Is this seller being a tealeaf?

George_Michael

RainbowDrops wrote: »

How are they being a "tealeaf" if they're offering to refund you?

Because they offered an item for sale, the OP decided to buy and then paid for the item.
The money has been received into the sellers account so I would say that from that point on, even though the seller still has possession of the shoes, legal title to them rests with the OP.

If they had contacted the OP and told them about the "damage" and asking how they wished to proceed, I would be more likely to believe that the shoes were actually damaged, but as it stands it just sounds like 99p wasn't enough for them.

Anselm

George_Michael wrote: »

Because they offered an item for sale, the OP decided to buy and then paid for the item.
The money has been received into the sellers account so I would say that from that point on, even though the seller still has possession of the shoes, legal title to them rests with the OP.

If they had contacted the OP and told them about the "damage" and asking how they wished to proceed, I would be more likely to believe that the shoes were actually damaged, but as it stands it just sounds like 99p wasn't enough for them.

Couldn't have put it better, thank you

alykatz

Tealeaf is slang for thief. Seeing as the seller has refunded in full no theft has occured.
Did the seller withdraw from the sale because the winning bid was not high enough, possibly, it happens. But seeing as there is no proof of this it seems only fair to accept sellers explantion, unless something comes up to the contrary.
If you feel strongly enough you could report the seller as a NPS.

Anselm

alykatz wrote: »

Tealeaf is slang for thief. Seeing as the seller has refunded in full no theft has occured.
Did the seller withdraw from the sale because the winning bid was not high enough, possibly, it happens. But seeing as there is no proof of this it seems only fair to accept sellers explantion, unless something comes up to the contrary.
If you feel strongly enough you could report the seller as a NPS.

I know tealeaf is slang, but that's not the point. And I might do, I don't know, to be honest this thread can be closed now

Mindless_Clone

Anselm wrote: »

Fair enough, but to be honest I was happy to pay that postage anyway. I think I might email her back saying:

"Dear Seller,
Please send me the shoes anyway as I know how to fix split leather and so it's not a problem, I enclose my payment of £7.99
Regards,
Anselm"

HAHA the manufacturer repairs the uppers for £60! She's not going to like my message

Well I would not enclose payment as that's a bit pushy but I would offer to buy them with the damage at the agreed price (plus stated P&P) anyway. If they really are damaged, I would think the seller would jump at this. If they say no, then you have a right to be suspicious.

The other point is, if the seller relists them, it's quite possible they have blocked you from buying. Not sure how it works but I assume it means you won't see their auction at all? I am not sure if it's allowed in MSE rules, but if it is, you could post a link to the original auction or seller so someone else could check?

George_Michael

but I assume it means you won't see their auction at all?

Blocked bidders can see the auction just not bid on it.

Just out of curiosity, were the shoes new?
If so, I find it very hard to believe that they were damaged.

Anselm

Mindless_Clone wrote: »

Well I would not enclose payment as that's a bit pushy but I would offer to buy them with the damage at the agreed price (plus stated P&P) anyway. If they really are damaged, I would think the seller would jump at this. If they say no, then you have a right to be suspicious.

The other point is, if the seller relists them, it's quite possible they have blocked you from buying. Not sure how it works but I assume it means you won't see their auction at all? I am not sure if it's allowed in MSE rules, but if it is, you could post a link to the original auction or seller so someone else could check?

I had a look to see if she had relisted them but no luck so far.
In her auction she described the used shoe

"These shoes have been worn with some slightwear to the soles; otherwise theyare still in very good condition"

Now, call me a cynic, but how do shoes in very good condition go from having a small tear to such a large tear she feels she has to throw them away, even though I said it doesn't bother me.

George_Michael wrote: »

Blocked bidders can see the auction just not bid on it.

Just out of curiosity, were the shoes new?
If so, I find it very hard to believe that they were damaged.

No, they were used but in "very good condition". How anyone misses a tear in a leather shoe is beyond me, personally.

Mindless_Clone

George_Michael wrote: »

Blocked bidders can see the auction just not bid on it.

Ah, ok, so you should see if she relists.

Anselm wrote: »

I had a look to see if she had relisted them but no luck so far.
In her auction she described the used shoe

I suspect she's probably just changed her mind about selling them then.. Can you see the "tear" on the picture? it should be obvious if you can.

Not really much you can do though; if she won't sell them to you, you can't force her. best you could do would be to report her.

ess0two

Its probably easier to bin them,than go through all the hassle with a claim for a mis-described item.

Obviously_the_best

I'd make a new account and bid on the relist