Intimidation by buyer

porto_bello

crazyshady wrote: »

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.

You certainly sound like the kind of seller we would all be wise to avoid. :shocked:

suited-aces wrote: »

it's unreasonable for a buyer to willingly gamble like this then throw the toys out of their pram when they pick a loser.

An item is either working or it isn't.

It was sold as a working item but it isn't

Selling a broken item as a working one has a name - it's called a 'scam'.

mikey72

So went into storage working perfectly.
Taken out 2 months later by the same person, who actually advertised it now as "untested".
Appears to have been broken while locked in a storage container, without being touched.
Mmm.

zenseeker

You're assuming it was genuinely working in the first place. But it is entirely possible for TV's to just stop working for no apparent reason, anything could have happened between testing and being moved into storage, just takes a heavy bump to cause to give up and die (and granted, said bump could have happened after the buyer took possession.

All we have is one persons word against another, both parties have made mistakes. Shame this problem has resulted in a few MSE'ers acting like complete asses to each other.

Rolandtheroadie

crazyshady wrote: »

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.

LMAO, your nuts.

Smart_But_Casual

porto_bello wrote: »

You certainly sound like the kind of seller we would all be wise to avoid.

If she is on about the thread I'm thinking about then she refused to refund punters who'd bought her Michael Jackson tickets when he snuffed it.

One scammer supporting another it would appear.

Crowqueen

Like I said a few posts ago, Shady, the buyer didn't have the opportunity to test it, and only had the seller's word for it.

Electronic items left in cold, damp places like storage sheds without adequate packaging sometimes do go on the blink.

Regardless of what some people here think, in a sale by description, the buyer has legal recourse even on a cash collection, so the buyer should have taken this to the small claims court rather than turning vigilante.

If she is on about the thread I'm thinking about then she refused to refund punters who'd bought her Michael Jackson tickets when he snuffed it.

Ah yeah, that old chestnut.

crazyshady

I'm asssuming the buyer phoned right? So when the buyer gets told to meet at a storage facility, surely the first thing that pops into the buyer's head is a building full of stuff in storage. Surely they should have asked the buyer if there was a place to try the tv or if their meeting at a storage facility, they must live locally to each other so why not just make that drive to the other persons house to try it?

We also don't know how much money this item was. Was it just a couple of quid? Are we talking hundreds? If it was me spending hundreds and then the seller tells me to meet at a storage facility i would say forget it, i'm not spending that kind of money on something that's been lying on a cold shelf for months. I agree the seller didn't make things 100% clear to the buyer but they are not completely at fault. The buyer should have used common sense and realised there was a chance here that this TV wasn't gonna work. That doesn't mean i agree with them losing their money.

Gleeful

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1769391

Crowqueen

crazyshady wrote: »

I'm asssuming the buyer phoned right? So when the buyer gets told to meet at a storage facility, surely the first thing that pops into the buyer's head is a building full of stuff in storage. Surely they should have asked the buyer if there was a place to try the tv or if their meeting at a storage facility, they must live locally to each other so why not just make that drive to the other persons house to try it?

We also don't know how much money this item was. Was it just a couple of quid? Are we talking hundreds? If it was me spending hundreds and then the seller tells me to meet at a storage facility i would say forget it, i'm not spending that kind of money on something that's been lying on a cold shelf for months. I agree the seller didn't make things 100% clear to the buyer but they are not completely at fault. The buyer should have used common sense and realised there was a chance here that this TV wasn't gonna work. That doesn't mean i agree with them losing their money.

Yes, but a seller should at least attempt to cover their own selves by facilitating this if the buyer doesn't.

The seller actively seems to have gone out of his way to overstate the item and make sure the buyer couldn't test the television. Granted, the buyer is now behaving just as badly, but that doesn't stop the law being largely on his side rather than the seller's.

I think sellers should do most of the work, after all, that's what I'm paying them to do.