Item not as described; sell has refused my return request, offered partial refund instead...

[tazzieterror]

TL;DR 

Is it ok for an item to show cosmetic wear when listed as "used", despite being desribed by the seller as "in new condition"?

*****

I'm just curious how this is likely to play out.

A few days ago I received a microphone purchased from an inexperienced seller.  It was listed as used, but described by the seller as being "in new condition".  When I opened it, I've discovered that it has a number of scuff marks and scratches on the body, and doesn't actually look that new at all.

I politely wrote to the seller with a couple photos, mentioned the marks, and they've replied saying they didn't really look at the cosmetic conidtion when describing it for the listing, but they can see some minor marks in the the original high-res photos they took, but as they've listed it as used (and eBay's definition of used mentions the potential for wear or cosmetic marks), it shouldnt be a problem.

I've then politely replied, explaining that since they've described it as being in "new condition", it shouldn't have any marks on it, despite being listed as used.  I apologised for the trouble, but explained I'd be puting in a return request, and then proceded to do so.

That seemed to offend the seller a lilttle; they've refused the return saying that the blemishes are within eBay's guidelines for a used item, and I should have been aware of the potential for it to have cosmetic wear. They've instead offered a partial refund of $30, which is about 15% of the sale value.

I have two questions here:

1. Is the seller correct that some cosmetic wear and scractches are acceptable, given that it was listed as used, and despite being described "as new"?

2. If I decline the partial refund, am I still able to pursue a return and full refund? What's the process that follows declining a partial refund?

Thanks in advance for any replies!

[kopenhagen5]

1. Yes. eBay's definition. Used - An item that has been used previously. The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear, but is fully operational and functions as intended.

2. You can decline the partial refund offer and will be required to send the item back via trackable means for a full refund.

Personally I would accept the partial as IMO the seller didn't need to offer it and even though a poor choice of words, the seller probably meant the item is working as new condition, not intending to be deceptive.

[lyndal1838]

If the seller fights the dispute you will probably lose.....to be not as described the item must be SIGNIFICANTLY not as described.

I doubt that cosmetic wear on a used item would qualify.  

The seller has done nothing wrong and did not need to offer the partial refund.

[tazzieterror]

Ok, thanks for clarifying that for me, lyndal1838 and kopenhagen5 - I guess I can stop being so pedantic in the way I describe my own used listings! 🙂

[kopenhagen5]

You're welcome.

But keep being pedantic, I also prefer to be precise and describe so I don't get any disappointments coming back.

Afterall eBay's definitions are only guidelines and if you do better, keep up the good work.

[fixnwear]

tazzie, 

"item is not as described" is very subjective, down to a personal opinion and it doesn't mean anything to anyone but you.

You can line up 100 peeps and ask their opinion on something used - and I bet you'll get a different answer from every one of them!

That is why Ebay had to generalise when saying some cosmetic faults are just fine with used items - after all they are NOT brand new.

Now, you can be as pendantic as you like with your own listings - but it would be unrealistic to expect all to be the same. They are not you - everyone is an individual with their own ideas on how and what to say in their own listings.

I think that those who deliberately set out to meslead & cheat are relatively easy to spot - the rest of them obviously think they listing content  is more than enough to get the message accross:

Item is not brand new, it has been used with evidence of that showing - but it works, or it's fit for the intended use.

So, just relax, it doesn't look like you have been cheated, and refuse the offer by the seller - you don't really need any money back as your item is exactly the same now as it was when you bought it.

[phorum_junkie*]

While I don't think the transaction is grounds for a neg perhaps, after you get your partial refund, leave a neutral feedback saying that the seller failed to metion cosmetic damage.

[tazzieterror]

---

@fixnwear wrote:

tazzie, 

"item is not as described" is very subjective, down to a personal opinion and it doesn't mean anything to anyone but you.

You can line up 100 peeps and ask their opinion on something used - and I bet you'll get a different answer from every one of them!

---

"Item not as described" may be subjective, but "in new condition" shouldn't be.

[fixnwear]

tazzie, of course not!  New and used are not the same - they never will be.

But, please foorgive me if I have made a terrible mistake and mis understood your plight!

I was under the impression that you KNEW  the item was sec. hand.

Were you under the ipmeression that it was brand new?

That would make all the difference, of course, being advertised as new - and receiven something that was used - no matter how much in a good working order it may be!

But if the listing said used, and also said working as new - that is spot on, nothing wrong there - except maybe you just latched onto "as new" words and ignored everything else - as it's more convenient to your cause for a case "item not as described" being filed.

***And to those who suggest you leave them a bad f/back - which part of used didn't you understand. Saying something is NOT new should suffice to anyone even with a very limited command of language understandang. No need to go and mention every scratch and spot, we all know what used means. Only a major things are really worthy of special mention, description and pictures.

Honestly, I am always wandering how some people would live without the ability to leave f/back!

Especially in the cases where they clearly can't win a case - it would take away any retribution abilities whatsoever.

[digital*ghost]

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

A few days ago I received a microphone purchased from an inexperienced seller.  It was listed as used, but described by the seller as being "in new condition".  When I opened it, I've discovered that it has a number of scuff marks and scratches on the body, and doesn't actually look that new at all.

I politely wrote to the seller with a couple photos, mentioned the marks, and they've replied saying they didn't really look at the cosmetic conidtion when describing it for the listing, but they can see some minor marks in the the original high-res photos they took, but as they've listed it as used (and eBay's definition of used mentions the potential for wear or cosmetic marks), it shouldnt be a problem.

I've then politely replied, explaining that since they've described it as being in "new condition", it shouldn't have any marks on it, despite being listed as used.  I apologised for the trouble, but explained I'd be puting in a return request, and then proceded to do so.

---

The seller's response would suggest to me that when they listed the condition as 'like new' they were perhaps referring to operational condition, rather than cosmetic condition.

I understand that the distinction is very different depending on the item in question - for example, if I bought a dress that was described as "used but like new" and it arrived damaged, then when I contacted the seller to complain they said "well, it doesn't affect the fact that you can wear it just like I could when it was brand new", I'd be a little bit miffed, because look and function affect one another for fashion items and the like.

If, on the other hand, I bought a record player that had some minor cosmetic damage but played albums exactly the way it did when it was first out of the box, I'd be over the moon. 😉