greg_slaughter1

For anyone interested, it is the California Commercial Code section 2403 that provides that a good faith purchaser for value obtains good title to personal property, even though the property may have been stolen. Other states may have similar statuates, but I'm not sure.

Another thing I've learned is not to use my Visa to make significant purchasers. While Visa will allow for a dispute up to 120 days, that wasn't long enough, since I didn't learn from Nikon that the camera was stolen until at least a year. Mastercard and American Express don't have these limits in the case of stolen property. Also, when you buy using Visa, you have much less clout, because the Visa corporation is more of a shell, which lisences its name to member banks. So, when a dispute arrises, they send you back to your member bank, which, depending upon size (mine is just a minor credit union) may have very little clout with merchants. I'm not sure, but maybe I would have fared better with a Visa from a major bank.

By the way, to answer Craig's question, I only have Nikon's word that the camera was stolen.

One possible explanation is the great range of quality of ilfochrome

prints. So far, I have yet to get digital prints made from

chromes that come anywhere close to my best printed ilfochrome

prints, which were printed by one of the best ilfochrome printers

in the country before he figured out he had to modernize and do only

digital printing. If he still did ilfochrome printing, I probably

wouldn't have felt the need to try digital processes. So now that

I don't know anyone who can compare to his printing, I'm stuck

trying to equal it in the digital world. Right now, I have a

single ilfochrome print left of a particular image, and I've submitted

it as a guide for a very well respected digital printer. On two

tries, they are still way off. I'm still hoping one day to be able

to match ilfochrome, sigh!