Ebay, if it's in the picture is it part of auction?

ravenjet

We sold a fire surround a few years ago. We photographed it whilst still intact with a lit fire in grate to give the buyer an idea of what it looked like. We then took photos of the fire surround removed. The listing clearly stated fire surround but when the buyer collected he saw the iron fire basket/grate in the garage, in a place away from the surround, and picked it up to put in his van, I said it wasn't included but he said as it was in the photo he was taking it. I was on my own and he was rather large and he wasn't going to leave without it, I let him have it as he was rather intimidating and I wanted him off my property asap.
I have been careful since how I list things but would certainly expect a dust bag to be included as the bag would have originally come in it.

themull1

I always message the seller and ask if something is included, i would never assume.

kalsha

This thread reminds me of a previous similar one where a seller had photographed his item with a 20p coin for sizing and the buyer expected the coin as well!

prowla

I would say that the expectation would be that the item was as the text described, so did it (a) say that the dust bag was included, and (b) that it was a picture of the actual item for sale?

mrcol1000

I think the seller has forgot to include it. If you want the dust bag badly then make an offer. If not forget about it. You can argue over whether things in the picture should be included and the legality of it all you want but there is little you can do to force the buyer. If you make an offer you may well get it. Wouldn't offer much more than a couple of quid more than the postage would be though.

shaun_from_Africa

If a handbag is shown on a table you wouldn't expect the table to be included but this is only because any sensible person would know that the bag would have to be placed somewhere to enable a photograph to be taken, hence the reason for the table being in view.

Bearing that in mind, what possible reason could there be for showing a matching dustbag in the photograph if it wasn't to imply that it was part of the listing?

soolin

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If a handbag is shown on a table you wouldn't expect the table to be included but this is only because any sensible person would know that the bag would have to be placed somewhere to enable a photograph to be taken, hence the reason for the table being in view.

Bearing that in mind, what possible reason could there be for showing a matching dustbag in the photograph if it wasn't to imply that it was part of the listing?

That was my thought as well. The dust bag serves no purpose at all in a photograph, so why include it?

I wouldn't , for instance photograph a bale of towels with face flannels and sell the lot as a bale of towels and not expect the buyer to want the face towels. this is not the same as putting something in a photo for effect, the dust bag was only in the photo because it came with the bag.

dippy3103

I think the dust bag having been put in the photo & being the same brand was by implication part of the deal. As others said why else stick it in the picture. Otherwise why do companies put things like "**** not included" when by virtue of the price it's not included.

paulc333

ballisticbrian wrote: »

While I agree with you, the funny thing is I bought an antivirus program from a professional company whose been around years (big respected company) and it was pictured full retail box and it came as CD ROMs in a jiffy bag. I complained and they replied, "what did you expect us to advertise, a picture of a jiffy bag???"

I'd have expected the photo to be of the CD's personally. again unless the listing said "discs only" i'd be expecting the box as it was listed.

googler

What if the dust bag belonged to another bag of the same make that the seller has/had? Can we say for certain the one in the photo was THE one supplied with the bag when new?