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!

[digital*ghost]

---

@tazzieterror wrote:

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!

---

All more than perfectly reasonable, as were your expectations (my attempts at objectivity often do not come across as objective, unfortunately). 

Here is something completely subjective from a seller's perspective, though, something I thought earlier when reading back the previous comments (particularly the seller's response that was provided earlier) and will largely contradict most things I've written, - if I, as a seller, write something that I thought clearly explained an aspect of an item but receive a message from a buyer who was given a completely different impression from said description, (and I'm not talking about silly things, like "this is smaller than it looked in the photos"), whether or not I agreeed with the buyer's interepretation there would be a level of contrition on my part. By which I mean, if - as a hopefully logical and rational thinking person, as well as good-intentioned - I can see how or why a buyer was given to understand something I didn't actually mean, I would consider the fault mine and accept any resulting consequences, as well as provide any reasonable options to the buyer (including full refund on return). 

Any seller who considers themselves reasonable, and well-intentioned, would ideally approach things from the same perspective, and even if it doesn't seem like it, I actually hope this one goes in your favour. 

[tazzieterror]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

All more than perfectly reasonable, as were your expectations (my attempts at objectivity often do not come across as objective, unfortunately). 

Here is something completely subjective from a seller's perspective, though, something I thought earlier when reading back the previous comments (particularly the seller's response that was provided earlier) and will largely contradict most things I've written, - if I, as a seller, write something that I thought clearly explained an aspect of an item but receive a message from a buyer who was given a completely different impression from said description, (and I'm not talking about silly things, like "this is smaller than it looked in the photos"), whether or not I agreeed with the buyer's interepretation there would be a level of contrition on my part. By which I mean, if - as a hopefully logical and rational thinking person, as well as good-intentioned - I can see how or why a buyer was given to understand something I didn't actually mean, I would consider the fault mine and accept any resulting consequences, as well as provide any reasonable options to the buyer (including full refund on return). 

Any seller who considers themselves reasonable, and well-intentioned, would ideally approach things from the same perspective, and even if it doesn't seem like it, I actually hope this one goes in your favour. 

---

Yes I've been thinking a similar thing.  What's interesting is that despite the seller's position on the situation, they do seem to be well intentioned and a reasonable person, and their correpondance has been pleasant enough throughout.  Perhaps they're just a bit overzealous to not be pushed around by a buyer, and have read a few horror stories about all the scammers ripping off sellers through eBay (which would be ironic since the standard scam seems to be asking for a partial refund rather than returning an item!)  Maybe the seller just wants to clear out some clutter with a minimum amount of fuss and doesn't intend to sell on eBay regularly.

I actually felt a little bad for them to have their first eBay sale go this way - I didn't mention this to them, but if they had accepted the return I was going to take some decent product photos of the microphone for them to use when they relisted it, and suggest what I think would be a realistic BIN price, which incidentally would have covered both the original shipping charge and the cost to return it - they wouldn't need to have been out of pocket.

Anyway, I decided to accept the partial refund, but after clicking on accept, eBay gave an error message saying the refund couldnt be processed and to basically wait and see what happens.  I messaged the seller, they escalated the case, and this evening eBay themselves have refunded me the $30 through PayPal, so it seems to be resolved.

[brerrabbit585]

Be aware that the seller may have another ID that they usually sell on. Lots of sellers have a separate ID that they usually use for buying only, but may very occasionally sell something on it.

As far as I'm concerned it boils down to the fact that the seller didn't provide accurate details in the listing so it's up to them to fix their own mistake. Nobody should be expected to put up with items that 'aren't quite right' just because it's ebay.

[springyzone]

---

@fixnwear wrote:

springyzone,

how is OP entitled to $30?

Because the item was listed as new & clearly wasn't. In the opening post it said:

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.

The item was listed in the 'used' category, which is fine, but the seller, by saying 'as new' was trying to bump it up a level. I realise people's expectations can differ & some buyers can be too picky. It's a fine line. But 'as new' has a specific meaning to me so i think a slight refund is a fair enough compromise in this case.

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

I guess that is where we may be looking at it differently. I don't see it as necessarily morally right to mislead anyone in an ad although I do get the impression this was not so much deliverate in this case but just careless, a bit sloppy.

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.

I always prefer some sort of description myself but for rare or coveted items, it may be different. I also suspect your work mate probably takes a lot of very clear photos from every angle, so collectors probably already know what the object is, maybe they know the size, all they need to do is look at the photos to see the exact condition.

I don't think no description would cut it to sell everything though.

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!

I know I may come across as one of the picky ones but in general my sympathies are with sellers as I have been in that position, even WITH a clear description.

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.

It can be subjective, I agree. From my point of view, I would rather describe minor blemishes/add clear photos right from the start to try to avoid buyer disappointment. I can still recall some of our buyers saying the condition was a lot better than they expected to get, from the description.

Tassie, glad it is sorted.

---

[tazzieterror]

Just an update on this particular purchase - here's a message I've just sent to the seller, it should be self-explanatory!

***********************

Hi, I hope you're well.

Just getting in touch with you about the microphone again. As it wasn't suited to my purpose I've sold it on - it should reach its new owner in Tasmania on Tuesday or Wednesday I believe.

I was able to sell it for more than the amount I paid you, enough extra in fact that I can pay you back the $30 refund you gave me and still come out ahead. I'd like to do this as my original request to return the mic to you was simply to avoid being stuck with an item I wouldn't use, rather than to get some extra money back.

Once the buyer has received the mic and confirmed it has arrived fully-functional (it should - I wrapped it in enough bubble wrap to choke a whale!), I can either reimburse you the $30 through PayPal using the details from the original purchase, or do a bank transfer - whichever you prefer.

I'll let you know when I've heard from the buyer,

Cheers!

[springyzone]

Wow, tassie, that was very decent of you!

It is actually above & beyond what could be expected of you, I believe.

You were sold something that had not been fully described and which affected your ability to use it as intended and had to relist as a result.

I'm betting most people (despite the partial refund) would look on reselling (with either a profit or loss) as unrelated so you have been extremely generous in your offer.

[fixnwear]

springyzone,

OP did the right and decent thing, something that all of us would do under the circumstances.

Nothing unusual there - except that it's on Ebay - and seems to be worthy of super amazing accolades?

Because hardly anyone would do it - and when someone does the right thing all of a sudden it's "very special & generous"?????

And does that mean that you  would not only keep the item, keep the refund, re sell the item, make a profit on it - and still have the gall to criticise the seller for "mis describing it" and therefore not desrving of her money back? And most likely a negative f/back to boot - for not rolling over to start with and complying instantly with your requests? Only asking as you seem to be so taken by the op's "generosity".

I don't think so. You would most likely do exactly the same thing - that being the ONLY thing that could have been done in a case like this.

[digital*ghost]

---

@fixnwear wrote:

springyzone,

OP did the right and decent thing, something that all of us would do under the circumstances.

Nothing unusual there - except that it's on Ebay - and seems to be worthy of super amazing accolades?

Because hardly anyone would do it - and when someone does the right thing all of a sudden it's "very special & generous"?????

And does that mean that you  would not only keep the item, keep the refund, re sell the item, make a profit on it - and still have the gall to criticise the seller for "mis describing it" and therefore not desrving of her money back? And most likely a negative f/back to boot - for not rolling over to start with and complying instantly with your requests? Only asking as you seem to be so taken by the op's "generosity".

I don't think so. You would most likely do exactly the same thing - that being the ONLY thing that could have been done in a case like this.

---

Sometimes I find myself wondering if you primarily post for shock value. (Not that my late night wonderings amount to anything, not to mention that quite often, I seem to be the cheese, and in fact I don't mean that as a direct criticism, though certainly I rarely agree with what you say, that's not the point, maybe I just don't understand your perspective all that well).

None the less, I do see that you're confusing two different issues. A seller misdescribing an item hasn't got anything to do with what a buyer is able to acheive once they have it and list / describe it honestly, and if someone buys something and is able to turn it around for a profit, they don't owe the original seller anything, regardless of the circumstances of the initial trade. 

The OP has done something honourable, I wouldn't necessarily say it's the "right thing" in the way you've suggested, but even if it was the minimum expected action for some strange reason, commending a person for it doesn't do any harm, nor can I see offering commendation deserving of dersion. But, you know.... Cheese. 

[springyzone]

---

@fixnwear wrote:

springyzone,

OP did the right and decent thing, something that all of us would do under the circumstances.

Nothing unusual there - except that it's on Ebay - and seems to be worthy of super amazing accolades?

Because hardly anyone would do it - and when someone does the right thing all of a sudden it's "very special & generous"?????

And does that mean that you  would not only keep the item, keep the refund, re sell the item, make a profit on it - and still have the gall to criticise the seller for "mis describing it" and therefore not desrving of her money back? And most likely a negative f/back to boot - for not rolling over to start with and complying instantly with your requests? Only asking as you seem to be so taken by the op's "generosity".

I don't think so. You would most likely do exactly the same thing - that being the ONLY thing that could have been done in a case like this.

---

I thought tazzie was very decent.

The way I see it is there is almost always more than one way anything can be done. I don't think you can very often say something is the only thing that could be done.

I would think the majority of buyers who resell something at a later point do not refund anything to the original seller. Would I do it? It would depend entirely on circumstances and also timing.

For instance, say i bought something, wasn't happy as it was not fully as described and was given a partial refund.

Then I went out and bought a replacement because the first item wasn't going to do the job I wanted.

~If I re-sold the original item a year or two down the track, would I think of refunding the original seller? No.

~If I resold it immediately for exactly the price I had originally bought at, would I refund anything? No, because by the time I paid fees and factored in my time and inconvenience, I wouldn't consider the partial refund a profit as such.

~ If i resold it immediately but got considerably less than the price I had paid (even after factoring in the partial refund), would I be entitled to go back to the original seller and demand a further refund? More to the point, would the original seller give me one? I very much doubt it. They would probably say the deal was settled and what i did later was my responsibility.

And does that mean that you  would not only keep the item, keep the refund, re sell the item, make a profit on it - and still have the gall to criticise the seller for "mis describing it" and therefore not desrving of her money back? And most likely a negative f/back to boot - for not rolling over to start with and complying instantly with your requests? Only asking as you seem to be so taken by the op's "generosity".

As I said, it would depend very much on circumstances but I will say this much. I'm probably a little bit less likely to put up with faulty products or things not as described now than i was in the past. I would like to think though I am fair to sellers and give positive feedback when deserved. I have held back a few times from giving any feedback at all, where I suspect some others would go straight into neg. I don't usually make requests of sellers. But if a seller mis described an item & it affected it so much i could not use the product, I would not be happy. That's the fact, fixwear, like it or lump it. Most buyers would not be happy with a faulty product.

I can't talk for every other buyer/seller on ebay of course but at a guess, I would say 90% of people who buy something on ebay then later have cause to resell it would not refund the original seller any money.

So yep, Tazzie is a very considerate buyer/seller. Kudos where it is due.

[fixnwear]

Springyzone, 

When you say 90% of people wouldn't give the seller money back after they've bought something and sold for profit - I would agree, except I  think that it's more like 100%.

That is not in question, it's their item now to do with as they please  - and if they make profit so much thebetetr! - But not if they had a refund in the mean time.

 And whom ever said I post for shock value - what does that even mean?

I say things that represent how I think - which is what we are all supposed to do - rightly or wrongly - our opinions are our own - and am not just about to be swayed by other people's thoughts "just to fit in with the crowd" That is not the whole idea in any disscussion.