .pdf from the FTC: