posted on July 22, 2001 02:00:55 PM
Well, I'd just written this tome and found that the "Sqaure Trade epic" thread was locked while I was writing. Since my post doesn't include any personal info, I think it's OK, and I'll paste it below.
*****************************
I'm gonna go against the flow a bit here. I think seller contributed to the problem, and should make an accomodation to the buyer.
Here's why. I think the title and description were unclear, at best, and misleading at worst.
So yeah- the buyer cut the wires. But the whole problem could have been avoided, perhaps, if seller had been clearer in his title and descriptioin.
Here's the title/description:
************************
(Title)
14.1 Inch TFT LCD 4 Gateway Solo 9100/9150
(Description)
LG Electronics Part #: LP 141X2
Picture shown is not actual item
Gateway P/N is 7000808
This also can be used in Solo 5150 Series with part # 70001582
Pulled, Good Working, Guarantee Not DOA
Please check your part compatibility, we do not responsible for compatibility issue.
$12 shipping and handling to US 48 States
Picture shown is not actual item
**************
This is not a Gateway screen, from what I understand-- but another screen that can be compatible with some Gateway models. Does that require splicing wires? I dunno. It doesn't say. But seller includes the "4 Gateway" in his title, and even includes the Gateway P/N (part number) in the description--- but this isn't that part number. And to make things worse, seller makes those representations (about Gateway) but then disclaims that he isn't responsible for compatibility issues.
And to compound the confusion, seller lists a picture of a new Gateway screen (which this isn't) but disclaims "Picture shown is not actual item."
Why not show the actual item? Especially since it's USED, another thing that can be inferred, but might be easily missed from the description. Seller does say "pulled," meaning pulled from a machine, I guess. It's used, that should be made clear, especially when you use a pic of a new screen that isn't the item for auction.
The whole problem likely would have been solved had the seller used a title/description that was more honest and less misleading (even if not intentionally), and included a pic of the actual item.
Something like this:
(title)
14" TFT LCD LG screen fits Gateway
(description)
This is a used 14" TFT LCD LG Electronics LP141X2 notebook screen that I pulled from (insert what he got it from). Believed to be compatible with Gateway Models XXXXX (with/without splicing), but I cannot be responsible for any compatiblity issues.
This screen is in good working order, and I guarantee it won't be DOA.
****************
That's a more fair and honest description, in my view, of what the seller was selling.
And because of that, I think the seller shares responsibility for the problem in this case. In my view, seller should either take a loss and refund the money, or (and this would be my choice) apologize to the seller for the confusing title/description, and offer a partial refund-- hopefully allowing him to break even on the deal.
Seller is a good and honest seller, from what I can tell from feedback and other auctions, so I don't think the seller was intentionally misleading.
Make it right with the buyer, learn a lesson, and move forward.
posted on July 22, 2001 11:47:32 PM
Possible language problem here. The seller does not speak English very well and really needs to hire a proficient speaker for his ads. Terminology in ads needs to be CLEAR and CONCISE especially for high money items.
posted on July 23, 2001 12:14:29 AM
It is fraud, plain and simple. Send the seller an email saying he may have made an honest mistake in his title and description, but it is so misleading to infer a Gateway model, that you demand a full refund including shipping, and you will drop the whole matter.
Otherwise, take it straight to Safeharbor, and the Postal Investigators.
posted on July 23, 2001 12:34:45 AM
Don't make me PUKE. Fraud! Fraud! Fraud!
"...take it straight to Safeharbor, and the Postal Investigators." As if that is going to get results. Oh yes, go "straight" there; those organizations are going to be up-in-arms over this!
posted on July 23, 2001 06:05:15 AM
I agree the seller contributed to the problem with language translation problems.
Why didn't the buyer simply return the item if it wasn't compatible & try to work out a solution with the seller?
BUT when the buyer had the wires cut (I don't give a flying flip they had them "respliced"..the item was still returned in less than the orginal condition it was sent), then they made a serious mistake.
posted on July 23, 2001 09:55:42 AM
"As if that is going to get results. Oh yes, go "straight" there; those organizations are going to be up-in-arms over this!"
There are many ex-ebay sellers in jail now for fraud, so what's your point of sarcasm? Do you expect overnight results? Maybe the investigators are building a case against this person which could take months. True they usually go after the biggest scam artists, and if this is a one time thing the seller can pass it off as ignorance, but how do you know? The seller may have pulled this off hundreds of times and used his pathetic reply to convince the buyer it's his fault.
posted on July 23, 2001 10:31:09 AM
There are two SEPARATE issues here. The first is the description of the item. The second is the fact that the buyer cut 20 wires in an effort to get the screen to work.
The screen was guaranteed to work, and if it didn't work, the buyer should have contacted the seller immediately and requested a refund.
Find me one store that will provide a refund after the customer went inside the unit and made his own repairs. Find one! The buyer had a valid beef until he started hacking away at the innards. Anyone who buys hardware knows that once you do that, you own the part, compatible or not.
posted on July 23, 2001 10:46:51 AM
If this were a simple case of incompatibility only, the buyer is screwed. But, it may involve fraud, and in fraud cases the buyer is entitled to his money back under any circumstance.
posted on July 23, 2001 11:01:37 AM
Fraud? Fraud?? The item was sold with a money-back guarantee! You'd have a heck of a time proving fraud.
(And, yes, I think the item was inaccurately described. This is a tough question. But the buyer should know better than to hand the unit over to his "tech department" so they could fiddle around with a pair of wirecutters and tape. I don't know what I would do, but IMO the buyer forfeited all rights by modifying the unit. The buyer HAD the opportunity to simply return the piece for a full refund. D'oh!
Suppose the part WAS working and the buyer ruined it himself by playing around with it? How is the seller to know? Anyone who buys hardware knows that you don't mess around with wirecutters and then ask for a refund afterward.)
posted on July 23, 2001 12:23:34 PM
That's the first I heard a money back guarantee does not hold a seller criminally liable for fraud, civially yes.
The question that the FTC asks is if a person acting reasonably would be misled.
The title says Gateway Solo, the picture has a Gateway, and no where it says, "this is not a Gateway." A reasonable person expects to receive a Gateway.
How can someone reasonably check compatibilty accurately when given the wrong product description to check the compatibility?
posted on July 23, 2001 12:54:03 PM
Regardless of the description, the buyer had the item in hand and could have made the choice at that point to contact the seller and request a refund.
One he decided to cut the wires he made that item his. He decided that it was compatible and he would hook it up.
I am sure the seller would have taken it back without the damage. BUT the buyer cut the wires, thus he damaged the item and it cannot be sold again.
I would be interested in what Square Trade has to say about it.
posted on July 23, 2001 01:32:56 PM
Fraud requires "intent" in order for the accused to be found criminally guilty...going to be kinda hard to prove intent to commit fraud in this case.
Buyer alters merchandise = buyer has finalized the sale. Buyer hasn't a leg to stand on!
[ edited by amy on Jul 23, 2001 01:34 PM ]
