kitsch1
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:13:41 PM new
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRofl Hiya!
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/[email protected]/
|
chisholm1943
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:14:30 PM new
Wow. Another one. spazmodeus=KatyD! Is that allowed? For one poster to have multiple ID's in order to stalk another poster?
Katy, dear, I was not the one in that backseat, all those years ago. Stop with the false memories, Katy. I don't know you, or any of your many ID's. You're just looking sad.
KatyD3, welcome to IGNORE!
|
edhdsn
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:37:26 PM new
Hey Look:
A contract is a contract.
Both paties agreed.
Everthing was done right.
Had the buyer gotten tube of reconstucted cloth full of plastic pebbles, instead of a cherrished bennie baby, I would have the off with the seller's head "tude" that some of you folks have. That did not happen.
Ed
edhdsn
|
FASTBACK302
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:45:41 PM new
IN MY DESCRIPTION THE ONLY THING I HAD STATED IS THAT SHIPPING WOULD BE 3.20!
NOT TO HAVE ANYONE THINK THAT IT WAS TO BE PRIORITY. I HAVE BEEN ON THE EBAY AND OTHER AUCTIONS FOR OVER A YEAR NOW AND I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE PUTTING 5.00 OR EVEN 10.00 FOR ONE BASEBALL CARD. THERE IS ALWAYS A WAY TO FIND OUT IF THE SHIPPING IS GOING TO BE PRIORITY, COVERED BY INSURANCE OR NOT, THAT IS BY EMAILING THE SELLER. THAT IS WHAT THE OPTION ON EBAY IS USED FOR ASK THE SELLER A QUESTION.
MY PRODUCT WAS DELIVERED TO THE BUYER IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AND WAS UN-HARMED.
THE BEANIE BABY ACTUALLY COST ME *(THE SELLER) 2.50 TO PURCHASE. I DID PLACE IT ON EBAY STARTING THE BIDDING AT 1.50 AND HOPING IT WOULD GO UP FROM THERE. WHICH IT DID NOT,
SO THE REMAINDER OF THE SHIPPING MADE UP FOR IT. MY GOAL WAS TO GET THE PACKAGE TO THE BUYER IN GOOD CONDITION! NOT TO PRICE GOUGE ON SHIPPING. I LIVE APROX. 5 MILES AWAY FROM THE POST OFFICE AND THE SHIPPING ENVELOPES COST ME .99 SORRY FOR THE MIS-UNDERSTANDING OF SHIPPING PRIORITY.I WILL START PUTTING MORE DETAIL ON MY DESCRIPTIONS SO I DO NOT GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN.
CHRIS
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:46:42 PM new
Buyer assumed something that did not turn out to be true, so the seller is the bad guy. Makes sense to me.
Here's a couple more:
Listing states: Seller does not ship internationally.
Buyer (in Canada) assumes: Well, Canada isn't really international, so I'll go ahead and bid. I'm sure the seller won't mind.
Listing states: Payment to be received within 2 weeks.
Buyer assumes: Well, at least I got it in the mail within a month. Anybody who is sweating a $10 auction item is taking things way too seriously.
Moral of story (apparently): Bidders assumptions trump seller's TOS whenever there is a disagreement.
|
kitsch1
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:49:08 PM new
WHICH ONE IS EASIER TO READ?
Which one is easier to read?
testing 1...TWO 3....FOUR
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/[email protected]/
|
kiheicat
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:49:15 PM new
Saying 3.20 shipping in the TOS is inaccurate because shipping was not 3.20 ... duh! Saying 3.20 shipping & handling would have been appropriate. Stating a 3.20 shipping charge is also misleading in that a great deal of auctions on ebay say '3.20 priority shipping', including my own. Everyone knows that priority is 3.20 so although we should never assume, I probably would have assumed the same.
I think both parties could have handled it better...but I believe the name calling began with the seller calling the buyer a 'crybaby', at which point the buyer threw the first curse word.
Beanie was 1.50, shipping was 77 cents and handling was 2.43, which paid for a happy meal for the seller since dropping an envelope at the post office is so extremely taxing, lol
|
kitsch1
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:51:24 PM new
The moral of the story is....
Don't buy a happy meal if what you really want is a BIG MAC
Hunger makes for grouchiness?
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/[email protected]/
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:52:06 PM new
Anyone who agrees with this seller must pad their sales themselves!
Considering that this thread deals with (unfounded) assumptions, this comment is rather ironic, don't you think?
|
chisholm1943
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:52:16 PM new
FASTBACK302 welcome to AuctionWatch.
Home of "Buyers Feelings OverRule Seller's TOS". But seriously, you are an honest and upfront seller. I would buy from you anytime!
|
chisholm1943
|
posted on August 29, 2000 06:57:47 PM new
Saying 3.20 shipping in the TOS is inaccurate because shipping was not 3.20 Wrong Shipping cost the buyer 3.20. It say FIXED shipping, NOT actual shipping.
Saying 3.20 shipping & handling would have been appropriate. Wrong What is or isn't appropriate isn't the point. And may differ from seller to sellr.
Stating a 3.20 shipping charge is also misleading in that a great deal of auctions on ebay say '3.20 priority shipping', including my own. Everyone knows that priority is 3.20 Wrong Not the point. Doesn't matter what other auctions say. We are talking about ONE SINGLE AUCTION. Not ALL OF EBAY!
so although we should never assume, I probably would have assumed the same. and you would have been just as Wrong as the buyer in this case.
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:00:01 PM new
Do four WRONGS make a wright?
|
KatyD
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:03:13 PM new
ROFLMA! Lotsa! 
KatyD
|
njrazd
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:05:34 PM new
You guys are too good!! LOL
*************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
|
KatyD
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:09:33 PM new
[i]I DID PLACE IT ON EBAY STARTING THE BIDDING AT 1.50 AND HOPING IT WOULD GO UP FROM THERE. WHICH IT DID NOT,
SO THE REMAINDER OF THE SHIPPING MADE UP FOR IT.[/i] It's called "fee avoidance".
SORRY FOR THE MIS-UNDERSTANDING.. I WILL START PUTTING MORE DETAIL ON MY DESCRIPTIONS SO I DO NOT GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN.
Well, now that THAT'S settled.... 
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Aug 29, 2000 07:10 PM ]
|
figmente
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:12:50 PM new
Shipping quote of $3.20 usually means the seller will use priority mail. But priority mailing for a small McDonald's toy is silly. Most sellers however are too lazy or some such to bother using 1st class instead. First class mail receives the same treatment by the post office. The buyer received the same grade of postal sevice expected but the 2.43 delta went to the seller instead of to the USPS. Why begrudge it? Is the USPS your favorite charity? The only good reason to use priority under 14 ounces is to use the free boxes. Many sellers of such items demand the buyer pay for insurance or D.C. or postal money orders too. It's just as wasteful, experienced buyers watch the total.
1.50 + 2.43(hndlg) + .77(post) = 4.70
equals
1.50 + 3.20(post) = 4.70
and both are much better than
1.50 + 3.20(post) + .85(insur) + .80(mo) + .33(post) = 6.68
When I'm willing to pay $7.00 for an item the latter seller may make a sale but I'd just as soon pay 5.91 +.77(post)
|
vargas
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:13:46 PM new
You know, I just received contact lenses I ordered... 8 boxes of 'em for $127.00.
I paid $5.95 for shipping, but the lens company mailed them to me in a free Priority Mail box for $3.20. GASP! Have I been ripped off??!?!?! Oh my God! I must have been! They charged me $2.75 more in shipping than they paid to ship! Of course, the lenses WERE $49.00 cheaper than the local shop and $125.00 cheaper than at my eye doc's office. But that doesn't matter! I was ripped off $2.75 on shipping!!!!
And Amazon.com just charged me $4.70 to ship a book that will arrive priority for $3.20. Oh no, it's an internet conspiracy!
Can you believe we're having this argument again over $1.44?? ($3.20-$0.77 postage and $0.99 for envelope). Good giggly wiggly!
edited because I really need a calculator at the end of a long day
[ edited by vargas on Aug 29, 2000 07:23 PM ]
|
FASTBACK302
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:14:52 PM new
THIS WILL BE MY ONLY OTHER RESPONSE TO THIS . AS I THINK I HAVE DID NO WRONG.
IF YOU WOULD CARE TO LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF SHIPPING IT SAYS (THE BUISNESS OF TRANSPORTING GOODS.)THNAKS TO THE ONES WHO UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AND SORRY FOR THE MISLEADING OF THE ONES WHO DO'NT
CHRIS
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:16:18 PM new
There was a thread on the boards this morning discussing the possibility of writing an auction description from the point of view of a child whose mommy was selling clothing the child had outgrown, even though the clothing was actually purchased with the idea of being re-sold.
Most of the opinions expressed seemed to be along the lines of it being a "cute" idea, and a good marketing approach. The apparent goal was to increase bids and to make more money.
Moral of story (apparently): It's okay to make up a story about the items you sell, but you better damn well be sure to account for every penny of your shipping charge, or there'll be hell to pay.
|
kitsch1
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:18:21 PM new
|
chococake
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:44:22 PM new
Lotsa
Too funny! Yes, I believe they do.
|
mauimoods
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:45:47 PM new
***DING**** Lightbulb just went off in my oh-so-slow brain. LOL! Thought that style of writing looking vaguely familiar
|
kiheicat
|
posted on August 29, 2000 07:56:06 PM new
fastback, STOP FREAKIN SHOUTING!
|
argh
|
posted on August 29, 2000 08:00:56 PM new
Fastback: I'd like to know how you came up with $3.20 as your fixed shipping amount. Why not $3.00 or $3.25? It sure looks to me like you were trying to mislead buyers into thinking it was for priority. If I am wrong, then please explain how you came up with $3.20.
"I DID PLACE IT ON EBAY STARTING THE BIDDING AT 1.50 AND HOPING IT WOULD GO UP FROM THERE. WHICH IT DID NOT,
SO THE REMAINDER OF THE SHIPPING MADE UP FOR IT."
Seems to me that padding your shipping to make up for low ending prices is fee avoidance.
I am surprised at the number of sellers who approve of this practice. It's unethical and misleading, IMO.
Argh
|
london4
|
posted on August 29, 2000 08:12:32 PM new
When postal rates increase, it will be interesting to see how many sellers will say "$3.85 shipping", we don't see many of those now. Something tells me that Fastback302 won't have "$3.20 shipping" any more.
|
Capriole
|
posted on August 29, 2000 09:17:40 PM new
London4 you took the words right out of my mouth!
Sorry Fastback302 looks like we are nuking you, but it is not anything more than distaste for OMISSIONS in shipping terms.
Capriole (not on ebay with that name)
|
edhdsn
|
posted on August 29, 2000 09:17:56 PM new
We wont let this go! Help!!
Wow how have things have changed. I got sucked into minor mess.
To the seller, remember when you did shows, did you ever give the wrong change, this person says you did, gave her 2 bucks instead of three, its a buck send it back.
To the buyer, did you have to get in your car drive to the show, pay $5 to park, $5 to get in, then walk the entire show and buy this one beannie baby, because its the only thing that you found.oh yea being there for 4 hours paid $4 for a cold hotdog and $3 for a flat coke. Its only a buck get over it.
Please folks, lets not forget what we had to do to buy and sell before the internet and start cutting some fokes some slack.
Ed
edhdsn
|
Libra63
|
posted on August 29, 2000 09:35:51 PM new
I think that the seller was wrong in stating that the shipping would be $3.20 It should have said S/H but still that is steep, at least in my book it is. What kind of shipping do you get for 77 cents? What if that item had never arrived? At least with Priority Mail handling is a little different and I can only imagine that the buyer thought that she wouldn't need insurance if it was Priority Mail. I think if you want to make more on your item that the price of the item should be started higher not make it up in shipping. But again it is only my opinion and who am I. I usually pay for Handling I only charge actual shipping. Sometimes I make a penny and sometimes I lose. I think the buyer had a right to complain.
|
oddish4
|
posted on August 29, 2000 10:11:06 PM new
ROFL@lotsa
Oddish~ The Odd One
|
kiheicat
|
posted on August 29, 2000 10:39:09 PM new
Not to nag on the handling aspect again (well maybe a smidge, lol) but as I have said so many times before, I think that handling fees for anything other than ACTUAL cost (bubble wrap and other supplies that are not free) is flat out WRONG!!! I don't charge handling fees and in my descriptions where my shipping policy is S.P.E.L.L.E.D. out (seems the seller here could have avoided a lot of aggravation spelling it out) I say "I don't charge any WHIMPY handling fees." Not tacking on that extra 50 cents, or in this sellers case an extra 2.43 for a 1.50 item (!) has earned me many loyal repeat buyers. You cannot tell me that if I tacked on an extra 2.43 on every item I would have more ppl than I do now come back. It just wouldn't happen. As I buyer, I sure as h@ll wouldn't. What is that 2.43 covering? Gas? Coffee? Lunch? Humph!
Buyer got suckered on a misleading ad but has to deal with it since the TOS was worded in the seller's favor and leaves little recourse.
Oh well.
|
