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!

[springyzone]

I'll go a bit against the trend in that I think you've been let down by the seller and this sort of misleading desciption annoys me no end.

If anyone writes "as new" in a description, I expect that to be literal. I know it is used, but it should be in such good condition that it would be hard to pick at first glance that it isn't new. That's what 'as new' means to me.

The fact the seller also mentioned it had only been used a couple of times would also lead a buyer to think it was in excellent condition.

I am sick to death of some sellers listing things 'as new' when they aren't.

Yes, I know the term 'used' can mean some signs of cosmetic wear. The words 'as new' override that. If there are quite a few signs of wear, it is not as new.

This seller could have written it was in very good condition & worked perfectly, they could have written it was in excellent used condition with only a few minor signs of wear. But they didn't.

This buyer deserves every cent of a refund and if $30 is only 15%, then this was not a cheap item.

If I were the buyer, I'd decide what I wanted. If I wanted to keep the microphone, then I would take the partial refund.

If I felt seriously unhappy with it, I would pursue a not as described and take close up photos of the faults. Maybe the buyer will win, maybe not, but it's worth a go.

Of course, lose the case & the seller's offer of a partial refund will probably be lost too.

[tazzieterror]

---

@springyzone wrote:

...

If anyone writes "as new" in a description, I expect that to be literal. I know it is used, but it should be in such good condition that it would be hard to pick at first glance that it isn't new. That's what 'as new' means to me.

The fact the seller also mentioned it had only been used a couple of times would also lead a buyer to think it was in excellent condition.

...

Yes, I know the term 'used' can mean some signs of cosmetic wear. The words 'as new' override that. If there are quite a few signs of wear, it is not as new.

This seller could have written it was in very good condition & worked perfectly, they could have written it was in excellent used condition with only a few minor signs of wear. But they didn't.

...  

---

Yes, this pretty much sums up what my understanding is on the meaning of "as new" in a description - I was a little surprised by the replies on the first page.  Thanks for taking the time to reply, springy.

[digital*ghost]

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

---

Yes, this pretty much sums up what my understanding is on the meaning of "as new" in a description - I was a little surprised by the replies on the first page.  Thanks for taking the time to reply, springy.

---

Just a hypothetical, which you may or may not find applicable to the circumstances, or in any way useful...

What if the seller had written "works like new" instead, and nothing about the cosmetic condition?

The reason I ask that is because my previous post was intending to suggest that may be exactly what the seller (to their own mind) wrote, and that just from everyone else's perspective, it was ineffectual because 'as new' without any specific references, is more often interpreted as relating to overall condition. 

For what it's worth, I don't actually disagree with your and springy's interpretation, it's a very common understanding of the phrase and for that reason one may think it rare (or unlikely) that someone else would use it in an alternative manner, but it's not actually all that rare at all to come across people who think differently to others (as perhaps these very forums can prove 🙂 ), and it could be more likely when talking about an item where operational performance takes precedence over appearance, so I was also open to the possibility that the seller's intention was not necessarily to deliberately mislead.

Obviously I don't have enough information to forumlate an opinion on that one way or another, I'd be a little more skeptical if they were an experienced seller, which you mentioned they aren't, might also depend on the photos that were in the listing, whether or not they show the physical condition, or something like the best angles only, but I know that it's also common for the way someone thinks and subsquently writes what they mean to say in order to convey a particular meaning, can be vastly different to the way another person interprets what is written - this, and the hypothetical proposed above, would of course be much less relevant if the item in question does not work as new. 

I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but for something a little more relevant, a member recently posted here about losing a not as described claim on a dress, which was listed as "Used" and described "only worn once", but arrived with clear signs of wear and damage. Slightly different, I know, because "only worn once" implies "as new" rather than states it explicitly, but eBay's position on that was that the condition specifics formulates description if the seller's listing description doesn't elaborate on or contradict the condition specifics (I presume), so my guess is what you would have to argue in order to win a claim is that "as new" negates a condition specific that includes the liklihood of cosmetic wear. I can honestly say I wouldn't know how eBay will decide on that. 

[brerrabbit585]

I totally agree. If the offered partial refund is such a small amount of the total price then I think you haven't got much to lose and it's worth pursuing a case for not as described. Seller doesn't sound too inexperienced to me - they seem to know all the answers to try and wriggle out of having to be honest in their description.

If you paid using a credit card & paypal, see if your bank will help you if ebay and paypal don't help, but try them first. For the amount you paid, it's not just a play thing and appearance is just as important as how well it works.  I'd take screen shots of the listing description just in case the listing disappears for some reason.

[tazzieterror]

Thanks for elaborating, DG.

To answer your question, if the seller had written, "works like new" instead of "as new condition", I wouldn't have bid on it.  But in this specific instance I was looking for copy in new condition as I was intending to use this for a photographic project, and then sell it on.

As my maximum bid price took into account the eBay fees involved in reselling along with recent sell prices of other used copies of the same microphone, and I ended up getting it for about $20 under my bid anyway, I won't be out of pocket once all is said and done.

I'm more interested in the princples involved as I frequently buy and sometimes sell photographic equipment on eBay, occasionally to the value of a few thousand dollars, so if my understanding of "as new condition" describing a used item isn't correct or at least conventional, I want know!

Your example about the dress gets exactly to the crux of it - should describing an item "as new" negate eBay's default disclaimer about the possibility of cosmetic wear when listing an item under the "Used" item condition category?  Given that eBay's description of "used" states at the end, "Please see the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections.", I interpret "as new condition" as a statement that excludes an item from having imperfections - it should override the default aloowances in my opinion.

As you said though, how eBay might rule on it in a dispute is unclear.

In another recent experience I had, I purchased a camera lens from a seller who described it as being in "perfect condition" (another term I think is used a bit too liberally)  There was nothing obvious in the couple of procuct photos to contradict this, and I noticed in their feedback they'd sold a number of other photographic items recently that had all received positive feedback, so I went ahead and placed a bid that ended up winning.

When the lens arrived it had a number of obvious scuffs on the casing, fingerprints and possible scratches/marks on the front lens element, and...a whole lot of fungus growing inside - so much for perfect!  The seller immediately agreed to a refund when I sent through some photos of the internals, but I have no idea how they thought it could have been "perfect".  Like you said, some people think differently (or maybe just don't think at all!)

[tazzieterror]

---

@brerrabbit585 wrote:

I totally agree. If the offered partial refund is such a small amount of the total price then I think you haven't got much to lose and it's worth pursuing a case for not as described. Seller doesn't sound too inexperienced to me - they seem to know all the answers to try and wriggle out of having to be honest in their description.

If you paid using a credit card & paypal, see if your bank will help you if ebay and paypal don't help, but try them first. For the amount you paid, it's not just a play thing and appearance is just as important as how well it works.  I'd take screen shots of the listing description just in case the listing disappears for some reason.

---

Hi brerrabit,

As I mentioned in my reply to DG above, I'd factored in reselling the microphone once I'd finished using it for my intended purpose, and got it for a good price anyway so I'm not really that worried about the situation.  I don't need to punish the seller or prove that I'm "right" so won't pursue it any further.  

The seller has had their eBay account for 14 years according to their profile, but don't have a single feedback for selling yet, so I believe them to be as inexperienced as they claim they are, and all their previous correspondence were consistent with someone who is honest and trying to be helpful.

All my eBay purchases are settled through PayPal on a credit card, so if I were convinced of intentional deception by the seller I would have the bank to try as a last resort.  Fortunately that's not the case here.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts though!

[springyzone]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

---

Yes, this pretty much sums up what my understanding is on the meaning of "as new" in a description - I was a little surprised by the replies on the first page.  Thanks for taking the time to reply, springy.

---

Just a hypothetical, which you may or may not find applicable to the circumstances, or in any way useful...

What if the seller had written "works like new" instead, and nothing about the cosmetic condition?

The reason I ask that is because my previous post was intending to suggest that may be exactly what the seller (to their own mind) wrote, and that just from everyone else's perspective, it was ineffectual because 'as new' without any specific references, is more often interpreted as relating to overall condition. 

 I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but for something a little more relevant, a member recently posted here about losing a not as described claim on a dress, which was listed as "Used" and described "only worn once", but arrived with clear signs of wear and damage. Slightly different, I know, because "only worn once" implies "as new" rather than states it explicitly, but eBay's position on that was that the condition specifics formulates description if the seller's listing description doesn't elaborate on or contradict the condition specifics (I presume), so my guess is what you would have to argue in order to win a claim is that "as new" negates a condition specific that includes the liklihood of cosmetic wear. I can honestly say I wouldn't know how eBay will decide on that. 

---

I do understand what you're getting at & I think if the seller had written,'works like new' that would have been a bit different.

Those words (if you were looking to buy in order to photograph something) might trigger caution & cause you to ask the seller-yes, but does it also look like new?

I realise it was someone new to selling but it sounds as if they were not all that new to ebay itself.

Words and photos are the only way for a buyer to make a purchase decision so I hate sellers who gloss over faults or don't mention them or who use extravagant phrases such as 'perfect condition' when it's not. I never, ever did that when we were selling & it just annoys me when others do it, I guess.

I think I recall that case with the dress. Is it the one where a seller put up a stock photo of a new dress but theirs had been washed and the colours looked to have run? For anyone to write 'only worn once' implies 'as new' & I could not understand ebay's verdict on that one. Once I saw the photo of the real item sent versus the photo put in the ad, I would have said it was 'not as described.'

But that's me, ebay is a law unto itself.

Tazzie, if you've decided not to pursue it with the seller, take the $30 refund and resell. At least then you may come out even. You're entitled to some refund.

[fixnwear]

springyzone,

how is OP entitled to $30?

Just because the seller offered doesn't make it morally right, let alone being "entitled"

I have a work collegaue who sells on Ebay - most highly coveted items that usually sell as soon as they are listed. People can't buy them fast enough!

Her items conditions are always either USED or NEW.

Nothing else, no any other clarifying points. Because that is what it is - either new or not new. Not a single additional word - anything to provide with fodder for complaints.

Several complained about some rubbish minor carp (as they do on Ebay), they LOST disputes every time.

Why? Because this seller as well as Ebay tell them the item was used - end of story.

She had also had 2 negs removed recently for exactly the same reason. They both said something along the lines "they were disappointed" with the condition.

Ebay said that is subjective, suffice to say the item was used, as per the listing - and expecting anything else was a mistake on buyer's part.

Feel free to check with Ebay. I'm not talking about some real damage, something that buyers would have been entitled to know before  they buy, just  those, the usual culprits who look for every spot, every scratch, for a fly in the ointment - enough to drive any seller insane! While at the same time conveniently forgot how much they paid for the item - saving hundreds of dollars. 

Ditto for saying in the listing: condition is very good (she did that at the begining, was using Ebay's terminology to classify the condition), and the buyer turns around and says: "Said very good, but in my opinion is only good" - Ebay looks at that as wothless contribution as again, it's subjective. Again, f/back removed.

[tazzieterror]

---

@fixnwear wrote:

springyzone,

how is OP entitled to $30?

Just because the seller offered doesn't make it morally right, let alone being "entitled"

I have a work collegaue who sells on Ebay - most highly coveted items that usually sell as soon as they are listed. People can't buy them fast enough!

Her items conditions are always either USED or NEW.

Nothing else, no any other clarifying points. Because that is what it is - either new or not new. Not a single additional word - anything to provide with fodder for complaints.

Several complained about some rubbish minor carp (as they do on Ebay), they LOST disputes every time.

Why? Because this seller as well as Ebay tell them the item was used - end of story.

She had also had 2 negs removed recently for exactly the same reason. They both said something along the lines "they were disappointed" with the condition.

Ebay said that is subjective, suffice to say the item was used, as per the listing - and expecting anything else was a mistake on buyer's part.

Feel free to check with Ebay. I'm not talking about some real damage, something that buyers would have been entitled to know before  they buy, just  those, the usual culprits who look for every spot, every scratch, for a fly in the ointment - enough to drive any seller insane! While at the same time conveniently forgot how much they paid for the item - saving hundreds of dollars. 

Ditto for saying in the listing: condition is very good (she did that at the begining, was using Ebay's terminology to classify the condition), and the buyer turns around and says: "Said very good, but in my opinion is only good" - Ebay looks at that as wothless contribution as again, it's subjective. Again, f/back removed.

---

Hi again, fixnwear,

To suggest that accepting the seller's offer of a $30 refund is immoral, is plainly ridiculous.  They had the option to accept a refund, they had the option to refuse, but they chose to offer a refund - they can't be completely convinced they weren't at fault to some degree.  They're not being scammed - their written description was inaccurate, and unfortunately for them they've sold to a buyer who took them at their word and was looking for an item free from blemishes.

[black*poppy]

Fixnwear I find your position really interesting.

SO.. your friend doesn't (bother to) describe the condition of items beyond New or Used, so what buyers get on used items is a bit of a lottery? 

I don't know what your friend sells, but -wow- I'd be filing a Not As Described case for cosmetic damage if I received something where the damage wasn't mentioned.  I guess that makes me one of the "the usual culprits who look for every spot, every scratch, for a fly in the ointment" - c'mon, seriously. 

My way of thinking would be that the buyer is entitled to know about any damage and make up their mind whether they are ok with that because they would then have all the facts to make an informed decision. (On a side note, re: a fly in the ointment.  Lol, I'd love to see you open a big jar of moisturiser or somesuch with a big blowie in it and go "oh that's ok, I'm not that fussy")

Three cheers WOOT WOOT WOOT for your friend getting negs removed from buyers who were disappointed, because their items arrived with unexpected damage that wasn't mentioned in the descriptions. What a nice, honest, decent, moral person your friend is.  I mean she must be, because ebay says so.  Because we all know that ebay is an upstanding and moral company that pays it's taxes and treats all its sellers with equanimity and fairness 😛 

I feel sorry for those poor buyers.

As for the OP, "like new" has a really clear meaning  and I'm surpised at the most of the responses here.  I think it shows that there might be too many sellers on here.  "Like new" should mean it looks like new.  Sellers choose the Preowned option in the drop-down menu because that's the honest choice if the item has actually been used.  A used item can still look new and if a seller wrote "like new" in the description that is exactly what should be sent.  This is because items that look new (ie aren't damaged in any way) are worth more and sell for more.  As they should.  Even B&M stores discount for cosmetic damage of otherwise fully functioning items.  

Clearly that listing wasn't honest.   I don't understand the controversy.    It is not a moral stance for the seller to have it both ways.   

*Edited to correct a typo