|
Post by crazy4scraps on Apr 19, 2024 0:20:31 GMT
Every single thing the seller has done (trying to reverse the refund even though your DH didn’t agree to that, telling him he has to file the claim) is throwing up giant red flags. I’m sticking by my original statement that the seller is a scammer. The seller is the one who mailed the package. She is the one who has to file the claim.
If the refund is reversed, I would file a claim with his credit card or PayPal. Personally, I never would have reached out to the seller in the first place. Yes, that is what I believe too. If the refund is reversed that is his plan, but everything we have read indicates ebay doesn't reverse the refunds. They may reverse the decision and then pay the seller, but that is out of our hands. He tried to do the right thing, and now that she's throwing up all these wierd red flags, he is not going to respond to her until he gets something official thru ebay. She has to fight the post office, that's not on him... Yes, she would have to file the claim because she is the one who purchased the insurance. The buyer of the item has no control over how an item is shipped or how/whether any insurance is purchased.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Apr 19, 2024 11:17:30 GMT
So my husband just got a message from the seller. She said the eBay rep told her that my husband has to file a claim thru the post office bc it’s a postal issue (bc that’s how she must have sent it). I don’t think that is correct. Wouldn’t the seller need to do this? Bc she was the one who chose to mail it thru USPS, not package it correctly and didn’t purchase enough insurance for it. What a pain in the butt this is! LOL No, no, no. This was not a postal issue. One time Kohls mailed me a box of juice glasses in a plastic mailer and when they arrived they were basically a box of crushed sand particles. Was that the post office's fault? No, no it was not. And it's not the post office's fault here. The post office doesn't cause people to make poor choices when they ship items. Besides, even if it was the post office's fault, it is still the seller who has to make the claim with the post office since they were the postal customer. Your husband was not.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,979
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Apr 19, 2024 19:27:36 GMT
Thanks for the clarification. I still stand by the claim it’s misleading. Did she list it by the name of the set? She included the box and instructions in the description but not the substitute figures, so basically she included the stuff that would increase the value but not the things that would decrease the value significantly. I agree that someone probably wouldn’t have a claim against her for that, but it is a practice that other buyers should be made aware of. I also think it is worth asking for a lower price. She might be willing to accept it since the damage is obviously reducing the value. She gets a bit of money for it and does not have to pay return shipping. Also, I would insist on a prepaid box if she wants the return. Otherwise it’s on you to make sure it is packaged properly. Not to beat a dead horse, but if she had the box and instructions she would know the name of the set and it would make sense to list it that way since someone looking for that specific set would be searching using those terms. People sell sets of stuff (especially used toys) all day long with missing or substituted pieces and parts and it’s on the buyer to vet those purchases carefully. If she was honest about what was included (with actual photos, no less, which it sounds like she was) then it really isn’t fair to ding her rating for selling exactly what she said she was selling, IMO. 🤷🏻♀️ The horse still has some life left in it LOL. If she did not have all the figures included in the original set, she should have included that in her description instead of relying on pictures of very similar figures that the buyer has to look closely to see if they are the original. To just list it as the original name of the “set” implies that the set is complete UNLESS she added additional qualifiers such as “Baby Yoda from Set x is included in place of the original.” Or “Some of the original figures are missing. See photos for substitutions.” Legally, she is probably ok with the listing because she included the photo. Ethically, she is not because the written description implies one thing and the photo is different. Given the seller’s behavior after-the-fact, I think the seller may have done this knowingly.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Apr 19, 2024 19:42:24 GMT
Not to beat a dead horse, but if she had the box and instructions she would know the name of the set and it would make sense to list it that way since someone looking for that specific set would be searching using those terms. People sell sets of stuff (especially used toys) all day long with missing or substituted pieces and parts and it’s on the buyer to vet those purchases carefully. If she was honest about what was included (with actual photos, no less, which it sounds like she was) then it really isn’t fair to ding her rating for selling exactly what she said she was selling, IMO. 🤷🏻♀️ The horse still has some life left in it LOL. If she did not have all the figures included in the original set, she should have included that in her description instead of relying on pictures of very similar figures that the buyer has to look closely to see if they are the original. To just list it as the original name of the “set” implies that the set is complete UNLESS she added additional qualifiers such as “Baby Yoda from Set x is included in place of the original.” Or “Some of the original figures are missing. See photos for substitutions.” Legally, she is probably ok with the listing because she included the photo. Ethically, she is not because the written description implies one thing and the photo is different. Given the seller’s behavior after-the-fact, I think the seller may have done this knowingly. This is eBay though, and a potential buyer would be wise to not think anything is implied. It’s always on the buyer to do their due diligence by combing through the listing, really looking at the photos, checking the seller’s ratings and asking questions if you need to before clicking Buy Now. I would never automatically assume something that was being sold as used was a complete set unless the listing specifically claimed it was, or if it specifically said “New In Box” or “Factory Sealed”. I still think the seller is clueless because why would you ship something expensive like that, packaged so marginally that way, and only have it insured for $100 when the selling price was $250? That to me just seems dumb.
|
|