posted on July 28, 2001 04:58:36 PM new
bid, paid for, and received widgets. the written description did not disclose damage completely. the widgets were photographed in such a manner that much damage did not show; some widgets were turned so that the damage was turned to the other side. i e-mailed seller and seller offered refund upon return of said widgets. seller expects me to pay return postage. i maintain that the description wasn't accurate and i deserve a refund of bid price and postage both ways. seller and i have e-mailed back and forth about five times. i even sent scans of specific damage on widgets not mentioned in description or visible in picture. the widgets were less than $25, which is the "deductible" through safe harbor. is there anything that can be done (other than the obvious neg), or am i just out of luck?
posted on July 28, 2001 05:26:36 PM new
If seller offered refund upon return, that's what you do. It's not normal to pay postage both ways, although some sellers will do this. Most will just refund final bid. Don't expect a refund until you return the widgets though.
As far as negative feedback reserve that for those times when the seller refuses to refund or even to admit wrongdoing. Don't leave a seller negative fb if seller is willing to work things out. Don't leave any if you're uncomfortable with the seller. JMHO
posted on July 28, 2001 05:31:18 PM new
I feel that if the 'seller' made the error (didn't disclose damage) that he/she pays shipping both ways. Why should the buyer be out any money because the seller made a mistake?
(Yes, I'm mainly a seller.)
Anyway, I always take the tack that the seller didn't see the error (as opposed to accusing him/her of deliberating trying to cheat me). I'm very courteous and polite.
If the seller doesn't give a *complete* refund, I would definitely leave a neutral. If they were nasty on top of it, they would get a negative. Or perhaps just don't leave any feedback - I've done that too.
posted on July 28, 2001 05:32:52 PM new
you could always file a complaint with the arrogant folks at squaretrade.com..........i would just eat the postage, sending it back the cheapest way, including some sort of confirmation it arrived......as a seller i would reimburse both ways if the damage was accurate....but of course thats just me, and i have had only 1 refund in 4 yrs...
posted on July 28, 2001 06:19:12 PM new
i don't want to reveal the auction, as i know that a specific seller cannot be identified and discussed without inviting said seller in. i will say, though, that after i pay shipping from seller to me and then back again, and then figuring the refund in, i would have $3.50 remaining. the widgets were heavy and much of the cost was eaten up in postage. i'd be out $28.00 total, all because the seller did not accurately represent the condition of the widgets. i'd be paying $28.00 and have nothing to show for it. i feel that since the items weren't carefully described, this cost should be the responsibility of the seller. is there really no way to recoup this?
posted on July 28, 2001 06:25:46 PM new
Can you keep the items and just have him give you a refund of maybe 20% of the widget final price?
That way, no extra shipping. You get to keep the items (if the damage does not make them completely worthless to you). And you get a bit of your money back.
posted on July 28, 2001 06:34:40 PM new
good thought, but the seller refuses to give partial refunds. i'd be happy with that. with the condition of these widgets, it will be spendy to put them to rights. i don't think ebay will be able to do anything. i read through the safe harbor specifications and this doesn't fit anywhere. i wouldn't call it fraud; i don't think there was specific intent to be deceitful. i just think it was a sloppily done auction. if i knew then what i knew now, i wouldn't have bid. i think i am hosed here. what about this for feedback: widgets not in condition described, unable to negotiate with seller (and make it a negative)
posted on July 28, 2001 07:39:12 PM new
I am a seller on ebay but I seldom buy.I have given out four refunds and have always refunded postage both ways in order to,as Judge Judy says "make the customer whole" in other words so they are out nothing.If a seller would not refund my postage cost I would take the refund they offered and then give them a big red negative.
posted on July 28, 2001 08:02:58 PM new
I'm with Mikea on this.....
I expect to be treated honestly and fairly. Whether the damage was overlooked (then why doesn't SOME of it show in scans) or dismissed as too minor to mention (then why wasn't some of it turned to camera & detailed) it is sellers responsibility to fully disclose condition.
I'm not big on refunds in the first place, I have in my TOS 'no refunds', but I have once in two + yrs refunded when an item had damage I had overlooked........PLUS POSTAGE BOTH WAYS. Buyer should not have to pay to look at my torn book or stained blouse or greasy Tukerwear. The buyer is already out the time and effort waiting for merchandise and then rewrapping and returning.
posted on July 28, 2001 08:24:18 PM new
that's my p.o.v., mom. it was not described accurately. seller is worried only about his/her end of the bargain. i'm not sure, looking at safeharbor, that i have any hope of recovering my money. seller said i was "childish" for referring this to safeharbor, in what i assume is an attempt to discourage me from contacting them. i have both bought and sold on ebay and describe my widgets meticulously. buyers don't have the benefit of inspecting an item closely and it is the seller's responsibility to disclose anything that might be wrong with an item. i don't think i'm going to win this, but i'll follow through.
posted on July 28, 2001 08:31:58 PM new
I have only had one refund. The buyer complained that the article of clothing when worn did not lay right and couldn't be fixed. I took the buyers word refunded his money. I did not ask for the article back. I would never know if it hung right or not since it is a male article of clothes. That was the easiest and cheapest way out. I have a no hasle refund.
posted on July 28, 2001 09:55:18 PM new
---richel--
It looks like you will have a tough time
getting this seller to pay postage and give a refund. You could try this:
Assuming the items stll have value to them,
why dont you photograph them and write up a
full description and disclose ALL damage.
Then relist it on ebay. Maybe instead of getting a 20% refund from the seller, you will get 30-50% from the person you are selling these to. The seller can pay postage. You will probably have another satisfied customer and another sale. Of course, the real "WINNER" is the original seller because you are relieving him of any responsibility. But reselling the items--ACCURATELY---may get more of your money back. Then, eat the loss, decide
whether or not to neg or not to neg the
seller, and get back to what you do best---sellling!!
posted on July 29, 2001 07:53:27 AM new
I have read hundreds of threads here from sellers complaining about buyers who want refunds. In those threads, the majority of the posters state that refunds should not include postage as the damage was either missed, or happened during shipment. Now that a buyer complains here it looks like the majority is leaning the other direction. It is now assumed that the seller was deliberately hiding the damage so shipping should be refunded.
I always refund 100% incl. shipping if an item is different than what is stated in my description. I have given 4 refunds out of over a thousand sales. All of 4 of these buyers have returned and purchased multiple items with positive results.
If the TOS states refunds, expect it. If it doesn't, it is your risk.
posted on July 29, 2001 08:26:23 AM new
i did not imply that the damage was deliberately hidden. i said it was not described fully. the TOS said nothing about refunds one way or the other. seller said in an e-mail that she wouldn't give a partial refund. i have over 200 fb, and the seller has over 1,000. i haven't looked at seller's other auctions to check how accurately seller writes descriptions. i both sell and buy. my descriptions are meticulous because the buyers don't have the opportunity to inspect items in person when buying on ebay. i believe it is my responsibility as a seller to detail every single flaw. this seller did not do this and this is the reason i feel entitled to a complete and whole refund.
posted on July 29, 2001 08:48:25 AM new
In the written description, did the seller mention that there was some damage to the goods? If they did, even in a general way, I think they're off the hook as far as accuracy of description...though it wouldn't be as detailed as you'd like.
posted on July 29, 2001 09:23:03 AM new
richel, I had a very similar thing happen to me recently (I was the buyer). The item was $150 and shipping one way was $25. The item was in terrible condition, although it's problems couldn't all be seen on a photograph (it was a sewing machine and the motor was sluggish). There were also some parts missing, which could have been photographed.
The seller simply did not believe that I was
correct in my assessment, even though he clearly didn't know anything about sewing machines. Anyway, I returned it to him and he immediately relisted it. At that point, I felt pressure to leave FB that would warn potential bidders that his knowledge of sewing machines was limited. I left a neutral, which upset him - he claimed that he would refund my shipping both ways if I would remove the neutral! I told him I wouldn't do this, and that I had to leave the refund issue up to his discretion. Of course, I got only the $150 back, so I lost about $55+ all in all, plus time wasted.
It sounds like your seller is as stubborn as mine was, in which case you will come up short either way. I like the idea of relisting the items (disclosing their condition, of course) and recouping some of your money that way, since the items are not big ticket items but are expensive to ship.
I would also leave a neutral or even a neg, since your seller refuses to cooperate and failed to disclose important information in the auction listing.
uh huh. that's what i thought! 