Phil is not a thief, in the sense that he didn't steal from me. We entered into a high-end buy, after I'd bought the cigars + humidor, he decided he didn't want the cigars anymore. This might be because of his financial situation, or perhaps he just didn't want them anymore... but it was after the fact, which is unfortunate.
I wasn't thrilled that the humidor split was no more, but I wasn't terribly upset that I'd be keeping all of the cigars (still, it was an unplanned for expense, and not what I'd expected to happen). I then shipped the humidor to him in the same packaging I received it, and somehow UPS managed to break it. Despite the fact that it was insured, and that it had been shipped to me in the same packaging without incident, UPS would not cover it.
This is where I start to get a bit upset at the situation. Phil had already changed the agreed to deal, and now the humidor he said he'd be purchasing was damaged.
Was it his fault that the humidor arrived damaged? No. Was it my fault that the humidor arrived damaged? I have a hard time accepting blame, since I just reshipped it in the same packaging it arrived to me in, and I did my due diligence and insured it.
Clearly UPS was most at fault for damaging the humidor, but we had no recourse there. I think the stand-up thing to do would have been to have called it a mutual loss, and split the costs. But that is not what happened.
The thing that added insult to injury was the ridiculous lengths I had to go through to get the rest of the humidor back from him. I was even writing letters to his father. This should not be so.
In the end, I was left with a broken humidor I didn't want, the full load of cigars I thought I was splitting, the shipping costs, aggravation of trying to contact him, and I foot the bill for everything except the cost of him shipping the broken humidor and accessories back to me (after a very long delay, and much unreturned communication).
So after thinking it over, and discussing it with Phil, I think he should still be on the list, but I do think that the description of the reason should be changed. And that's that.
