Is this a reasonable return request?

[ajarnjenny]

I bought a dress (used) in good condition, but, the darts are sewn on the outside of the dress, overlocked with threads hanging off and the back zip is sewn in on the wrong side of the dress. When I first got it, I thought that it was inside out, but the side seams are sewn the correct way. The seller claims that this is a design feature of this 'very expensive' dress, which I bought cheaply.

It may well be a design feature, but was not mentioned in the listing and I think if it is a design feature, it is quite a different feature and should have been mentioned. I have looked at the photos again and now that I know the dress has an inside out look, I can tell, if I zoom on those parts, but I would never have thought to check whether the  darts and zip have been sewn on the right side.

She has refused the return and accused me of buyers remorse and is very insulted that  I didn't like her 'very expensive' dress.

I could never wear it. People would look at me and think 'that poor old lady has her dress on inside out'.

I have never returned anything before.

What to do now?

[black*poppy]

Wow, that's a bit harsh from you Sheep.  Bit suprised.

The OP obviously didn't want to get one over the seller to then feel pleased about.  She came to the boards seeking advice.  And she certainly wasn't looking to give her a neg, merely asking why the seller was chasing her for fb, which I agree is a bit odd.

I find it extremely interesting that if the external darts are so 'trendy' right now, then why didn't the seller highlight this gorgeous "beautiful" feature in the listing?

Probably because it looks like a dog's breakfast, especially if the seams have threads hanging.

IMO the lack of descriptors, even if it is in the photos, is hiding something.  Especially given how thorough she was when describing the zip, etc.

For example, if there had been a stain, say on the first distant picture and the seller failed to mention it, it is not good enough to state "well it was in the photos".  I think you would agree that the seller should mention (in writing) any defects to point them out - so there is no misunderstanding.

I reckon that unless you knew what to look for.... if you even knew that outside darts existed (I have to admit I didn't)... then you wouldn't understand what these are from looking at the photos.  

I think the seller knew what she was doing when she 'wrote' the listing, because if she admitted how the dress was constructed she may have believed the dress wasn't as sellable.

At a minimum, "threads hanging" should have been in the listing for the item to be as described.

[lane-ends]

The lesson here is to stick to sellers who have a returns policy for change of mind. Make it worthwhile for item to offer this poliyy to atttract more sales.

There will always be occasional disapointments when buying sight unseen. That is the risk you take, and you can choose not to take it. The choice is yours.

Sellers rarely deliberately hide what they would consider "faults', as the consequences are unwanted and all to easy to cop.

[black*poppy]

Exactly.  This is exactly how I treat my sales and have a return policy.

My litmus test when I buy clothing is "can I sell this on" because if it doesn't fit then this is exactly what I do (I've NEVER opened a case for doesn't fit).  It's the main reason I can buy so much on ebay, I don't have to worry.

So omitting that a garment has a stain, hole. bad pilling etc is when the trouble starts.  If I'd received this dress without any idea about the seams, I would pretty concerned about getting my money back through reselling.    Because PERSONALLY I would feel obliged to mention the seams, making it probably unsellable.

So that's the test.  Much more like a not as described to me.

[jensmanchester-australia]

Black*poppy - the seller provided 5 pictures and the darts and the zipper on the outside are clearly visible.

Ebay obviously didn't consider it Not as Described as the OP has stated that they were given a courtesy refund (and not a refund from the seller)

Ebay are very tough on sellers when it comes to photos and descriptions so if they didn't rule it as Not as Described then it can only be a case of buyers remorse.

[black*poppy]

I think it's obfuscation on the part of the seller.  I totally disagree that I would have gleaned the darts were inside out from the photos without prior knowledge. JMO

It's one of those grey areas, and while ebay have to rule one way or another, they pretty much stayed on the fence as much as is possible for ebay IMO.  

Do you have a good reason why the seller failed to mention it, given how thorough she was with other features?

[i-love-my-sheep]

---

@black*poppy wrote:

I think it's obfuscation on the part of the seller.  I totally disagree that I would have gleaned the darts were inside out from the photos without prior knowledge. JMO

It's one of those grey areas, and while ebay have to rule one way or another, they pretty much stayed on the fence as much as is possible for ebay IMO.  

Do you have a good reason why the seller failed to mention it, given how thorough she was with other features?

---

Maybe you should ask the seller yourself. As far as I know, no-one here has a crystal ball or can read minds.

Sorry, but the photos were clear and I still believe this is a change of mind. Now that the OP has the refund, she should do the right thing and return the dress to the seller. Why should she keep the dress and the refund when she's already admitted she won't wear it?

[cherry*135]

I presume the seller still has the funds she received for the dress so is not out of pocket? Buyer received a refund courtesy of eBay.

OP wrote: you cannot cut overlocked threads off, they just unravel and leave more thread

Easy fixed, with a needle, thread them through to the wrong side. Loose threads are present on many bought garments, from cheap ones to more expensive ones.

[cq_tech]

This is yet another case of eBay clearly siding with the buyer. and I think it's a disgusting outcome. How fair is it that the seller has had her reputation tarnished and copped a defect while the buyer has been given a discretionary refund of the full amount paid and also has possession of the unwanted dress?

There's something very wrong about that and if the OP ultimately sells the dress, I hope she is honest enough to have the decency to send the original seller half the sale price via Paypal, or donates the entire amount to charity. Sellers really do get unceremoniously screwed by eBay on this bloody site.

[fixnwear]

cq_tech, I think that Ebay gave the OP money from their own account, not the seller's.

Seller still has the money, but also, most likely a defect.

OP did not have the right to state:

"She could have just refunded me without having to go through the dispute"

Why would seller "just refund" when she clearly doesn't want to, otherwise she would have had that in the listings - refund for a change of mind.

Totally disregarding anyone's sales conditions is not on - as the item belongs to the seller, it's their store, they can set any conditions that suit them.

It's like saying:

"I don't really care what you have in your listings, write what you like - it doesn't mean anything to me - I want my money back and that's that"

I'm sure that OP is generaly quite a nice lady - but it just shows how even nice people do unjust things because Ebay has made it possible and very easy for them to get their way.

Except there is nothing stopping us disregarding all that Ebay's carp and still maintaining our ethics that we live our life by  outside of Ebay.

[cq_tech]

Yes fixnwear, that's precisely what I meant when I said that the OP received a discretionary refund, which means that neither the seller nor the buyer are out of pocket, yet by some strange quirk of fate, thanks to eBay's ridiculous handling of the problem, the buyer now has a dress that she neither likes, nor paid for.

So essentially my question is what does the OP intend doing with this dress that cost her nothing, but is clearly worth a considerable amount of money? The seller has been paid for it so there's no problem there, but the buyer has also been refunded in full yet still has possession of this expensive dress which she can now sell and keep the profits, which to my mind would be an extremely unjust and immoral thing to do, considering it cost her nothing.

Ideally, eBay should take possession of the dress as they've basically paid for it, but that is of course pointless, so I believe the fairest option is for the OP to sell the dress and either split the sale price with the seller, or donate the entire amount to charity. IOW, either the seller and buyer should both benefit equally, or nobody should. Anything else would be unfair and inequitable, and ultimately I blame eBay and their poorly considered policies for putting the OP in this position.