Selling a Bass Guitar, but might not be legal

[progrmr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

I recently acquired an electric bass guitar in an online trade - my bass for this other guys bass in Texas. The bass he sent me is a Fender Bud Light bass.

My understanding is that these basses were originally given to bass players sponsored by Bud Light, and that they have trickled into the used bass market.

I have decided to sell this bass - or at least I was going to sell it. I posted on a bass enthusiast web site to get an approximate value and someone posted this:

I will tell you the same thing I told the previous owner. It is illegal to sell promotional merchandise like that as it still legally belongs to Anheuser Busch (they cannot give away a product that costs more that $5.00 to produce so they retain ownership on paper). According to ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) laws you can be fined up to $10,000 for violating that statute, that is why I advised the previous owner to trade it since that is legal and you cannot get fined for doing so.

I work for a Beer magazine and I consult with breweries, since I put on beer festivals, judgings, beer dinners, wine and Scotch judgings etc, I must stay apprised of current laws so while you may in fact get away with selling it you could also find yourself in extreme hot water.

If you have more questions you can pm me and I will send you my cell number.

So from his statement it appears that all I can do is trade the bass, not sell it out right for a few hundred bucks.

Is he correct? Here's a pic of the body of the bass so you can see the logo:

http://www.daverancour.com/blb1.jpg

 

[JETX]

No one can 'GUESS' what he says is true or not, since we have not read the terms of the 'promotion'. I suggest you contact Budweiser and ask them if they retain ownership, sale terms, etc.

I will add that a google search of 'bud light guitar sale' shows that there are a LOT of them out there being offered for sale.... even on ebay (items 230413806561, 130352591746) and other Budweiser promotional items..

 

[swalsh411]

I don't understand why you think you would be unable to sell this property unless it was acquired via fraud or theft. (which according to your post it was not). Bud Light does not own these guitars any more than McDonalds owns the Avatar drink cup that came with my Big Mac value meal. You're worrying about nothing.

 

[Zigner]

I don't understand why you think you would be unable to sell this property unless it was acquired via fraud or theft. (which according to your post it was not). Bud Light does not own these guitars any more than McDonalds owns the Avatar drink cup that came with my Big Mac value meal. You're worrying about nothing.

And, of course, you have NO way of knowing this.

 

[swalsh411]

And, of course, you have NO way of knowing this.

And I also have no way of knowing that the Earth will not crash into Pluto a week from Thursday. Unless you can show something exists, then it doesn't.

 

[Zigner]

And I also have no way of knowing that the Earth will not crash into Pluto a week from Thursday. Unless you can show something exists, then it doesn't.

Right, so instead of making a statement as FACT, you should hold your tongue (fingers).

 

[swalsh411]

Right, so instead of making a statement as FACT, you should hold your tongue (fingers).

You expect me to prove a negative? That an alleged thing does not exist? Have you taken Logic 101? I am simply saying that unless Bud Light has shown that they have an exclusive right to the distribution of this property then they do not. Do you expect Bud Light to say that they do NOT have an exclusive right to the distribution of this property?

 

[Zigner]

You expect me to prove a negative? That an alleged thing does not exist? Have you taken Logic 101? I am simply saying that unless Bud Light has shown that they have an exclusive right to the distribution of this property then they do not. Do you expect Bud Light to say that they do NOT have an exclusive right to the distribution of this property?

No, what you SAID was: Bud Light does not own these guitars any more than McDonalds owns the Avatar drink cup that came with my Big Mac value meal.

You made a definite statement as FACT, when you have no clue. THAT is improper.

 

[swalsh411]

No, what you SAID was: Bud Light does not own these guitars any more than McDonalds owns the Avatar drink cup that came with my Big Mac value meal.

You made a definite statement as FACT, when you have no clue. THAT is improper.

My "definite statement as FACT" is that such a claim of ownership does not exist. So if you disagree it's up to you to show that such a claim does exist.

One cannot prove a negative, hence my question as to whether or not you've taken Logic 101.

So in other words, if you disagree, please show where such a statement of ownership has been made. I mean this would really win your whole argument.

 

[Zigner]

My "definite statement as FACT" is that such a claim of ownership does not exist. So if you disagree it's up to you to show that such a claim does exist.

One cannot prove a negative, hence my question as to whether or not you've taken Logic 101.

So in other words, if you disagree, please show where such a statement of ownership has been made. I mean this would really win your whole argument.

I never said one WAS made. I just pointed out that YOU are making wild claims that cannot be supported.

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my "argument" to mean anything other than that.

 

[swalsh411]

I never said one WAS made. I just pointed out that YOU are making wild claims that cannot be supported.

It is impossible to support a "wild claim" that sometimes does not exist. The only counter to such an argument is to show that such a thing does in fact exist. This is a fundamental tenant of any science.

To suggest that something does not exist is only a wild claim if another party can show evidence to the contrary.

 

[Zigner]

It is impossible to support a "wild claim" that sometimes does not exist. The only counter to such an argument is to show that such a thing does in fact exist. This is a fundamental tenant of any science.

To suggest that something does not exist is only a wild claim if another party can show evidence to the contrary.

Again, YOU stated that the beer folks DON'T own the guitar. I didn't say that, YOU did. Whether they make a claim to it or not, they may still own it. So, your wild claim is that they don't own it unless they lay claim to it. That is an absurd claim to make without more facts.

For example. Let's say that I own an iPod and I loan it to me friend. It's very clearly LOANED to them. Are you saying that I don't own the iPod unless I make a claim to it?

Again - just stop.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

So from his statement it appears that all I can do is trade the bass, not sell it out right for a few hundred bucks.

Is he correct?

I seriously doubt he is correct. A quick search shows that there were several Bud Light contests last year, with the terms and conditions available online. I found one for a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, and another for a tent. In both cases, the MSRP was listed, and a disclaimer that the winner was responsible for any taxes due. Nowhere did it state that Anheuser-Busch retained ownership of the prize.

I believe the Beer Magazine Consultant is confusing the “tied house” section of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, declaring it unlawful for producer, importer or wholesaler to give or sell any “other thing of value” to a retailer. Federal Alcohol Administration Act, § 5(b), 27 U.S.C.A. § 205(b).

Another interesting point is that there is really no legal distinction between trading and selling in this case. If selling it is illegal, trading it for a sellable item would be just as illegal.

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what the terms and conditions of the guitar contest were, so cannot speculate as to ownership of the guitar. I simply doubt the accuracy of the poster.

 

[progrmr]

ok, so for me the problem would arise if I tried to sell this bass and it really does belong to Anhueser(sp?) Busch right? I guess in that case even trading the bass (even trading to me by the other guy) wouldn't be legal either.

Using your iPod example, if you're buddy that you loaned your iPod to then traded it for something of value to another person. You technically still own the iPod even though the other person gave up something of value to get it. In this case, I gave a 6-string bass worth ~$700!!

I emailed Fender to see what they could tell me about the bass.

 

[progrmr]

I seriously doubt he is correct. A quick search shows that there were several Bud Light contests last year, with the terms and conditions available online. I found one for a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, and another for a tent. In both cases, the MSRP was listed, and a disclaimer that the winner was responsible for any taxes due. Nowhere did it state that Anheuser-Busch retained ownership of the prize.

I believe the Beer Magazine Consultant is confusing the “tied house” section of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, declaring it unlawful for producer, importer or wholesaler to give or sell any “other thing of value” to a retailer. Federal Alcohol Administration Act, § 5(b), 27 U.S.C.A. § 205(b).

Another interesting point is that there is really no legal distinction between trading and selling in this case. If selling it is illegal, trading it for a sellable item would be just as illegal.

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what the terms and conditions of the guitar contest were, so cannot speculate as to ownership of the guitar. I simply doubt the accuracy of the poster.

I get what you are saying - and I'm not sure if this bass was originally part of a contest that someone won, or if it was given to a bass player as a sponsor. If the latter is the case, they may still have a claim to it..seriously though, I don't see them making a big fuss over a bass that is probably worth ~$400 anyway. It's a cool bass to be sure, but "cool" doesn't really translate into value on the used market.