Seller Cancels Auction Sale After Item is Paid for. / Bargains Depend entirely on Goodwill

[ra157]

Last Friday I had the interesting experience of winning a Nikon 1 J3 mirrorless camera with two lenses at a very good price. I immediately paid for it with Paypal. 19 minutes after the end of the auction, the seller then cancelled the sale, citing the reason as,
" I'm out of stock or the item is damaged".

Plainly she wasn't out of stock, and it strains credulity that she suddenly discovered the camera was found to be damaged within 19 minutes of my winning it. I reported the seller to Ebay.

Ebay's response included,

"I assure you that I have warned the seller and we will monitor their account to make sure that if they continue to cause bad-buyer experiences, we will take further actions which could lead to restrictions or even indefinite suspension."

As best I can see it – sellers can break their Ebay conditions and their contract with me with impunity.

Plainly, if this pattern is repeated by a frequent seller, Ebay will do something. But it appears that casual sellers never have to worry about getting what they perceive to be a dud price for their item. If they do, they can just cancel the sale and claim the item was damaged.

To make matters worse, the camera was listed as not having a charger, which I bought from another seller after winning the camera. Despite my requesting that he cancel the order, it is on its way to me, and I have paid $10.98 for a useless charger.

Anybody else had this type of  frustrating auction experience?
Regards,
Renato

[ra157]

Hi 1ooo-SLR- Sales,
           You state,
"I have never passed judgement on you with regards to not being straight up or omitting facts.  My exact words in a previous post were ..................................” and I do believe you have posted in good faith, although I do think that what you have posted in reply to others has been misguided at times."
which is heartening.

But then you state,
"For the record, the comment you have quoted at the top was posted by me in support of something 4channel had posted.  It was a general comment and not aimed at you, but it does not bother me one bit that you took it that way." referring to your previous comment namely,
"I too find it disappointing when members aren’t straight up and omit facts from their posts, possibly to skew debate/conversation."
which is not so heartening.

The two statements appear diametrically opposite to me. Which one accurately reflects your view?

As for my inexperience, I am inexperienced in finding cancelled sales in "My Ebay" as I've never had to go look for a cancelled sale before. Experience arises from doing things as least once.
Regards,
Renato

[ra157]

Hi Digital*Ghost,
               You state,
"Ohhh, so like, when someone makes the (correct) point that you didn't lose anything except an opportunity, because the opportunity was taken, leaving you in the exact same position you had been in before the item was even listed.........opportrunity......."

It was not an "opportunity", like as in "If only I had bid ten more dollars I would have won the auction, but I missed out. on the bargain"  

Instead, it was an outright  completed SALE - which I had paid for. 

Your premise is flawed.
Regards,
Renato

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@ra157 wrote:

Hi 1ooo-SLR- Sales,
           You state,
"I have never passed judgement on you with regards to not being straight up or omitting facts.  My exact words in a previous post were ..................................” and I do believe you have posted in good faith, although I do think that what you have posted in reply to others has been misguided at times."
which is heartening.

But then you state,
"For the record, the comment you have quoted at the top was posted by me in support of something 4channel had posted.  It was a general comment and not aimed at you, but it does not bother me one bit that you took it that way." referring to your previous comment namely,
"I too find it disappointing when members aren’t straight up and omit facts from their posts, possibly to skew debate/conversation."
which is not so heartening.

The two statements appear diametrically opposite to me. Which one accurately reflects your view?

As for my inexperience, I am inexperienced in finding cancelled sales in "My Ebay" as I've never had to go look for a cancelled sale before. Experience arises from doing things as least once.
Regards,
Renato

---

The two statements appear diametrically opposite to me. Which one accurately reflects your view?

Both, as I have no control over how you interpret my posts, and I wasn’t bothered that you interpreted that post that way.

If you bothered to read the spoiler under my reply to you saying that you were inexperienced you will see that I understood you to mean that you were inexperienced in finding cancelled sales to leave feedback.

Experience arises from doing things as least once.

Would this apply to sellers who make mistakes? i.e. they would learn from their mistakes?

[ra157]

Hi K1000-Sslr-sales,
           You state,
"which I take to mean you are suggesting I should have investigated times and make a determination that I shouldn't have won

That is a bit of a stretch.  Just because you take it to mean that doesn’t mean you are correct.  Following your line of thought above, I could interpret any of your comments as meaning that you believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy . . . . wouldn’t make me right!

The seller's actions in my opniion, - are telling lies - and that is what you are supporting.

Wrong again  **yawn** . . . . . . next!"

You address neither points with facts. You instead dismiss the two points with "That is a bit of a stretch" and "Yawn", neither of which are an attempt to make a case that you did not mean what you said.

Were it so obvious that my conclusions regarding your statements were incorrect, it should have been relatively simple for you to state why they were incorrect or did not follow - but you are either unwilling or not capable of doing so.
Regards,
Renato

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@ra157 wrote:

Hi K1000-Sslr-sales,
           You state,
"which I take to mean you are suggesting I should have investigated times and make a determination that I shouldn't have won

That is a bit of a stretch.  Just because you take it to mean that doesn’t mean you are correct.  Following your line of thought above, I could interpret any of your comments as meaning that you believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy . . . . wouldn’t make me right!

The seller's actions in my opniion, - are telling lies - and that is what you are supporting.

Wrong again  **yawn** . . . . . . next!"

You address neither points with facts. You instead dismiss the two points with "That is a bit of a stretch" and "Yawn", neither of which are an attempt to make a case that you did not mean what you said.

Were it so obvious that my conclusions regarding your statements were incorrect, it should have been relatively simple for you to state why they were incorrect or did not follow - but you are either unwilling or not capable of doing so.
Regards,
Renato

---

neither of which are an attempt to make a case that you did not mean what you said.

and

but you are either unwilling or not capable of doing so.

I answered your question in my reply post . . . . . . why do you want me to make a case?  You are only going to want to argue with me.  It’s not that I am not capable, I am simply using as few words as possible now when I reply to you to limit what you can argue about with me.

Spoiler

may I draw your attention to the Post by moderator gewens about remaining on the topic of auctions?  Your nitpicking of peripheral matters is off-topic and may well see this thread locked!  And you wouldn’t want that, would you?

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@ra157 wrote:

        
You address neither points with facts. You instead dismiss the two points with "That is a bit of a stretch" and "Yawn", neither of which are an attempt to make a case that you did not mean what you said.

Were it so obvious that my conclusions regarding your statements were incorrect, it should have been relatively simple for you to state why they were incorrect or did not follow - but you are either unwilling or not capable of doing so.
Regards,
Renato

---

this is a discussion board not a jumped up debating forum.

I am not interested in debating you, I will have a discussion that will include what I think . . . . . . but just because you seem to demand that members make a case in reply to your assertions, and to your satisfaction, does not mean that they have to oblige.

[ra157]

Hi K1000-slr-sales,
             You state,
"The two statements appear diametrically opposite to me. Which one accurately reflects your view?

Both, as I have no control over how you interpret my posts, and I wasn’t bothered that you interpreted that post that way."


Your previous statement,
"I have never passed judgement on you with regards to not being straight up or omitting facts...."

is unambiguously mutually exclusive to your other statement,
"I too find it disappointing when members aren’t straight up and omit facts from their posts, possibly to skew debate/conversation"

May I suggest that it is logically impossible for both statements to accurately reflect you views, as you have asserted.They equate to "Black is White" or "The Blue Sky is Green".

You then state,
"Experience arises from doing things as least once.

Would this apply to sellers who make mistakes? i.e. they would learn from their mistakes?"

Yes certainly sellers can learn from their mistakes, if the hypothetical mistake that you are suggesting actually occurred. I opine that in regards to my issue, a seller can learn that "Bargains Depend entirely on Goodwill"

Regards,
Renato

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

I opine that you can suggest anything you want

Spoiler

wont make it right!

[digital*ghost]

The seller ended the auction early, though.

Why do you think they did that?

If they weren't happy with the price it achieved, why end it early and give the auction no chance to get anymore bids, and therefore a higher price, since most people bid in the last few minutes?

[ra157]

Hi K1ooo-slr-sales,
          You state,
  "this is a discussion board not a jumped up debating forum.

I am not interested in debating you, I will have a discussion that will include what I think . . . . . . but just because you seem to demand that members make a case in reply to your assertions, and to your satisfaction, does not mean that they have to oblige"


You are 100% correct - this is a "discussion board", and a discussion is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as " a debate about or detailed written treatment of a topic" and a debate in turn is an "ongoing exchange of views about a subject"

Which is precisely what I have been doing, and which you have done till now, but have now totally declined to do so, by claiming that a "discussion" is something other than what it is.
Regards,
Renato