We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Intimidation by buyer
Comments
-
The buyer should have known when he was collecting it from a storage facility that there would be no way of testing it. The seller clearly stated that it HAD been working before it went into storage and had NOT been tested since then. Why would the seller have stored something away if it wasnt working? There is no point to it.
At the end of the day someone is being threatened. If it was me i wouldn't put up with it and i would probably end up going round to the buyers house myself........but not everyone is like me. Not everyone is used to being threatened or put in threatening situations. And of course you get people suggesting to 'morally' do this and 'morally' do that when what they really mean is there's !!!!!! all the buyer can do, !!!!!! all Ebay can do and !!!!!! all Paypal can do but they personally....want to see you refund the money. But they know you don't need to.0 -
I think those who refer to the buyer's threats and the seller's description have lost sight of the simple fact that it is simply the seller's version of events and the seller's version of the description we have to make a judgement on. :shhh:
In the interests of balance, I have previously suggested that the "victimised" seller places a link to the item on this forum, so we can judge how honest the description was ... but he hasn't done that, so you can come to your own conclusion why not! :think:
As has been pointed out many times by many people, even if the seller's version of events is gospel, given the seller's comments, most of us feel the buyer deserves a refund. :grouphug:
However, we can't even assume the seller's story is 100% accurate, so the reality may be very different. For all we know, perhaps the broken TV was sold as working!:(
We've all come across real scammers on eBay and none of them ever honestly described their items ... or their buyers after the transactions or in their responses to negative feedback.
"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.
...If you can fake that, you've got it made."
Groucho Marx0 -
porto_bello wrote: »I think those who refer to the buyer's threats and the seller's description have lost sight of the simple fact that it is simply the seller's version of events and the seller's version of the description we have to make a judgement on. :shhh:
In the interests of balance, I have previously suggested that the "victimised" seller places a link to the item on this forum, so we can judge how honest the description was ... but he hasn't done that, so you can come to your own conclusion why not! :think:
As has been pointed out many times by many people, even if the seller's version of events is gospel, given the seller's comments, most of us feel the buyer deserves a refund. :grouphug:
However, we can't even assume the seller's story is 100% accurate, so the reality may be very different. For all we know, perhaps the broken TV was sold as working!:(
We've all come across real scammers on eBay and none of them ever honestly described their items ... or their buyers after the transactions or in their responses to negative feedback.
Yes, we only have the op's account, and based on that account my situation is as stated. We only have the op's account telling us that there was a sale in the first place.
We have to accept the op's account as it's the only information we have and the idea that a novice seller, who's only selling some personal bits and bobs on a spur of the moment clear out, made an unwise choice to not sell as broken or to test. He sold as untested. Which by his account it was.
I'm not sure why you assume the op isn't telling the truth (as much as is ever the 'truth' in an account of the interactions between two people).
The op should (in my opinon) have refunded if the tv was broke and the buyer contacted them in a reasonable time to say so (call it a week).
This isn't what we understand to have happened.
The op was, by his account, threatened.
I think this should never be rewarded and encouraged and the op is under no obligation to refund and so I do not think he should offer a refund and make it clear that the reason he is not doing so is because of the buyers attitude.
Hopefully the buyer will learn from this, not be an idot in the future (threatening people is idiotic behaviour in my book) and will learn that 'not tested' means he's taking a risk and act accordingly.
He would have been chuffed if he'd gambled and got a dirt cheap working tv.Almost everything will work again if you unplug it for a few minutes, including you. Anne Lamott
It's amazing how those with a can-do attitude and willingness to 'pitch in and work' get all the luck, isn't it?
Please consider buying some pet food and giving it to your local food bank collection or animal charity. Animals aren't to blame for the cost of living crisis.0 -
Buyers still have a lot of rights even if buying from a private seller with cash. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies and the item needs to be as described. Without seeing the description we have no idea whether the OP described the item properly, but we do know that the buyer was not able to see it working and walk away if it wasn't, and as a sale by description, the SOGA kicks in at that point.I just don't see it. The op is a person, a member of the public who sold a spare item that they didn't want and that was talking up space.
They said it HAD been working and then was in storage and HADN'T been tested.
From what I gather the op got around to listing it after sorting out after the move and didn't really think it through and yes, if it were me I'd accept a refund and offer to collect/tell them to keep it.
but I wouldn't after being threatened.
It's up to the buyer to, as said above, accept that if it's a pig in a poke - beware.
If they acted reasonably in contacting the op, then the op should refund.
Threats are not and are never reasonable.
Regardless of whether you think it is fair to dupe buyers into buying pigs in pokes (which in my view is still immoral anyway), the law is pretty clear.
Buyer is an idiot but may be being an idiot because they know they are entitled to a refund and can't get one, but the seller should be at least attempting to sort it out."Well, it's election year, Bill, we'd rather people didn't exercise common sense..." - Jed Bartlet, The West Wing, season 4
Am now Crowqueen, MRes (Law) - on to the PhD!0 -
No we don'tWe have to accept the op's account
See below:I'm not sure why you assume the op isn't telling the truth.
So it was sold as workingjon_burrage wrote: »I said that it worked fine and we had never had a problem with it
So it wasn't as describedjon_burrage wrote: »I get an email a day later saying it doesnt work
Clearly notjon_burrage wrote: »I believe that as a second hand item, sold privately with all the information
You do if it wasn't sold as described.jon_burrage wrote: »I dont actually have any requirement to refund.
Or everything to avoid refunding?jon_burrage wrote: »What do I do? I tried to do everything by the book
How do you know without seeing the description on the listing?the op is under no obligation to refund?
And accept being sold broken goods as working ones?Hopefully the buyer will learn from this, not be an idot in the future
Before coming to any conclusion, let's see the listing ... perhaps the seller doesn't want to share the description with us?"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing.
...If you can fake that, you've got it made."
Groucho Marx0 -
I would like to see the auction page so i can read for myself the description!0
-
How is it the buyer's fault if he is sold an item which is supposed to be working, has no facility to test it and is not shown it working, and then it turns out to be non-working?"Well, it's election year, Bill, we'd rather people didn't exercise common sense..." - Jed Bartlet, The West Wing, season 4
Am now Crowqueen, MRes (Law) - on to the PhD!0 -
You just can't hack the fact that there is nothing the buyer can do about it now. You can't accept the fact that the buyer was not smart enough to insist on trying the product which anyone with an IQ over mud would do when buying an electrical product.
Wishing violence on people is not the answer but then again i suppose you were one of those who chastised people like me on here when we were selling all those Michael Jackson concert tickets. I supposed you wished violence on us when Ebay refunded every single buyer and we kept all of that profit.0 -
The way I see it is, when something is advertised like that, it should ring certain alarm bells in the heads of buyers, and they should be aware that they are effectively taking a chance on it working. This risk will be reflected in a lower selling price, so you are gambling on it working.
Taking this into account, it's unreasonable for a buyer to willingly gamble like this then throw the toys out of their pram when they pick a loser.I'm not bad at golf, I just get better value for money when I take more shots!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards