Threatened with a visit by an angry buyer

JethroUK

alykatz wrote: »

But surely thats down to the buyer not getting the information they needed in the first place.

Says the law - morality suggested its down to the seller to make sure the buyer KNOWS what they are buying before they buy it

And if all that has happened between the agreement and now is that the buyer has gained FULL KNOWLEDGE (not bust it or incurred costs) then just refund

alykatz wrote: »

The transaction was transparent at the time it was made, the buyers ineptitude it what has caused the problem.

I have just defined transparency and if you discover you do not want something purely as a result of 'learning more about it' then by-definition it was NOT transparent at point of contract

Now do you know what transparency means

Large organisation do not need all this BS to fully understand this area of morality and as such have a bring back satisfaction philosophy

my point is not a legal one - do you understand that?

Its one of right vs wrong

d70cw6

JethroUK wrote: »

Says the law - morality suggested its down to the seller to make sure the buyer KNOWS what they are buying before they buy it

And if all that has happened between the agreement and now is that the buyer has gained FULL KNOWLEDGE (not bust it or incurred costs) then just refund



I have just defined transparency and if you discover you do not want something purely as a result of 'learning more about it' then by-definition it was NOT transparent at point of contract

Now do you know what transparency means

Large organisation do not need all this BS to fully understand this area of morality and as such have a bring back satisfaction philosophy

my point is not a legal one - do you understand that?

Its one of right vs wrong

....in your opinion. Just because you believe something does not make it the true.

Others may comment that if a buyer enters into a transaction with disclosure that the item is broken, and was listed as such, then it's their not the sellers issue that they are unhappy with purchasing a broken item. Why is the buyer wasting the sellers time?

k3lvc

JethroUK wrote: »

Says the law - morality suggested its down to the seller to make sure the buyer KNOWS what they are buying before they buy it

And if all that has happened between the agreement and now is that the buyer has gained FULL KNOWLEDGE (not bust it or incurred costs) then just refund



I have just defined transparency and if you discover you do not want something purely as a result of 'learning more about it' then by-definition it was NOT transparent at point of contract

Now do you know what transparency means

Large organisation do not need all this BS to fully understand this area of morality and as such have a bring back satisfaction philosophy

my point is not a legal one - do you understand that?

Its one of right vs wrong

I bet the Finance function of the organisation you work for love you - it's all very well taking the moral high ground but lots of satisfied but then refunded customers makes you a charity rather than a commercial organisation

If this transaction had been carried out remotely or on a conditional basis i.e. buyer makes stipulations on condition of parts and agrees a returns policy then I'm all with you but in this case the buyer clearly examined the goods and agreed a face to face sale

I'm making no judgement on whether the seller should/should not refund - that will depend on attitude/level of violence of buyer

campdave

JethroUK wrote: »

Says the law - morality suggested its down to the seller to make sure the buyer KNOWS what they are buying before they buy it

So what's the difference between this thread and this post you made previously?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67338678&postcount=17

JethroUK wrote: »

You made a blunder so just sell it like the man said

You cant just buy stuff "subject to your husbands approval" - you might have an argument if you were 11 years old

You are a grown adult and you need to take your contracts to buy seriously

.

alykatz

JethroUK wrote: »

Says the law - morality suggested its down to the seller to make sure the buyer KNOWS what they are buying before they buy it

And if all that has happened between the agreement and now is that the buyer has gained FULL KNOWLEDGE (not bust it or incurred costs) then just refund



I have just defined transparency and if you discover you do not want something purely as a result of 'learning more about it' then by-definition it was NOT transparent at point of contract

Now do you know what transparency means

Large organisation do not need all this BS to fully understand this area of morality and as such have a bring back satisfaction philosophy

my point is not a legal one - do you understand that?

Its one of right vs wrong

I know what it means why thank you, its you that seems to have muddled whats going on here.
Its a pity given some of the other posts your made around the forums that you have not applied this point to. eg: the point made above.


You do seem to like to take an opposing view to whatever anyone else says. no mater the subject.

philatio

alykatz wrote: »

You do seem to like to take an opposing view to whatever anyone else says. no mater the subject.

Indeed.
He lives under a bridge too. Waiting for goats.

alykatz

philatio wrote: »

Indeed.
He lives under a bridge too. Waiting for goats.

You may well be right.:p:p:p

VictorCharlie

Christ Jethro, give it a rest. You're talking out of your !!! and not helping anyone.
The OP has done nothing wrong.

JethroUK

VictorCharlie wrote: »

Christ Jethro, give it a rest. You're talking out of your !!! and not helping anyone.
The OP has done nothing wrong.

Didn't say the op had

I'm suggesting he just refund and avoid a confrontation for nothing more than principal

Jk2000

Update .


Angry buyer kept phoning through the day. I did not answer.
late afternoon I asked the Police officer handling the matter to call the buyer, the buyer informed the officer he wanted to pop round to have a civil chat about the matter !!
naturally the Police officer could not block the person from coming to my house , but he suggested if he did and I felt intimidated to call 999 immediately and state my reference number to which I would have had an immediate response.


Mid evening the buyer had not turned up at my house , then my land line phone rang , it was the buyer, I guess he did not fancy the 100 mile trip after all
.
I decided to answer to put an end to this .
had a long conversation where after some ranting by the buyer to which I listened to fairly, I got my turn to hammer my point home that the item was sold and described as faulty-with parts missing as was stated in the original ebay listing plus I emphasised the fact that the fact parts were missing was discussed face to face.

I asked him why he had not taken any of this on board at the time and indicated he was happy to remedy the item . he offered no real reason. so I finally got it through to him he had made a mistake and had used threats to attempt to get a refund. phew.


Despite all of this I have decided to refund his money and I also explained I would have done this sooner had he not blamed me for his lack of judgment, ignorance to clear information and for turning to using threatening texts.


I will meet him in a public place to refund with a friend to assist.
and finally after some advise (people have mentioned a scam whereby the original items get swooped on return) I will refund 3/4 now in cash and once I'm satisfied I have all my parts back in the same condition I will post a check for the remainder.


thanks for all the help and advice given