Over 550 Total Lots Up For Auction at Four Locations - NJ Garage Sale 03/04, NC 03/05, OH 03/06, CA 03/08

Be Careful Dealing with Doug Fischer

(5)
(3)
(49)

David Pac

Be Careful Dealing with Doug Fischer

November 22, 2011 03:53

I entered into a contract to sell a mobile PET/CT to Doug Fischer (then Imaging 100 now Imaging Acquisitions) with the understanding that the system had to be paid in full by the agreed upon date. He paid me $5,000.00 of the $45,000 agreed upon deposit stating he would pay the balance when he received it from his buyer. He never did. He inspected and accepted the system at the agreed upon price. Three weeks past the contracted final payment due date, he withdrew his offer to purchase the system unless a demand for a $25,000 price reduction was met. There was no contractual basis for this demand and I did not agree to it. Since payment was over three weeks late, the seller from whom I was buying the system ran out of time and was forced to sell the system to another buyer. Consequently I lost $20,000.00 that I had advanced to the seller as a good faith deposit plus the profit I would have made had I sold it to a different buyer.

Doug Fischer cannot be trusted to honor his agreements.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

Douglas Fischer

Re: Be Careful Dealing with Doug Fischer

December 12, 2011 05:45

David, your a nice guy, but neither you or the broker you partnered with on this deal have taken any responsibility of why this opportunity went south. I feel bad for you as you claim money was lost.

We also learned a very big lesson on this deal.

1. We will not contract on any system we are not directly dealing with the system owner and buyer. In this case we were buying from you, and you were buying from another broker, and that broker was buying from the owner. Best case we were 5 in line (3) brokers and 1 buyer/seller.

2. My buyer continue to request information required from his bank, which was like pulling teeth when we requested it. These requests were normal request when purchasing a system such as this.

3. It ended up with your broker 3rd in line getting into it with my buyers banker, it is my belief that after that my buyer chose to change his original offer as an attempt to renegotiate. This ended up back firing for him, as he lost this system.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

(5)
(3)
(49)

David Pac

Re: Be Careful Dealing with Doug Fischer

December 13, 2011 05:47

All “quoted” items are direct quotes from actual e-mails

Doug,

Your blaming my losing money on this deal to the fact that there was another broker involved is complete nonsense. It is an insult to me and the numerous honest brokers I have done business with for many years.

The bottom line is that you contracted to purchase and pay for a unit by a certain time and you did not act in good faith. As a matter of fact you strung me along for over three weeks. When we went to contract on March 8th you stated that “we can fund this unit immediately.” You also stated on March 24 (three days after the contracted payment deadline) that “The closing has already taken place. The funds are in a numbered account.” However, three weeks later on April 14 you still had not made payment. Instead you demanded a $25k price reduction! I did not appreciate the e-mail you sent your Dr. customer on the day you demanded a price reduction stating “I love the fact they are squirming”. You knew I was running out of time with this unit and you had the audacity to demand a $25k price reduction and then express the fact that you like to make me squirm! None of that had anything to do with other brokers being involved.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

Douglas Fischer

Re: Be Careful Dealing with Doug Fischer

January 03, 2012 08:29

THE FACTS:

1. During this period of time obtaining information such as (site id, system serial number, VIN, copy of title) from you and your fellow broker took days.

2. When my client arrived to inspect the equipment it was not there.

-- Requiring my client to wait 2-3 days
-- Immediately, following the site inspection My client had a scheduled international trip to visit his family.
-- Did you forget you asked my client to end his trip early.
-- Upon my clients return my clients banker requested a copy of title to confirm ownership and your right to sell. This was when your fellow broker told my clients banker he did not care what further information they needed. If payment was not made in 24 hours he had another buyer.
-- I was told your fellow broker used profanity but being I was not on that phone call I can not confirm.

My advise to any readers of this post is this:

1. Only buy equipment from system owners or those that have exclusive direct contracts to sell.
2. Never pay a deposit prior to inspection.
3. Be very cautious when sellers are unable or unwilling to provide basic information such as site id, system serial number, VIN, etc.


Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

(5)
(3)
(49)

David Pac

Re: Be Careful Dealing with Doug Fischer

January 03, 2012 06:47

Doug,

The facts are as follows:

Unfortunately,the inspection was delayed for 2 days due to transportation issues which we all agreed to accept. It had nothing to do with your failure to perform as you agreed to in the contract. As far as a copy of the title, we had a copy of the title. You promised to pay for the unit three and a half weeks before you even asked for a copy of it.

As far as your advice:

1. I had a “direct contract” to sell the unit. You did not honor that contract.

2. The industry standard is a 10% deposit before inspection as an act of good faith. You obviously do not think good faith is important. If you do not take deposits prior to inspection, why is the Doctor who you where trying sell this system to suing you because you failed to return a $50,000 deposit which he paid to you?

3. All of the basic information you say we where “unwilling or unable to provide” was on the trailer (ie, system ID, serial #, and VIN #) and was easily obtainable during the inspection. No one was unwilling to provide you with anything. You should or could have obtained that info. during the inspection. It was you who was unwilling to complete this deal as agreed to.
The bottom line is that you were unwilling to fulfill your end of the agreement without pressuring me into a $25k price reduction. Or as you as you put it “making me squirm”

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

Douglas Fischer

Re: Be Careful Dealing with Doug Fischer

January 04, 2012 04:10

Our client chose not to proceed on another system prior to looking at this system. We gave our client a credit to be used towards this system, but obviously he chose to offer a lower price, which did not work out ask he hoped. My contract with my client did not allow a refund.

I do wish you the best in the future, but it is obvious to both of us we will not be working together in the future.

1 person liked this
Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

Patrick Doyle

re: Re: Be Careful Dealing with Doug Fischer

October 12, 2012 01:26

The Court held an evidentiary hearing on June 27, 2012 at which plaintiff Asad Nasir, M.D., testified.*fn1 Based on the pleadings and the evidence admitted at the hearing, the Court makes the following findings: On February 9, 2011, Nasir entered into a contract with defendant Imaging 100 LLC, signed by defendant Douglas Fischer, president and CEO, pursuant to which Imaging 100 LLC was to sell Nasir a 2004 mobile PET scanner with trailer for a total purchase price of $600,000. Dkt. # 24-2 at 47-49. Nasir made a $50,000 deposit which, pursuant to the contract, "was refundable if seller fails to deliver the above system as stated . . . ." Id. at 47. Imaging 100 LLC failed to deliver the scanner and trailer to Nasir. On June 13, 2011, Douglas Fischer informed Nasir, via e-mail, that Nasir's "deposit was forfeited . . . [and] I have decided not to provide you with our services in the future." Id. at 50. To date, Douglas Fischer has not provided Nasir with the equipment he contracted to sell, nor has he refunded Nasir's $50,000 deposit.

On November 9, 2011, plaintiffs Asad Nasir and UKP Solutions LLP filed a complaint (Dkt. # 1) against Douglas Fischer, Valerie Fischer, Imaging 100 LLC, Imaging Acquisitions, LLC, Source, Inc., and The Summer Group alleging breach of contract, fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, and intentional interference with economic prospective. The complaint alleges that the three corporate defendants are "alter-egos" used by the Fischers. Dkt. # 1 at 4. Based on the testimony and documents submitted as evidence at the June 27 hearing, the Court finds that each defendant is a proper defendant in this case.

The Court Clerk entered the default of the defendants on January 23, 2012. Dkt. # 16. On May 17, 2012, this Court found that service was obtained on all defendants and that defendants failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Dkt. # 20. Plaintiffs seek $50,000 in compensatory damages as well as $487,970 in lost profits due to the plaintiff's failure to procure a PET scanner, and attorney fees. Dkt. # 19 at 2.

3 people liked this
Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

advertisement