Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: hunter on May 21, 2009, 03:03:41 PM
-
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/18/Guitar.pdf
-
And the plaintiff is Ronnie Montrose!
I feel a bit sorry for GM though, presumably he bought it in good faith and he's owned it for many years, whereas Ronnie only had it a few months.
This bit made me laugh:
"Those photographs show significant wear and tear damage to the '59 Gibson which substantiates a risk of future damage so long as the '59 Gibson remains in Mr Moore's possession."
:lol:
-
So let me get this straight:
Montrose's rare Les Paul is stolen in 1972.
Gary Moore plays it worldwide for >30 years, during which time many thousands of photos are taken of it, appearing in hundreds of magazines (let alone the huge number of people that actually saw him play it?!!)
Yet it's taken until 2007 for Montrose to track it down? Methinks he needs to hire better private investigators :roll:
Also, the LP he's talking about isn't the Les Paul that Peter Green once owned, had a major neck repair & was recently sold to a collector is it? If so, surely Gary Moore can trace its ownership was back beyond '72 & tell Mr Montrose to sling his hook, plus the fact he doesn't even own it anymore :)
-
"Those photographs show significant wear and tear damage to the '59 Gibson which substantiates a risk of future damage so long as the '59 Gibson remains in Mr Moore's possession."
:lol:
This is probably a well placed lawyer statement, to justify urgency for the case and put pressure on the court proceedings. That's what I thought when I read it.
-
It doesn't say how long GM has owned it, he may have had it a few years or a couple of decades.
If the theft was reported in '72, which it sounds like it was, and they can prove Gary has the guitar, he'll have to give it back I think.....
-
Also, the LP he's talking about isn't the Les Paul that Peter Green once owned, had a major neck repair & was recently sold to a collector is it? If so, surely Gary Moore can trace its ownership was back beyond '72 & tell Mr Montrose to sling his hook, plus the fact he doesn't even own it anymore :)
I think he had two '59s, the Peter Green one (which he got in '72, so of course Peter owned it before that) and this one. As far as I can remember from old interviews, it was cleaner-looking and much less faded than the PG guitar.
-
The one they're in dispute over is "Stripe", which is a pretty guitar. It may get ugly, as Gary is particularly fond of the tone of this one I think:
(http://www.burstserial.com/gallery/main.php?cmd=image&var1=1959%2F9+2227%2F9+2227-01.jpg)
-
Not sure how this'll work, as the case has been filed in the US, and Gary resides in England.
It's not a criminal case either. He has no obligation to respond.
Is it not true that in English law, "good faith" means you can keep the goods, except for cars?
-
Where's Elliot? He's our legal expert.
-
give him chance philly - its only been 2 hours!! :P
-
I think the fact that Gary Moore tours and spends time in the US means they think they have a case. Maybe, maybe not.....
-
This is a civil case, he is not accused of having broken the law.
However, I don't think he can enter the country unharmed if the trial states that he has to give the guitar back. I also don't think he would keep it - for PR reasons.
In Germany, civil cases between private individuals fall under the statue of limitations after 30 years, so I would think in that case Gary could keep it. But US law can be different, and I'm not a lawyer.
-
In English law Gary would probably be alright - As a general rule stolen goods are recoverable by the original owner as sales of chattels (like guitars) are about the transfer of title to the goods. The claim is not in theft (which is branch of criminal law) but in conversion and trespass to goods.
The bottom line is that a thief has no title to pass (he having never acquired a legitimate right to the goods) and therefore no can one derive 'title' from him to sell the goods. The consequence is that the original owner retains title and so can call for the goods to be returned. If you buy a stolen car or guitar, title doesn't pass to you, although you have a claim for your money back from the seller (if you can find him, that is!)
However, if the purchaser (or a chain of purchasers before him) purchased the goods in good faith (meaning they had no knowledge that the goods purchased were stolen) and has had possession of the goods for in excess of 6 years (or can show a chain of good faith transactions for in excess of 6 years) without a claim or notification from the original owner, then the original owner is barred by ss.2-4 of the Limitation Act 1980 from recovering the goods and his title is extinguished.
That's the law of England, but I have no idea about the law of California - As to American judgments - the English Courts may sometimes enforce them - but it is very complicated law. The fact that Gary Moore lives in the UK, the remedies against him in California are punitive and that he has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court tends to mean that the UK won't allow the enforcement. It may mean that Gary Moore won't be able to go to California though!
(sorry this is probably a bit heavy for a guitar board - and its all from memory, so it could contain errors)
-
I reckon Gary should just deck him
-
I reckon Gary should just deck him
:lol:
Love it!
-
considering GM let the Greeny LP go as he liked this 'other' 59 LP better says alot - it must be a KILLER axe.
I think GM should keep that 59 under lock and key in old blighty - Montrose can whistle for it :lol:
-
I reckon Gary should just deck him
:lol:
Love it!
Hmmm, I'm not sure about that, I'm a Montrose fan.... :?
But it seems a bit "unfair" bringing this case, somehow. If RM had been searching so hard, you'd have thought someone would have brought GM's guitar to his attention without it taking 35+ years....
-
According to the Les Paul forum, it was quite well known where the guitar was. Tom Whittrock over there (some big expert) even owned it himself for a while.
I wonder if he knew it was stolen from Montrose and that's why he sold it?????
-
considering GM let the Greeny LP go as he liked this 'other' 59 LP better says alot - it must be a KILLER axe.
I think GM should keep that 59 under lock and key in old blighty - Montrose can whistle for it :lol:
I think he had to sell it as he hurt his hand and had to cover the cost of a load of cancelled gigs that his insurance wouldn't stump up for. When it came to 59s he had 2 and the Greeny would fetch more
-
considering GM let the Greeny LP go as he liked this 'other' 59 LP better says alot - it must be a KILLER axe.
I think GM should keep that 59 under lock and key in old blighty - Montrose can whistle for it :lol:
I think he had to sell it as he hurt his hand and had to cover the cost of a load of cancelled gigs that his insurance wouldn't stump up for. When it came to 59s he had 2 and the Greeny would fetch more
yep, I read that too, but I also read that he preferred the tone of the 59 he kept (the one Montrose now wants back).
-
It's tough when you have to wonder which 59 to sell to pay the bills
We've all been there.
-
if the serial number was known, why wasnt it brought to his attention sooner? tthe whole things smells like bullshiteeee
hahahah... i love this sentence: "the guitar was in the collection of an English guitar player" ... like they couldnt just say gary has it
-
if the serial number was known, why wasnt it brought to his attention sooner? tthe whole things smells like bullshiteeeeeeee
hahahah... i love this sentence: "the guitar was in the collection of an English guitar player" ... like they couldnt just say gary has it
I don't think they had the serial number to begin with, they were just going by photos (there's a lesson for us all! :wink: )
The investigator, Indelicato, is shown a matching photo at a guitar show, and that's where he gets the "English guitar player" story. At that point, they don't know who it is (not that Moore's English anyway! :P ). He then finds another picture with the serial number and tracks that to Gary Moore via a website posting. "With that posting Mr. Indelicato finally had a name: Gary Moore."
-
It's tough when you have to wonder which 59 to sell to pay the bills
We've all been there.
:lol: :lol:
-
if the serial number was known, why wasnt it brought to his attention sooner? tthe whole things smells like bullshiteeeeeeeeee
hahahah... i love this sentence: "the guitar was in the collection of an English guitar player" ... like they couldnt just say gary has it
I don't think they had the serial number to begin with, they were just going by photos (there's a lesson for us all! :wink: )
The investigator, Indelicato, is shown a matching photo at a guitar show, and that's where he gets the "English guitar player" story. At that point, they don't know who it is (not that Moore's English anyway! :P ). He then finds another picture with the serial number and tracks that to Gary Moore via a website posting. "With that posting Mr. Indelicato finally had a name: Gary Moore."
k.. i still dont think he has a case. if the report was filed with the serial number, then yes. it would be THE guitar.. but based on a photo, he may or may not have found somewhere (a photo with which the guitar with the 922etc.. serial number matches) is dumb
-
It's a really interesting and tough case. As a guitarist, I can say they're the same guitar knowing about the figure and flame being unique. In a court of law, could a good lawyer argue otherwise???
The main issue is whether US law applies to the gutar and owner in the UK. In the UK, Gary owns the guitar quite legally, even if it was proven to be a previously stolen item.
-
Yeah, it doesn't sound like there's really any argument about it being the same guitar, it's all about which laws apply.
-
so long as GM doesn't take it on a US tour he'll be alright.
-
What's that story in the Old Testament? er, King Solomon or something...
Get the two of them in a room with the guitar... and a bloke with a big axe... (oh yeah, and me)
"The fairest outcome will be if you both get half..."
The one that goes "omigod - don't do that! He can have it, just don't break it..." is the one who should take it home. Simple! :D
Of course, if neither of them say that, then neither of them deserve it...
(that's why I'm in the room, btw :lol:)
-
Hmm, interesting. Dunno what this one's got in terms of legal legs, but it'll be interesting to find out if it ever goes to trial.