Seller appears on doorstep...

RHemmings

skitler wrote: »

but its not clear that the delivery person got the message not to deliver,


the door was knocked on


the door was opened


the buyer gets uppity with door knocker,


why would sellers rep go to the trouble to deliver and then just for no reason start abusing op, he can knock on any door in any street and do that if that was his game.
the op is with holding info and not being entirely truthfull, part of this story is missing from op. as we know there are 2 side to every tale, and op has be caught wanting.

Nothing is missing. The seller was told not to come over and deliver the item, and they did. The husband then became angry and threatened the OP. That's all we need to know. And we know it.

RHemmings

arbroath_lass wrote: »

They paid for delivery and got it (well should have). I can't understand what the issue is. Hand delivery is still delivery - why would it need specified?

I'm out. I just don't understand the issue.

The issue has been explained very clearly a large number of times. Your gross oversimplification of the case simply (deliberately?) ignores the most important facts: that the buyer asked the seller not to come over, and then the husband became angry and threatened the buyer. That's the problem, and the reason why it's the seller that's at fault here, not the buyer.

skitler

RHemmings wrote: »

Nothing is missing. The seller was told not to come over and deliver the item, and they did. The husband then became angry and threatened the OP. That's all we need to know. And we know it.

skitler wrote: »

but its not clear that the delivery person got the message not to deliver,


the door was knocked on


the door was opened


the buyer gets uppity with door knocker,


why would sellers rep go to the trouble to deliver and then just for no reason start abusing op, he can knock on any door in any street and do that if that was his game.
the op is with holding info and not being entirely truthfull, part of this story is missing from op. as we know there are 2 side to every tale, and op has be caught wanting.

the seller was told, but was the knocker.

skitler

RHemmings wrote: »

The issue has been explained very clearly a large number of times. Your gross oversimplification of the case simply (deliberately?) ignores the most important facts: that the buyer asked the seller not to come over, and then the husband became angry and threatened the buyer. That's the probem, and the reason why it's the seller that's at fault here, not the buyer.

but its not clear that the delivery person got the message not to deliver,


the door was knocked on


the door was opened


the buyer gets uppity with door knocker,


why would sellers rep go to the trouble to deliver and then just for no reason start abusing op, he can knock on any door in any street and do that if that was his game.
the op is with holding info and not being entirely truthfull, part of this story is missing from op. as we know there are 2 side to every tale, and op has be caught wanting.

RHemmings

skitler wrote: »

the seller was told, but was the knocker.

That's simply a matter of how the blame is divided between the seller and the knocker. It doesn't affect whether there is blame or not. It doesn't affect whether or not it was justified for the OP to refuse delivery.

We have no way of knowing whether or not the knocker knew that they weren't to deliver. Hence, we cannot say how the blame should be apportioned between the seller and the seller's husband. However, we can discus whether or not it was reasonable for him to turn up after the seller had been told not to deliver it. And, that is what we are discussing.

In either case, whether the knocker knew or didn't know, it is unreasonable for them to get angry and threaten the OP.

Hence, us not knowing exactly how the blame is divided between the seller and the seller's husband doesn't stop us discussing what we are discussing: whether the seller's side or the buyer's side is at fault in what happened. And in my view it's obvious, the seller is at fault.

skitler

RHemmings wrote: »

That's simply a matter of how the blame is divided between the seller and the knocker. It doesn't affect whether there is blame or not. It doesn't affect whether or not it was justified for the OP to refuse delivery.

We have no way of knowing whether or not the knocker knew that they weren't to deliver. Hence, we cannot say how the blame should be apportioned between the seller and the seller's husband. However, we can discus whether or not it was reasonable for him to turn up after the seller had been told not to deliver it. And, that is what we are discussing.

In either case, whether the knocker knew or didn't know, it is unreasonable for them to get angry and threaten the OP.

Hence, us not knowing exactly how the blame is divided between the seller and the seller's husband doesn't stop us discussing what we are discussing: whether the seller's side or the buyer's side is at fault in what happened. And in my view it's obvious, the seller is at fault.

iyo, imo its the op, and when the goods arrive I hope they fit, or well be discussing the cut of the cloth and strength of elastic.

Flyonthewall

skitler wrote: »

your dictionary quote is for a threat the caller was not threatening and op said they didn't feel under any threat

It doesn't matter if they felt theatened, it was still a threat.

He said he'd report them which is an intention to try and punish them. He said it as a threat and so that's what it is, a threat. It doesn't matter if OP didn't take it seriously or feel threatened because it doesn't change what his intention was at the time of saying it.

If someone gives you a threat they are threatening you with that action that intend to do. As above, it doesn't matter how OP takes that because it doesn't change the action of the guy at the time.

arbroath_lass wrote: »

They paid for delivery and got it (well should have). I can't understand what the issue is. Hand delivery is still delivery - why would it need specified?

I'm out. I just don't understand the issue.

I don't want the actual delivery specified was, but lets say it was Royal Mail.

OP wanted the item delivered by RM, they paid for that and it wouldn't have come on that day when they had an appointment (because it wouldn't have yet been posted).

OP agreed to RM, they wanted RM, they didn't care about getting it sooner, they just wanted what the seller stated they were going to deliver it by.

It doesn't matter that it got delivered, it wasn't as agreed.

Say you bought a mobile phone case - you buy a blue one and a red gets delivered. It's still a phone case right? But you'd still want the blue one you ordered becasue that's what was agreed and you wanted as that's what the listing stated. Well this is the same thing, just because they got the delivery it doesn't it's how they wanted it and it's not what is stated.

Ebay allow you to describe the item and any other details and you can select exactly how it will be delivered and put a postage price. That information is there for a reason, you can add it for a reason. To let the buyer know what you will do. If they are happy, they bid. You shouldn't go changing that afterwards to suit yourself, especially when the buyer said no.

nomi76

If I was the OP I would be really annoyed

I don't want randoms showing up at the door. I much prefer to have it posted. Your not doing me a favour by rushing over with the item.

Why did the idiots even bother to ask if they could drop it off if they were not going to take notice of it.

I have bought and sold on ebay lots of times and would be shocked to see someone unannounced at my door.

I never bid on items that have to be picked up. If I have to go pick it up I will go to the local shops and buy it.

I would leave neutral feedback and never buy from them again.

Flyonthewall

skitler wrote: »

the seller was told, but was the knocker.

Yes, that's why he got angry because OP stated they weren't expecting them as they hadn't agreed to it.

He may not have known previously, we don't know.

RHemmings

skitler wrote: »

iyo, imo its the op, and when the goods arrive I hope they fit, or well be discussing the cut of the cloth and strength of elastic.

Clearly you think it's the OP's that unreasonable. It would help if you could come up with a strong argument as to why it's the OP that is to blame. As it seems that those on this thread who blame the OP seem to do so by ignoring the really important characteristics of the delivery, or by trying to make that conclusion contingent on insufficiently relevant factors.