(disclaimer; this response and report was mostly written well before now - on monday after the

Saturday when mr. Leuca opened the inquery with me. Paypal can check i made a call into their
customer support on that day to complain about the validity of the type of claims mr Leuca is filing
here. I didnt finish the report and go through with the response then since i considered the whole
thing to be pitiful but i think i should defend my honour and integritity so i am not ready to concide
to claims which i consider as described in the following report (to be sure my responses from now
on will be swift - i think i have exahausted all of what i would like to put forth so I doubt there be
any more need for long winding explanations))

Hello mr Leuca,

Im sorry for your bad experience with my product, but i will have to investigate further to verify
your claims and the thrutfulness of your account since the least any of us would want is to feel he
got scammed, right?

So, I will go by your first message since obviously it should be clear and coinsice if we are dealing
with real claims here. You say " I did not get a chance to try the module st the time I received it
because I did not have my Eurorack case setup with power supply, etc. All I did is plug it in to see if
it powers up correctly. " Im sorry, but this does not make any sense. You seemed to have had every
chance to test your module then and there and you decided to postopne that for 5 and a half months
and claim item not as described now? I d like to believe you but i cant see a reason why anyone
would behave like that. Since maybe its not clear to paypal why this seems unresonable let me
present an analogy; what mr Leuca is saying basically is that it is as if someone would have bought
a car from someone. Claim he couldnt have drove the car cause he didnt have the keys for it. Then
claim in a following sentece he was able to fire the car up to see if it works. So what actually
prevented him from driving it? Nothing basically.

There is a possbility mr Leuca will try to claim he didnt have other modules to route into Clouds as
to test the innner workings of the module, but he obviously has those modules since he is selling
modules like that exactly on the platform where he bought a module from me (link to his general
selling page https://www.modulargrid.net/e/offers/view/17280 ). From that list at least 3 are of the
type which are routable into the Clouds module i have sold to him and with which he could have
tested if Clouds is working as described (the one which he started selling earliest from the 3 is
OSC303MKII module, which he has on the site selling from 18. of november) - that is he should
have noted Clouds not working at least 21 days before the 9. of decemeber when he filed the claim
if his claim that my Clouds arrived faulty were true.

Second to that;
Notice the rack rash comment on one of the modules he is selling (
https://www.modulargrid.net/e/offers/view/17280 ) ? He says he didnt have the case and rails to
house the module but the module he is selling has a rack rash (that is a small intendt that develops
when module is housed in a rack.. it deleops around each hole by which the module is bolted to the
rails of the case - see the 4 holes in this pic; https://www.modulargrid.net/img/modcache/244.b.jpg -
this is not a pic of his module, btw - and here is a rack rash pic from my own module i have here at
the moment, so you will know exactly what we are taking about - https://i.imgur.com/iYCIvqe.jpg )

Going by the previous analogy he is claiming he didnt use the modules he has (a car in the analogy),
but he claims for at least one the modules (cars) it has worn out tires (indent which develops from
case being screwed into the rack) (And panels cant be swaped like tires betwen modules- think of a
panel as a special tire used only for that type of module).

Or mr Leuca might claim he bought that module with rack rash second hand with a rack rash
already present.. but then mr. Leuca has a very pelicular habit of aquiering expensive audio gear -
all of what he seems to have 8 module selling on this site
( https://www.modulargrid.net/e/offers/view/17280 ) plus one of mine, that is 175eur + 475eur +
200EUR + 220EUR +380EUR + 210EUR + 200EUR + 280EUR = 2140EUR!! worth of gear (8
individual pieces) + he claimed in private conversaton with me had al leats another module not on
this list (OC which he traded for Rings, which he wanted to buy from me in october - proof here in
red - blob:https://imgur.com/b626812b-fa51-49e4-9f02-4b9e51fa696b ) which is price around 200
eur, so all together he has 2340EUR worth of gear, he didnt use or couldnt test from the time he
aquiered it which seems to be by the records im pointing to here for atleast 6 months. Can paypal
please elude to me if these seems to be normal or expected consumer practice?

Further, mr. Leuca contacted me on 16th of october trying to buy another module from me with the
following message ("Hi, do you also makes rings? I have your clouds.." proof here;
blob:https://imgur.com/97f6a056-dfda-4f22-8763-7160ff29f486 ) .. Again mr Leuca acted to the
least unresponibely if his recent claims are true. In the analogy he seems to have wanted to buy
another car from me while he didnt even test the first car he bought from me if it works. Really?
Tell me please, how likely is that someone who makes a normal and pleasent deal with someone
through some marketplace/platform and then clamps down on that seller with a paypal claim when
he supposedly 5 motnhs latter discovered the item is faulty. Who with that kind of anal mindset
wants to buy another piece of gear from the same person when he didnt even confirm the first item
is "as described" . Can paypal please explain to me if is this is a belivable consumer practice,
please?

So what follows from the facts that i have presented here is that mr Leuca falsly claimed that he
couldnt have tested the module i have sent to him well before the date he filed a claim of item not as
described. He obviously had other modules that work with the module i sold him (that is he has/had
oscilators (audio sources) - while my module is a processor or an effect) and he had power supply to
power the modules - as admitted in the first message. So this leads me to believe his account is
questionable in hole after that since this claim is basically a wager on which the whole claim that i
sent him a faulty module rests. Module can be faulty at this moment by all accounts, but it was not
received like that and if it got fauluty it was by use mr. Leuca has put the module through. Now that
is a hole different matter and should be dealt in the warranty or post sale service terms that i am
willing to offer to any of my honest and sincere customers. What seems to be the case here is that
mr Leuca got fed up with the module or actually module got broken through his use and he figured
that the "item not as described" clause can be credible for an item which is like that upon reciving it,
so he made a make believe stunt whereby he claimed that he couldnt have tested it before now (5
moths and more after he got it) which i think i credibly shown is not true. As said, that doesnt
change the after sale service mr. Leuca is entitled to but his claims that module was faulty from the
start are NOT TRUE!

So i would like to propose to mr Leuca to drop his account of how things happened and I would
advise him to follow a normal procedure for an after sale service through the initial platform where
module was sold. Mr. Leuca should realize that i am a trusted seller in the community and that i
have sold over 150 (at least 30 of the same type as mr. Leuca holds) modules i make all over the
world in the last 7 months and i have never had a claim filed against me. Both can be confirmed by
paypal easily. Granted most of the transactions were with FF option but i also have an ebay account
where i have sold 2 of the modules mr. Leuca has in the last month and nothing was filed against
me till now. My record is clean, i d be advised to check what kind of record does mr Leuca hold. I
test every module i send out, the least of the testing would be to test each stereo channel of the
module. Second to that, when fault developed mr Leuca didnt even try to contact me through the
platform where i have sold him the module. He went straight to the paypla claim. Interesting
enough every repair claim i had till now no one acted like that which speaks volumes to my mind.
Second thing i would like to emhasize is that if paypal allows cases like this to come through then
its got a huge hole for which I see no reason to exploit myself or to mention it to the community
where pieces of gear switch hands reularly within 6 months of having a new owner. Somone who
doesnt want to put effort into selling it forward for maybe less can just make a stunt as presented
here and he is done. Quite a situation. Here by i will present all the other documentation to support
my claims;

Here are pics of the package, the posting docs before tracking number was produced for his package
and also his module being worked on. (time tags can be provided for this pics upon request);

https://imgur.com/a/Cjq3E

Here are screen prints of the modules he is selling;

https://i.imgur.com/7ei0E2F.png / Rach rash comment -> https://i.imgur.com/AA5VOOi.jpg

Link to my offer on modulargrid;

https://www.modulargrid.net/e/offers/view/16242

Link to customer oppinions of me on the forum;

https://www.modulargrid.net/e/forum/posts/index/563

PS;

Regarding the faults that developed with module and can be dealt in an after sale service as
mentioned;

Regarding the gain pot, first of all Tayda doesnt even carry parts like that in their catalogue. I dont
know how you think you can just accuse people of a bad build when you dont know simple things
like that. Second of all, gain pot is wobbly cause its a board mounted pot, not a panel mounted one
like the other pots on Clouds. That means its not secured to the panel with a nut which is screwed
up on the shaft of the pot to fasten it against the panel - you can see other pots on the module are
fastned to the panel by that method. Why is there a board mounted pot prescribed by the Mutable
Build of materials for the gain function of the Clouds module instead of panel mounted one. I dont
know, fact is it is prescribed and the pot is exactly like the one used on mutables builts. Here is the
link of the BOM for Clouds;
https://github.com/pichenettes/eurorack/blob/master/clouds/hardware_design/Clouds.xlsx (click
view raw). In the 46. row you will find the prescribed part which is " Bourns PTV112-4420A-A503
" and which is used also in orginal build and was bought by me from Mouser - where you can find it
under this product page; https://eu.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?
R=0virtualkey0virtualkeyPTV112-4420A-A503 . And if you compare it with a module on sight you
will se its the same. So in all, that button functions exactly as it should. If scratch developed with
the pot then this can be dealt with in repair.
Regarding the stereo output claim i would have to see a video of this fault to make any definitive
claim. Socket cant be incorrectly wired, maybe the switching mechanisem went which can be
repaird easily. Please get back at me on the platform as discussed.