Subject:
|
Re: Small annoyance with seller
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Oct 2001 01:55:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
647 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Er, you "told" him? Or did you mean you and he communicated about the
> problem and agreed in advance that was the course of action that was
> appropriate.
Here is an excerpt of my first email to him:
"I found some problems with my order -- mainly that some of the items were
in unacceptable condition (i.e. NOT in the "great condition" as stated in
your descriptions). To make things easy, I will simply list the items and
the problems with each. The best case solution in my mind is replacement
elements, the second best solution is the return of some of the items for a
refund. If you don't want the items back again, I still want my refund. You
pay shipping and refund values."
This is pretty much what I always state in a situation like this - terse but
fair I think. I'd say that in all my dealing in the last 3 years or so, I
have only had to make this sort of emailed statement about 5-10 times -- and
that's not a very high percentage of my overall transactions. Usually, the
seller sends me the elements which is what I wanted in the first place. The
beef here was over the black visored yellow castle (#375) figure so the
description was critical to the frankly OUTRAGEOUS price I was willing to
pay to get just ONE of these damned black visors.
His reply was this:
"We truly apologize for your order problems, please send the parts you have
problems with back to us, and we will refund the amount paid for the parts,
as soon as they arrive."
After two weeks of not hearing from him, knowing that he had received the
items because of a delivery confirmation receipt, I sent another request for
the refund and shipping costs. At this point he wanted to round down the
refund to a full dollar amount and refused to pay for the shipping back to
him. I thought nothing of the fact that he didn't specifically address the
issue of shipping when I first contacted him about my complaints, but now I
see that he doesn't explicitly agree or disagree with my assertion that he
will pay the return shipping.
> If you and he communicated, he agreed to this course including determining
> who pays for shipping, and then reneged, that's a legitimate beef indeed.
No, he sidestepped it and I let him. But I think I shall avoid dealing with
him in the future, and I'll add something about this in my handy-dandy, cut
and paste agreement to buy and contact info email to future sellers: "If
there is a disagreement over the condition of items purchased, the seller
shall bear the cost of return shipping in addition to any monies refunded
for the items purchased."
BTW, to update on the situation: I am taking the loss on the shipping as he
seems quite adamant on the point -- and I'd rather have something than
nothing. I have sent him links to my "Construction Toy Grading Standards"
http://members.aol.com/blueofnoon3/lego/grading.html and "When Bricks Go
Bad" http://members.aol.com/blueofnoon3/lego/badlego.html pages.
This is exactly the sort of unhappily-ended transaction I am trying to stop
with my Construction Toy Grading Standards -- this transaction included an
expensive item and there was significant disagreement over what "Great
Condition" means. To the seller it may have meant "Great Condition
considering this is a 20 year old minifig and seen a lot of play", to me it
meant "Great Condition because it is costing me $19 and no one would dare
ask that amount of money for a figure some kid has sunk his teeth into." See
what I mean? Lot's of room for disagreement...
Sellers that grade poorly have a tendency to rely on the fact that the item
is old and that the item is considered a child's toy. My problem is that
Lego is one of the only areas in Toy Collecting where sellers seem to think
condition is not an issue where value is concerned. If you were buying
mechanical coin banks, a metal toy, Disneyania, comic books, baseball cards,
action figures, etc., condition would matter. What gives with this lazy
attitude?
I guess I am wondering if the people that think a grading standard is more
hassle than it is worth would actually feel okay buying a minifigure for $19
that was actually not in Great Condition. Do people pay big $$$ for a black
sword that has been chewed on? I am not talking about common items here --
these are those RARE items that require real consideration when being
graded, or at least that has been my opinion.
I note on the seller's behalf that he has no negative feedback on either
Brickbay or eBay after hundred of transactions. Maybe my situation is a
fluke, or is it the case that people just don't care if their stuff is in
crummy condition? I don't mind crummy condition if it doesn't cost me
anything -- if it costs me $19, I think it matters.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Small annoyance with seller
|
| (...) Yep, I think you put your finger on it. I think you have a beef (although, as you say in the subject, a "small" one) all right. Communication wasn't did. (...) Oooh, I will have to watch for *that* boilerplate because *mine* says buyer pays (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Small annoyance with seller
|
| (...) Er, you "told" him? Or did you mean you and he communicated about the problem and agreed in advance that was the course of action that was appropriate. Someone who "tells" me how they are going to solve our mutual problem without exploring (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
