Fraud - buyer claiming item not as described, returns a different item

[vikchick18]

I recently sold a brand new (with tags) black silk georgette shell top. I bought the top in October for $149. It’s a popular item that isn’t discounted at sale time, so it’s still in the store and on the website for $149. When I realised I wasn’t going to ever wear it (it didn’t suit me), I decided to sell it while it still had currency. The buyer paid $64.72.

Buyer emailed me, claiming it’s not as described – that it’s polyester, not silk – and demanding a refund and payment of return postage. I am not infallible, of course, but I was pretty sure I’d not made a mistake with this listing. Wishing to be amenable, I said return the top – I will refund if I’ve made a mistake, but I want to check the top myself first. The top turned up in the post today. It’s not the top I sold her ….. it’s very similar, but this top is (yep, you guessed it) polyester and it looks and feels used. She’s swapped the lovely new silk georgette version of the top I sent her for an old polyester one.

I’ve learned at least one lesson here – include a photo of all labels with listings.

Should I just chalk it up to experience, refund her in full and wear the loss or should I try to expose the fraud? I’ve got an earlier version of this top (in polyester) on my forthcoming sales rack, so I know they used to make it in polyester. I’ve got a sales receipt from the shop where I bought it, dated October 2012. And I’ve just emailed the store (small chain of stores) about the fabric used in this and earlier versions of this top. Is this enough evidence to mount a challenge – and, if so, how does one go about it?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[vikchick18]

Hi gardenlarder - I was very careful to describe it as silk georgette, and not just silk. The top she sent me is polyester.

[maranock]

Just letting you know just in case you didn't, and to inform others. I haven't looked at your item but I suppose I should have before commenting.

I did not mean to accuse you in any way of misrepresenting your case, I feel for you and am interested in the responses from experienced sellers.

[bsal6160]

I am going to play devils advocate here. Everyone is assuming the actual top you sent to the buyer was the silk one. Unless you can prove it was (listing photos don't cut the mustard on this, could be any old photo of a silk garment you still have at home). Could have sent a polyester one, hoping the buyer wouldn't notice.

[vikchick18]

Hi bsal6160 - could have been, but it wasn't. The ridiculous thing about all this is that most of the clothes I sell are second hand and I agonise about describing them accurately, listing any flaws etc. I wasn't in the least bit concerned about this sale - brand new top, still available in the shops. I couldn't have predicted this in a million years. I'm still reeling! This woman, if she succeeds, gets a brand new $149 top for nothing. I stand to be out of pocket and, if she decides to get nasty when I don't give her her money back, have my good rating ruined.

[***super_nova***]

All that is irrelevant, as the buyer has no proof of sending the item back, she cannot win PP case.  All she can do is to leave NEG which would probably get removed if you ask eBay and tell them that the buyer send back top, that was worn and all the labels cut out. 

just inform her that for she is doing is a fraud = criminal offense and as soon as she sends you $7 for satchel (I am assuming it will fit in the 500g Click&Send) you will return to her.  And forget about it. 

Even if somehow you did make a mistake and the top is polyester (is there a label saying polyester?)  once she wore it and removed labels, she has no claim.  If it was not as described she should have returned it in the condition she received it in. 

[breracing-1]

This is not so, if the seller is 100% sure it is not the same item and presumably it would have different tags and label, then they need to call Paypal, tell them a different item has been returned and they are going to report the buyer to the police and will provide Paypal with a crime number once it is issued and that if Paypal refund the buyer they will expect the money to be returned to their account once paypal have proof of fraud.

The problem is, the buyer is 100% sure that the seller sent them the wrong item so from a police perspective, who is committing fraud?, is the seller advertising items and sending inferior copies or did the buyer swap the correct item with an inferior item with the motive to get a freebie? or was the parcel interfered with in transit?

[breracing-1]

I am going to play devils advocate here. Everyone is assuming the actual top you sent to the buyer was the silk one. Unless you can prove it was (listing photos don't cut the mustard on this, could be any old photo of a silk garment you still have at home). Could have sent a polyester one, hoping the buyer wouldn't notice.

Correct, unfortunately that is the bottom line.

I had a similar incident selling a 'brand new" camera........buyer upacks the camer and uses it for a day then lodges an item not as described dispute claiming the camera was 2nd hand?. Of course it was 2nd hand when the buyer raised the dispute and had already been using it with an open admission in writing they had done so, yet I lost the case not by want of trying but I couldn't prove that the camera I sent was "brand new" and Paypal instructed a return for refund?

At the relisting of the camera for sale again, I had to declare it a used item and consequently cost me $350 less from that of a brand new one that I originally advertised and sold, Grrrrr!

[i-once-was-bump]

I'm not saying you are wrong or your buyer is rights but - do you realise that silk georgette is not silk and has not been for many years, it is actually now a synthetic fibre like polyester. This could have some bearing on the claim perhaps. The care of these fibres are different so selling as 'silk' should reflect that.

Wrong, you can still buy georgette made from pure silk, yes it costs a lot but it is pure silk none the less.

Sure it is commonplace for lesser clothes makers to refer to a man made fibre as silk georgette but that does not mean that pure silk is not available.

[maranock]

I bow to your superior knowledge. Maybe I should brush up on my fabrics.

[i-once-was-bump]

I bow to your superior knowledge. Maybe I should brush up on my fabrics.

Thank you but I don't like the description "superior knowledge", I am just well read on weaving and fabric structure. It is a passion of mine.