Seller underpaid postage.

anotheruser

theonlywayisup wrote: »

Why? Because the item doesn't belong to the buyer. Morals and honesty have no time limit or complexity.

True but will the seller be bothered?
Probably not.

I buy a large amount of books that are all stated to be "Very Good" condition. When they arrive, most are not. I email the seller, they reply offering a percentage back. I say I'd rather send it back, but it'll cost them too much to provide a postage label (the books are less than £3 each).
They then come back and refund the whole lot - I get to keep the book. I've done it with at least 6 so far, all from similar (in their emails), but a couple of different sellers.

Morally, I feel a little bad but then I remember that I paid for a book that was described as "Very Good" - if it was as described then the seller would get much less hassle from me.

ballisticbrian

Morally, I feel a little bad

That's because you are pre-empting their position and working the system which puts you into the realm of professional complainer. Just saying.

Shrimply

ballisticbrian wrote: »

That's because you are pre-empting their position and working the system which puts you into the realm of professional complainer. Just saying.

But these sellers know they are listing the items incorrectly and relying on people not complaining to make a profit. I don't think using their dishonesty against them is wrong.

theonlywayisup

anotheruser wrote: »

True but will the seller be bothered?
Probably not.

They won't know until they try to find out.

anotheruser wrote: »

I buy a large amount of books that are all stated to be "Very Good" condition. When they arrive, most are not. I email the seller, they reply offering a percentage back. I say I'd rather send it back, but it'll cost them too much to provide a postage label (the books are less than £3 each).
They then come back and refund the whole lot - I get to keep the book. I've done it with at least 6 so far, all from similar (in their emails), but a couple of different sellers.

Morally, I feel a little bad but then I remember that I paid for a book that was described as "Very Good" - if it was as described then the seller would get much less hassle from me.

Shrimply wrote: »

But these sellers know they are listing the items incorrectly and relying on people not complaining to make a profit. I don't think using their dishonesty against them is wrong.

Any dishonesty is wrong.

Shrimply

theonlywayisup wrote: »

Any dishonesty is wrong.

I think that's a very naive comment, we don't live in a black and white world with right and wrong and nothing in between.

Is being dishonest about facts so that school pupils can begin to understand complex subjects wrong. Because teachers are doing it day in and day out.

And ordering something from a dishonest seller and then getting your money back involves no dishonesty on the buyers part in any case. They order a book that's supposed to be in good condition, when they don't receive what they ordered they offer to return it and the instead the seller refunds.

The only person who was dishonest was the seller and they've lost money because of that dishonesty, I don't see how anyone can say that's wrong.

theonlywayisup

Shrimply wrote: »

And ordering something from a dishonest seller and then getting your money back involves no dishonesty on the buyers part in any case.
They order a book that's supposed to be in good condition, when they don't receive what they ordered they offer to return it and the instead the seller refunds.

"Good condition" is subjective.

Shrimply wrote: »

The only person who was dishonest was the seller and they've lost money because of that dishonesty, I don't see how anyone can say that's wrong.

As I said, condition is subjective, not dishonest.

One might suggest that an order arriving below standard on 6 separate occasions, all resulting in full refunds without return is more a conscious act than a coincidence.....

Shrimply

Only the OP will know for sure in these cases. However, I do believe a lot of sellers work on the principle that they list everything as good quality, regardless, and then refund complaints.

If I buy a "genuine" item at a price that can't possible be genuine and then request my money back when a fake item arrives. How does that fall on your moral compass?

theonlywayisup

Shrimply wrote: »

If I buy a "genuine" item at a price that can't possible be genuine and then request my money back when a fake item arrives. How does that fall on your moral compass?

That's not the same though is it? A fake is a fake, it's not subjective. A seller knowingly selling a fake is breaking the law is he not?

But, a seller listing a book as in good condition and the buyer disagreeing, is a difference of opinion (a subjective one at that).

A buyer keeping the fake (knowing it's a fake) is another matter entirely.

A buyer buying more 'good condition' books, hoping they will receive more refunds for their subjective opinion, well, that's questionable at best....

You have already admitted you feel morally bad....does that not indicate something to you? It does me.

My moral compass isn't the issue here.

Shrimply

theonlywayisup wrote: »

You have already admitted you feel morally bad....does that not indicate something to you? It does me.

Actually, I didn't say that. I agree good condition is subjective, but I also think that if something which is obviously not in good condition arrives the seller has been dishonest, and I think with books in particular where sellers are bulk listing them that probably happens quite often.

I have bought "genuine" phone batteries in the past though. I don't feel bad that I ended up with the item for free. If what had turned up was as advertised I would have had no need to complain and been very happy with it for the price I paid.

theonlywayisup

Shrimply wrote: »

Actually, I didn't say that.

My apologies, I thought your comments were a continuation of that made by someone else ^ on reading back I can see that's another poster.