Threatened with a visit by an angry buyer

alykatz

JethroUK wrote: »

Not clear enough obviously
I'm not sure what you're not getting about this
Had he KNOWN what he knows now (had the contract been TOTALLY transparent) then he wouldn't have bought it in the first place and that you KNOW
The contract was not transparent enough, and as a result you have a very angry customer
Unfortunately there is no law about providing a totally transparent contract, just a moral one
Had he busted it
Had you paid £15 to ship it each way
Should it not be exactly as it was before the MISS sale
I would agree
But you can put this right
You have a moral obligation to do so
You can simply sell it to someone that does want it (without the bolts)
What exactly is the problem??????
And if you say "principle"
Then just deal with the consequence
And steer clear of customer service industries for making a living

In all fairness to the op item was listed as spares or repairs.{which incidentally means parts missing and or not working]

Then the buyer inspected the item and had a full conversation about the missing parts and buyer stated they were going to source the missing parts themselves.[buyer had every opportunity to reject sale if not happy]

Im not sure what part of this you think was unclear or morally wrong.

Truth is buyer probably found out that sourcing the spare parts wasnt going to be as easy as they though so are now trying to return it. [Not the sellers fault morally or otherwise]

Op you must do what you feel is right for you and your family, if just refunding will give you all peace of mind then do so.
sometimes standing up to the bullies causes more hassle than its worth, but thats something only you can decide.

trukdiver

JethroUK wrote: »

You are not out of pocket
The buyer clearly have not got what they anticipated from this deal and as such feels duped
You could totally undo this deal with zero loss and resell to someone else

The seller will have paid Ebay fees, so they're not out of pocket.

JethroUK

asajj wrote: »

And you are assuming that the buyer wasn't aware :P

For the OP it is clear that this is a case of - had the buyer known what they know now - an 'agreement' would never have taken place in the first place

Unfortunately that is not the law - but it is the morality - and the solution is blindingly obviously

alykatz

JethroUK wrote: »

For the OP it is clear that this is a case of - had the buyer known what they know now - an 'agreement' would never have taken place in the first place

Unfortunately that is not the law - but it is the morality - and the solution is blindingly obviously

But isnt it just as likely that the buyer has now found that repairing and sourcing the missing parts is harder than they first though?

Which is hardly the seller fault, now is it .

JethroUK

alykatz wrote: »

In all fairness to the op item was listed as spares or repairs.{which incidentally means parts missing and or not working]...

Thats fine - if you are suggesting that the buyer was fully aware when they made 'the agreement' and has since busted it and now what their money back and simply 'claim' they were misled

I would entirely agree and they could keep it since they busted it

but thats clearly not the case

the buyer has bought something that they dont want (albeit they didnt read the ad properly), and would not have entered into the agreement had they been "fully aware" - you could argue they should read the ad properly (and thats what the law says)

I say - no loss, no damages, no postage even, not even packing, no return postage

Simple no brainer to sell it to someone that DOES want it

Unless of course its a piece of sheet that nobody would buy if the sale was FULLY TRANSPARENT

JethroUK

alykatz wrote: »

But isnt it just as likely that the buyer has now found that repairing and sourcing the missing parts is harder than they first though?

Which is hardly the seller fault, now is it .

In which case the buyer would NEVER have entered into the agreement in the first place had they known that parts were missing and impossible to source now

See what I mean by a TRANSPARENT agreement?

The ONLY reason the buyer is returning it is because of INFORMATION - or lack of it, for whatever reason

Thats why large organisations just take stuff back

Although the law does not say its wrong - it IS!

campdave

JethroUK wrote: »

In which case the buyer would NEVER have entered into the agreement had the advert said "parts missing and impossible to source now"

It's up to the seller to describe what the fault is, not to give a detailed break down of where and how to obtain the parts to fix it and how available they were.

It's up to the buyer to check if they can source any parts needed to repair, and if they are collecting the item in person, check it carefully before handing over money.

That's why people buying items conducted in person have fewer rights that distance sales.

I don't feel the buyer has any "moral" obligation to refund the item .

You may have a different opinion, and suspect you will, if only conduct an argument with anyone who disagrees with you, which is all you seem to do on this forum.

JethroUK

trukdiver wrote: »

The seller will have paid Ebay fees, so they're not out of pocket.

So deduct the 10p whatever the listing fee is

Im sure the buyer would be delighted -

Do you really think that is a reason not to refund

Did I really need to address that

both rhetorical

peter_the_piper

It had crossed my mind that the buyer had a broken item, saw that OP had the bits he needed, repaired own now wants to bluster the OP into refunding.

suicidebob

OP, if I was you I would more than likely be prepared to issue a refund.

Hopefully your buyer is all talk. It's easy to talk tough behind your keyboard, as you can see from the responses to your post.

Anyway, if he comes to your door you can try argue your case, but then be prepared to cave in if he is going to batter you.