cudak888 

I know Randy had a pile of bikes that he sold off as one huge lot, but it appears as if he had six which he sold separately from the main lot. Is this correct, Randy?

Disagree. The shop took his bike. The shop then lost his bike.

Between that time period of Randy being told the Roo was not at the shop and the shop happening to find it again, the bike was - practically and legally speaking - lost property.

If this had been any other customer other than Randy and his gazillion bicycles, this visit would have ended in harsh words and a police report.

When anyone sends a bicycle in for servicing, one has a reasonable belief to expect to get it back after paying service fees after a reasonable amount of time for said servicing. I don't care what the shop's explanation was, the fact is that they were in possession of that Quintana Roo but denied being in possession of it at that time period made it their problem at the time.

Randy's subsequent predicament may be a grey area for recovery from a legal standpoint, but from an ethical standpoint, that shop owes it to him to make it right - especially as any other customer could have turned the shop's mistake into a huge mess and a series of highly damaging online reviews.

-Kurt