Well thats pretty much ended that idea and probably this thread

I mean, what can you say after seeing that

In 1994, Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz first heard about the SmartWood program while attending the Rainforest Alliance’s annual gala concert. He reasoned that, by establishing relationships with environmentally farsighted operations, Gibson could secure a sustainable timber supply, thereby ensuring its guitar building future.
Four years later (1998), Gibson had revealed the fruits of those relationships with the Les Paul SmartWood Exotics[8]. The new line consisted of six guitars featuring tops fashioned from unusual, "smartly" harvested tropical woods. Each guitar listed for $1299 new, and in the spirit of philanthropy, Gibson donated a portion of the profits from the SmartWood guitar sales to the Rainforest Alliance.

Actually, CV, if its shown that Gibson knowingly sold guitars that included illegally obtained materials, then those consumers were defrauded as Gibson would have knowingly misrepresented the legality of the product.

.

OhmyGod! Well I never thought I'd be the one to object to a photo - but REALLY!!!

That has completely ruined the picture of Jay I'd invented in my mind's eye. Fella, get a shave!

Ew - C

I know I know.

I've spent the whole morning rethinking my attitudes towards darwinism.

Do you recognize that ignorance does not create immunity from the law?

You certainly could be correct about the terminology. It might not techically be "fraud". But lets be clear. Nobody is suggesting Gibson told its customers the wood was Ebony when it really was something else. The misrepresentation occurs when unique qualifiers of that particular ebony were ommitted. It is a misrepresentation to describe it as "ebony" when, in fact, its "ebony that was banned and is now illegal for you to possess". I suspect that if its proven that Gibson KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN the wood was illegal, the ommission of the illegality of that wood constitutes fraud. But Im not a lawyer and neither are you. So, it might not be fraud, but it is non-the-less illegal to own illegall products. Wouldnt you agree?

Consider this example. Lets say you took your car to the shop for repair. The shop manager told you that you have a bad transmission. You agree to pay the shop to replace the transmission. They do replace the transmission and you pay for it and drive away. Now, what happens if the FBI then raids the shop for using stolen car parts in the repairs it makes? And what if it turns out that your new transmission was actually supplied by a chop-shop that pulled it from a stolen car? Do you think you would be allowed to keep the transmission? Does it matter if the mechanic didnt know the transmission was stolen? What if they did know?

I suspect, CV, that you appreciate the concept that its illegal to own illegal products, regardless of how you obtained them. Wouldnt you agree?

Now, you suggest that recalls typically stem from potential damage to consumers. I could be inaccurate and Government may not pursue potentially illegal guitars. But if they did, and the consumer lost possession of the guitar they purchased, wouldnt they be "damaged" equal to the amount they paid for the guitar? Of course they would. Might they file suit? Of course. Might Gibson try to settle the suit? Typical. COULD that settlement include a promise to fix the problem? Isnt that basically a recall?

You might be correct. I dont know. Maybe the legal remody for this type of situation does not include collecting the illegal products. But the law at least tries to be consistent conceptually.

Stolen transmission=banned wood.

BigJayfoot lives!!!

Well, in our country, we pay $900 for a toilet seat and $90 for a galvanized bolt washer.

Jay you know I in no way would seek to hurt you in anyway. If any of that joke offends say the word and I'll get it gone. Hey atleast we all know what to get you for Christmas.