posted on September 4, 2001 06:26:07 PM
I won an item that was described in the auction as "very nice" with no other reference to condition, and it looked great in the photo. When I got the item it was clearly broken (made of wood) and the broken area was touched up with a magic marker the same color as the paint around it. There was also a hairline crack in a vulnerable area.
The photo neatly concealed these flaws since it was photographed from another angle.
I asked the seller to let me return it because he described it as "very nice," yet it was in pretty bad shape.
His reply was "very nice is an expression of the beholder."
What do you make of that? Is he misrepresenting what he sold?
posted on September 4, 2001 06:32:47 PM
Ummm Well Actually The term "Very Nice" is a term used in the eye of the beholder.
The seller thought this item was very nice , it not like it was decribe as Excellent , Mint like new or any such thing it was just very nice !!! http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
Email [email protected]
posted on September 4, 2001 07:09:54 PM
The seller has 65 positives and 2 negatives.
He just emailed back and said he'd accept the return and refund the auction amount (less shipping costs) because he has "sold similar items with alot more wear and tear than this one for alot more money."
It's not even an antique so I can't imagine anyone buying this thing in poor condition and accepting it as is.
I wonder if eBay would consider his description and photo as misrepresentation.
posted on September 4, 2001 09:07:43 PM
"Very nice" is indeed a subjective description, but in this case it is dishonest as well. If something has visible flaws, IMO the seller should mention them and show them in the photo if possible. I sell a lot of antique silver, and show most of it with scans (which don't always pick up plate loss, dings, etc.) I =always= mention any damage I find.
Besides that, "very nice" still means something other than "cracks and paint repairs." Even if it's subjective, in this case it's not true.
Unless you paid a bundle for this item, I'd be glad to get the partial refund from the seller and I wouldn't bother to try to get eBay to do anything. But I would leave a neutral, at least...if not a negative.
posted on September 4, 2001 09:46:08 PM
And the next time you see such subjective (ie: meaningless) adjectives being used, you'll be sure to email the seller early and ask for more concrete details?
posted on September 5, 2001 06:33:17 AM
I would send it back and consider the shipping costs the cost of the lesson.... Read well and ask questions BEFORE BIDDING especially if the description is, uh, "very nice" but sketchy....
posted on September 5, 2001 06:42:49 AM
I don't see the seller as being "dishonest" in this regard. They didn't (it appears) indicate the item was without flaws.
I mention nicks, chips, and scratches all the time. But for me not to do so is not "dishonest".
Dishonest would be if I said the item was in perfect condition and it wasn't. But "very nice" is definitely a subjective term and seems to apply to the item in question in this case -- especially if others of the same thing are typically in worse condition.
While I understand the outrage and disappointment, we need to be careful which words we use -- and "dishonest" here is inappropriate.
posted on September 5, 2001 07:33:44 AM
Oh, heck, the seller was dishonest as the day is long for crying out loud! VERY NICE on a cracked and magic markered item? Good grief!
On the other hand, I wouldn't bid a penny on an auction w/that description. I figure if a seller can't take a couple of minutes to describe condition, I can't take a couple of minutes to bid.
I doubt eBay is going to help you here. Their policy is buyer beware. If you're not out a lot of money, just neg the seller calmly and factually, "Desc: Very Nice. Actual: cracked and magic marker to hide flaws." If he's unprofessional enough to neg you back (and he might be considering this whole thing), respond that it's retaliatory and move on.
If you return it because it was pricey, I'd still neg after I got my refund - same way as above.
Good luck! (And a pox on every eBay seller who sells crap as Very Nice - it wrecks it for the rest of us).
posted on September 5, 2001 07:41:26 AM
Well, I define "dishonest" as "Not honest". This is the common English definition. I'm not sure what definition you're using. In this case, the seller (again from what we know here) was not dishonest. What lie did they tell? None as far as we can see.
And it would not be unprofessional for the seller to neg in response. The buyer got what they bid on, what was paid for, and what was described. It would be unprofessional of the BUYER to start a neg-war over their mistake.
We had a cereal box from the 1940s discussion on here a while back. While the photos clearly showed the item, that box was in very nice condition for its age and considering the condition it could be in compared to others. And every rip, hole, and tear wasn't mentioned either.
As for "magic marker" there are many stain-colored pens sold in furniture stores for this VERY PURPOSE.
I think some people just want to complain instead of taking responsibility for their actions.
Bottom line, the seller showed a photo of the item. He's not under obligation to show all angles and so long as he DOES NOT LIE, he's NOT BEING DISHONEST. Period.
posted on September 5, 2001 07:59:31 AM
NOT mentioning visible damage is dishonest, IMO, and I bet most buyers (and sellers) would agree. And if you are going to take only one picture, doesn't it seem a little slimey to take that one from an angle that conceals the damage?
I recall a thread from some months back where a seller had altered a photo to obscure some pretty obvious cracks and other damage, then tried to claim that it happened in shipping. He/she didn't actually LIE about the damage (in fact, from what I recall, did not mention it in the description at all). Because no lies were told in words, is that being "honest"?
posted on September 5, 2001 08:05:28 AM
dis·hon·est [diss ónnst ] adjective
not honest or truthful: meaning or meant to deceive, defraud, or trick people.
To not show the damage or to mention it was to deceive the bidder. That is being dishonest.
posted on September 5, 2001 08:09:04 AM
Let me just chime in again and say that the crack was as obvious as could be once I got the item, and the magic marker was clearly magic marker and not a touch-up pen for wood surfaces. (It wasn't even well done.)
Also, this is a new item, and supposed to look new (or antiqued by design). It is modeled after an item that is usually antique, and when the antique is chipped or whatever, it's understandable. But there's no appeal to a new item being damaged.
posted on September 5, 2001 08:22:41 AM
Its clear to me that the seller was being "deceiptful" by not disclosing the fact that is WAS cracked and had some touch-up work done to it.
To me the term "very nice" would imply that there is nothing notable to report.
Then by adding insult to injury they take a picture showing only the best side.
So I would have to say that the seller is advertising that the piece is in acceptable condition.
I'd send it back, and once refund was received I'd neg them with the facts.
posted on September 5, 2001 08:54:36 AM
If the item's 'damage' would have been visable in a photo on the auction and was taken at another angle so that it would not show, I consider that deceptive.
If there is a repair of any kind and it is not mentioned, that is being deceptive and dishonest.
If my kid does something that I do not like, I usually say - 'niiiiccccce', however that does not mean nice in a good way.
If the damage as you describe is being described as 'very nice' by the seller, perhaps he needs his eyes checked.
I, myself, as a buyer would ask for a refund including shipping both ways. Good luck
posted on September 5, 2001 09:08:12 AM
For those sellers that think deceipt is not dishonest, could you email me your eBay user name at [email protected] so that I can NEVER bid on your auctions? Thank you.
posted on September 5, 2001 09:40:05 AM
Nope, but send me yours and I'll lock you out of my auctions.
Causing YOU to think something else is not ME being dishonest. For me to be dishonest, I have to actively lie. If a person deceives you without telling a lie, then that is NOT dishonest.
Sorry, it's not.
I'm not saying I do it or that it's ethical or moral. I'm just making sure we use the correct words. Everyone keeps using the word DISHONEST and they are wrong to do so.
posted on September 5, 2001 09:50:16 AM
I see a lot of very nice furniture, cabinets, dressers, etc with flaws, so this seller is not wrong. Of course I can't see this item for myself so I can't be totaly sure. If the damage is severe than "very nice" is inapproriate.
Never buy a collectible or antique described as "very nice," especially when you have high standards. I see this on ebay all the time and pass up auctions that use vagueness. Even when they say "Excellent" (which is a technical term in some collectible field), I still wouldn't buy it unless I get a full description on what they consider excellent.
When I used to sell baseball cards I found the majority of collectors could not tell the difference between a near mint and mint card, and it's a world of difference to a serious collector. So never settle for even a technical description such as "Mint."
posted on September 5, 2001 09:54:20 AM
[i}dis·hon·est [diss ónnst ] adjective
not honest or truthful: meaning or meant to deceive, defraud, or trick people.[/i]
If a person deceives you without telling a lie, then that is NOT dishonest
What CRAP. Whether a person tells a lie or doesn't tell a lie, if their intent was to deceive, then it's dishonest. They can "justify" it however they want but it still comes down to DISHONEST.
Yeah, like it only counts if I don't have my fingers crossed behind my back. More justification.
posted on September 5, 2001 10:04:40 AM
"Honestly, I cannot understand why so many people are getting so upset over a vocabulary lesson."
===========
Perhaps because the "lesson" you are teaching is that it's perfectly okay to lie by omission and that we shouldn't consider that to be dishonest.
Or it could be that people don't care for the arrogance with which you expressed your opinion on this issue...especially since you've cloaked that opinion in the guise of being a fact.
posted on September 5, 2001 10:08:38 AM
kiara -- yes, I buy AND sell. I've also made it clear that this seller's actions are not how I act. I also, as a buyer, make any additional clarifications BEFORE bidding -- which is the proper method of handling this.
Nevertheless, the definition you posted was not clear on this issue. "meaning or meant" goes to intent (sounds lawyerish ) and does not go to the action itself.
So the definition you posted was basicly "NOT HONEST OR TRUTHFUL intending to deceive".
The seller WAS truthful here. However, they WERE being deceptive by not telling ALL the truth. Using the term "very nice" was not a lie, because in their minds it WAS "very nice".
Bottom line is that the word "Dishonest" is not applicable here and so far no one has proved otherwise. But instead of going around in circles, we should just let this stand.
We all agree that the seller was deceptive. Let's stand on that.
