posted on November 27, 2001 11:41:02 AM new
I have had a new car replaced due to defects. Many new things come with defects, but that is not the question. The question is , who is responsible for making the item whole and fit and non-defective. That is squarely on the vendor.
I also bought a "used" car that was sold "as is", and when the A/C compressor went out 2 weeks later, it was replaced at the dealers expense. How could this be ? Because the dealer had a check-off sheet on the window of the car that said the A/C was inspected and OK. Before you buy a used car off a lot, make them do an inspection and have the results written out, or insist on taking the car and having your own mechanic make an inspection - but it is better to have them do it.
Sharp dealing and/or using weasel language is no way to do business with the public, and consumer law doesn't support it either.
posted on November 27, 2001 11:44:04 AM new
Reamond, we're not interested in your interpretation of the law, or your dream outcome. As-Is by the law states buyer is responsible for inspection of the item.
<br />
<br />
Your fallacy would not hold up in court. Case study after case study, seller always wins in these cases. Again, where's the proof of fraud?
A refund is not required by law, that service is done by companies who charge you for it, and want your repeat business.
[ edited by quickdraw29 on Nov 27, 2001 11:47 AM ]
posted on November 27, 2001 11:49:03 AM new
On as-is sales, it is the responsibility of the buyer. On sales with a guarantee, it is the responsiblity of the seller.
posted on November 27, 2001 11:49:24 AM new
Just to add- the security of consumer transactions is a very important aspect of a modern economy.
Refunds for defective items are part of that security. It offers an incentive for consumers to buy.
Saving $100 on a $750 item sounds great. But if the item has undisclosed defects, your loss is now $750. I also doubt that return policies are the reason for the price differentials. Refunds represent very little in overhead for large B&M vendors, their only expense is handling. In fact, the suppliers refund the retailer for defective items, and the supplier gets refunds from his supplier, all the way to the manufactorer.
posted on November 27, 2001 11:52:01 AM newAs-Is by the law states buyer is responsible for inspection of the item.
Negative. Perhaps quickdraw should take some business law courses at his local community college.
By the way, Target does take returns on "clearance" items, if said return is for a defect and accompanied by a receipt. I returned a pair of girls shorts last week because of some kind of marker stain. These were on "clearance" and were leftover summerstock.
posted on November 27, 2001 11:53:55 AM new
Look up the legal term "implied warranty of merchantability". A warranty exists on an item even without a refund policy. A warranty means the seller either cures the defects or refunds.
posted on November 27, 2001 11:57:28 AM new
You're right KatyD, Quickdraw needs to educate on business and consumer law. Or he/she may find out the hard way.
posted on November 27, 2001 11:58:42 AM new
Reamond, are you mixing up what I said? I said I saved $750 on one item and $100 on another, NOT saved $100 on a $750 item. Yes it is worth it when you do the math. Figure 2% unhappy rate, figure your losses on those 2%. You'll come out ahead after only three more purchases. Plus if you saw my earlier example you can subtract the risk from every puchase. It's impossible to lose unless you make a run of bad purchases which is imrobable.
posted on November 27, 2001 12:00:12 PM new
Regardless of how much you saved, if you're the unhappy one with a defective product, the cost analysis didn't save you a penny.
posted on November 27, 2001 12:02:52 PM new
KatyD, first of all, I did take law in college, and I've studied actual cases.
Second, Target has a sign that says no return on clearance items. I bought a Tv on clearance at Target and they repeately told me no return if it is defective.
posted on November 27, 2001 12:11:08 PM new
Target can tell you all day long that there is no return if defective, but there is still an implied warranty of merchantability unless the defect is disclosed at the time of sale.
Target knows that 99.9% of the customers will not question this tactic.
posted on November 27, 2001 12:13:26 PM new
Here's the definition for those who are following this thread. Implied Warranty of Merchantability: "Warranty that gurantees that goods are reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose unless disclaimed with words as-is or with faults."
This does not cover garage sales, or flea markets, and auctions.
These shoes were reasonably fit for their purposes. Buyer posted item can be worn twice before need of replacement.
posted on November 27, 2001 12:17:32 PM new
a car is not a pair of ballet shoes for 15 dollars.
a used car with bad compressor can get the used car dealer unwanted publicity if the buyer tells it to the local newspaper columnist/
sure this car may sold as is,but any dealer who wants to stay in business want to do somthing like fixing it and keeping the buyer mouth shut.
same goes with target,someone who shops clearance items is likely to come back and shop regular items,target is a big store,why win small on clearance item and lose a good customer,we all know how much consumers love to shop.
but this ebay seller,despite her claim of having a staff,is probably working solo at home and could not care less if you stop shopping from her,15 dollars is now in her pocket and she does not want the defective item back.
i would just have it fixed locally or trash it and go to store and buy a new pair.
posted on November 27, 2001 12:19:25 PM new
"Regardless of how much you saved, if you're the unhappy one with a defective product, the cost analysis didn't save you a penny."
What?
My parents bought me a (defective) train set through a major department store when I was ten, sure I was unhappy that I couldn't play with it on Christmas, but that's a facvt of life.
Well, Reamond, it's been real. I have to finish up my packaging so I can come home and do listings. I'm sure you learned some law today from me that will save you some sorrow in the future.
posted on November 27, 2001 12:26:12 PM new
Being able to wear them twice is not reasonably fit as applied to dancing shoes.
But more improtantly Quickdraw29, how could this implied warranty of merchantability be, when you said that there is no way to get refunds unless there is a policy for refunds by the seller ? Could it be that there is law that supercedes a vendor's policy ? Implied warranty of merchantability is but one term in the law that protects consumers.
The terms "as is" and with "faults" can also be neutralized if the vendor has made claims in the sale that over ride these terms.
I would also add that eBay isn't actually a fleamarket, garage sale, or an auction as applied to warranty of merchantability. All three of these venues have the ability of in-hand inspection of the items and arms length dealing. eBay offers none of this.
But what eBay actually is, is still being decided.
posted on November 27, 2001 12:28:15 PM new
I did learn something about the law from you Quickdraw29- you've shown that you don't know what you're talking about or how to find or apply the law.
posted on November 27, 2001 02:10:37 PM new
If anyone still cares about the original transaction I just received this from the seller with regard to the note I sent her about the chargeback.
BTW, this is a buying ID and my FB is 98 pos (75 from unique users) 0 neutral and 1 negative from back in June. Of course it was a retaliatory neg. Seller sold me something that was supposed to be in a leather case, it wasn't, we couldn't work it out. I left a neg, I got one in return.....ah but I digress.....
Note from seller:
"I expected you to follow this route.
Do what you must. Unfortunately not everyone can be pleased all of the
time. Of course, you probably already realize that positive feedback was
left on your behalf . I see from a comment left by someone else that you
received good merchandise at a fair price and they felt you were
unreasonable to deal with. The product you received from me was purchased
at below wholesale and I also feel that your request for reimbursement of
shipping charges both ways is unreasonable as well. You will find that most
mail order businesses do not reimburse for shipping and would be comparable
to this situation.
I do hope that your child is able to find slippers that meet your needs.
I have found that with the recent events of September it is appropriate to
determine how much time should be spent worrying about material things in
life. I am quite satisfied knowing that the product I provided in this
auction was of adequate quality at fair price. I am truly sorry you are
not. Let us go on to more important things.
wishes for a Happy Holiday Season and a Safe New Year to you and your
family."
posted on November 27, 2001 02:23:24 PM newThese shoes were reasonably fit for their purposes. Buyer posted item can be worn twice before need of replacement
Sorry but I very much disagree. Most children grow out of thier ballet shoes/slippers before they wear out. It takes a heck of a lot to wear out/break a pair of ballet slippers. They are usually very durable.
[ edited by just4laffs on Nov 27, 2001 02:24 PM ]
Edited to remove flaky html
[ edited by just4laffs on Nov 27, 2001 02:25 PM ]
posted on November 27, 2001 02:51:12 PM new
Ok, I'm back for a few.
Here's a few pointers to keep in mind:
"There is no warranty of merchantability if the seller is not a merchant, or if the seller is a merchant but does not ordinarily sell goods of that kind."
A reasonable time is open for interpretation so I won't get into that. If I buy a car for $10, I'd persoally expect immediate defects.
Most stores don't say as-is because they have a refund policy in place. They are not required to have a refund policy when they say it is sold with faults.
posted on November 27, 2001 03:04:39 PM newI have found that with the recent events of September it is appropriate to determine how much time should be spent worrying about material things in life.
Oh gawwwwwwwdwddddd... where's an eye-rolling smiley when I need one?
just4laffs, you've handled this very well and been more than reasonable with this seller. I hope you get speedy resolution from your credit card company and can put this behind you.
posted on November 27, 2001 04:38:14 PM new
Thanks Rainy. I've tried to remain professional in my communications with the seller, and to be honest she has been very professional as well in her communications with me.
I think perhaps in hindsight; the fact that the seller used a manufacturer's picture in her ad along with the fact that she had an "all sales final" policy should have been a tipoff that all was not quite kosher. Had she used the actual picture of the shoes in the ad, the flaw would have been obvious.
Ah well, live and learn. Sometimes even us old dogs need to learn new tricks.
posted on November 27, 2001 06:54:46 PM new
I really can't believe some of the stuff I've read on this post. Quickdraw29, exactly what law courses did you take? Did you fail that course? And since you're an Ebay seller, what's your return policy? This is a big problem with alot of sellers on Ebay, they care about getting the money and could care less if the customer is happy. As a seller/buyer myself I completely understand that my buyers are unable to physically pivk up the item and fully inspect it. I refund 100% of all funds given to me (including shipping) if the product shipped arrives damaged. However, I inspect all products prior to delivery, so if it's damaged in transit then I file a claim (everything ships insured).
Some of you will have issues with this next statement but I do not think sellers should sell what they do not own. How can they accurately describe it? You can't rely on the buyed to ask all the questions, you as the seller (the one who wants the money) should work for it and accuratley describe whatever it is you're selling...to the T. Yeah I know "but the high dollar items are too expensive to keep in stock", then don't sell 'em, look at feedbacks, the people who have alot of feedback from high dollar items have more negs than the same high feedback seller who sells the smaller dollar stuff.
posted on November 27, 2001 07:13:26 PM new
zclone- give quickdraw some time. We have already steered him/her from their original position that a vendor with no refund policy doesn't have to give refunds and that if the vendor has a refund policy, that policy rules the situation.
Quickdraw now knows that a vendor is bound by the warranty of merchantability rule regardless of the vendor's policy or lack thereof.
There are many, perhaps too many, sellers on eBay that think it is a feather in their cap and a professional milestone if they "out smart" a buyer. Regardless of lex merchantis, a satisfied customer is the first law of merchants.
But here is a feather in all of our caps--when the law of merchants is codified for online auction sales, many of the terms, customs and usages we have evolved through our business dealings will someday be written into the law merchant.
posted on November 27, 2001 07:19:52 PM new
the excuse of selling what you dont own on high priced items that it is too expensive to have them in stock-most of these items are not one of a kind like sony laptop or kodak digital camera,so as long as you have a steady supply and good relationship with your supplier,you can take a chance.
retailers do not always have everything in stock but as long as they know and can get them,no problem.
it is the dabblers who work from home and do not have relationship with the supplier who is giving ebay a bad name.
posted on November 27, 2001 09:52:54 PM new
Just my 2cents. About 2 years ago a coworker of mine wanted dolls named after her girls to give them as Christmas presents. Well, I of course said "Oh, I can find them on Ebay". She said, "Ok", and gave me the amount she wanted to spend. Well, after finding a gorgeous doll named "XXXXXXX" I bid and won. When I received the doll the satin on the dress had VERY obvious stains and was extremely dirty. These stains were not visible in the photos from the angles taken. I emailed the seller and to make a long story end sooner, he issued me a refund minus the shipping. So, I was out $8.00 for the shipping. Moral of the story, there are sellers who just don't care. As a seller, I would have refunded the entire amount including shipping if I had missed a flaw that noticeable. I learned my lesson about buying for friends. Ebay is not like shopping at a store where you inspect before you buy. You are putting a lot of faith into the goodness and honesty of people. I've been burned a few times but most of my experiences have been good ones. I guess I should be happy that I even got a refund.
posted on November 27, 2001 09:53:03 PM new
Reamond actually thinks he steered me somewhere to the truth. However, upon reveiwing my statements it is clear he just destorted what I said for his own clever twisted sheme.
This is what Reamond stated:"give quickdraw some time. We have already steered him/her from their original position that a vendor with no refund policy doesn't have to give refunds and that if the vendor has a refund policy, that policy rules the situation."
But as you'll see, Reamond successfully fooled some village idiots to believe he speaks the truth.
Here's what I actually said:
"As-Is by the law states buyer is responsible for inspection of the item....
A refund is not required by law, that service is done by companies who charge you for it, and want your repeat business....
On as-is sales, it is the responsibility of the buyer. On sales with a guarantee, it is the responsiblity of the seller."
Clearly, the law as already pointed out in a previous post, the implied warranty is not in effect for as-is sales. Reamond conveniently left out the as-is part. Therefore I was correct that a refund policy is never revoked for an as-is sale.
eBay's link to pre-order sales rules. If this seller did not have the item in her posession, according to eBay rules, she should have stated so in her ad.
Please note the interesting link at the bottom of the page regarding the FTC rules for mail and phone order sales.
posted on November 28, 2001 04:15:59 AM new
During approx. 2000 successful eBay auctions, I've had around 4 folks email me with disatisfaction, mainly because they didn't read the auction ad correctly!
Although I was in the RIGHT each time, ans after spending a few minutes chewing the carpet and beating the dog, I emailed them the following:
"Dear Bozo Buyer:
I'm terribly sorry that you are unhappy with your purchase! My goal is to make ALL of my eBay winners totally satisfied with my product and service.
Please return the item & I will refund 100% of your high bid PLUS shipping charges BOTH ways!
Best wishes for happiness with your future eBay activities!
Sincerely,
ME"
All four emailed me back & stated that they were now HAPPY & wanted to keep their items & ALL gave me GLOWING POS F/B
One person was the VP in charge of INTERNET OPERATIONS for a MAJOR company that ALL of us use everyday! I was really sweating that one -- now this person is a regular customer!
MORAL? Customer is ALWAYS right, even when they are totally 100% WRONG! Our goal should ALWAYS be to put a on all our winners' faces with EVERY transaction!
I just received this from the seller with regard to the note I sent her about the chargeback.