Subject:
|
Re: Small annoyance with seller
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Oct 2001 03:43:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
602 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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.
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.
> 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."
Oooh, I will have to watch for *that* boilerplate because *mine* says buyer
pays shipping both ways if not satisfied... I think it's even in my brickbay
ack but I have to go check. I know it's in all my ebay listings (which some
accuse of being too long but I prefer, like you, to err on the side of
excess clarity)....
> 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.
Yes. I'm not sure who the detractors are.. I think most here agree this is a
good thing to do and develop.
<snipped the next three para because I agree... now what was I saying about
excess clarity???>
> 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.
I care. This particular transaction I think I would have paid 19, eyes open,
for the part you spurned, but then it's just about the only part MY yellow
castle is missing. But note... eyes open. I'd have been as miffed about
chewed as you are if I didn't know.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Small annoyance with seller
|
| (...) Keep in mind that the black visor was the only part I wanted, so since it was not in very good shape I wasted my whole effort in buying this figure. I get the idea that finding this one element in near mint-mint condition is going to be no (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Small annoyance with seller
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
