Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

rigeld2 wrote:There's no intent to defraud. The other party was informed in advance.

That they would be receiving something broken for their money?

Like I said, fraud is difficult to prove, but why even bother flirting with it?

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, it would cost many times more than just replacing the thing. That's not the point.

What is the point? Is the point that buyers have no right to expect another person to make good on a transaction just because the other person calls himself a seller? Is the point that there should be no way to guarantee that in a trade both people ultimately receive what they agreed to receive? Is the point that the idea of contract is irrelevant to the idea of trade?

What would you actually be hoping to achieve with your crusade?

Ailaros wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:There's no intent to defraud. The other party was informed in advance.

That they would be receiving something broken for their money?

Like I said, fraud is difficult to prove, but why even bother flirting with it?

In this case, yes. The buyer was informed that the pieces would likely break in the shipping over the pond.
Because there's no reason for anyone to roll over and play dead just because there's the minor potential of a lawsuit - that there's a very low chance of losing in the first place.
All the refund does is feed the guy trolling for free stuff. And I can't abide that.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, it would cost many times more than just replacing the thing. That's not the point.

What is the point? Is the point that buyers have no right to expect another person to make good on a transaction just because the other person calls himself a seller? Is the point that there should be no way to guarantee that in a trade both people ultimately receive what they agreed to receive? Is the point that the idea of contract is irrelevant to the idea of trade?

What would you actually be hoping to achieve with your crusade?

To point out that the customer is not always right - because he's not. There is no reason for the buyer in this case to expect a refund. He was warned, he accepted the risk, and he should suffer the consequences.
Caving in and giving the refund - especially while the buyer still has the pieces - is bad for business. Where do you draw the line?
"Hey, I ordered $foo but really wanted $bar - can you just go ahead and ship out one of those?"
Whats the difference between that and
"Hey, I ordered $foo and I know you warned me it might not make the trip, and I accepted that risk, but it was broke when it got here. Can I have my money back?"

Bottom line is, the EBAY rules are probably worth a read. have him return it if thats the rule. Just by offering, it may circumnavigate everything unpleasant about this.

When you are correct, it sucks to knuckle under. but if you are a business, then your retrun on doing this is his good will. if he's not offering that then... well... I'd stick by the letter of what was agreed upon. If he is going to complain and mar your record, he's not acting in good faith. He's just acting.

Guys wait....

How about we do this. Lets atleast see the original ebay ad?

Ailaros wrote:
What is the point? Is the point that buyers have no right to expect another person to make good on a transaction just because the other person calls himself a seller? Is the point that there should be no way to guarantee that in a trade both people ultimately receive what they agreed to receive? Is the point that the idea of contract is irrelevant to the idea of trade?

What would you actually be hoping to achieve with your crusade?

I think the jump to accusing people of fraud is more than a little hyperbolic, but this is the internet and I shouldn't expect any better so I'll let it slide.

I provide pictures of the item and answer any questions the buyer has to their satisfaction. I have a 100% rating on Ebay and I've been a member since 2003; honestly, I don't offer refunds anymore to protect myself from fraud, though I do give one out here and there, depending on the situation.

EDIT: With fraud there has to be a material false statement (and other stuff too) with the intent to deceive or there can be no fraud. If I tell you: "This item is fragile and it may be broken over the long distance it has to be shipped." and you say: "Okay, I'll glue it back together if that happens." there is no intent to deceive or defraud. Yeah, it sucks when I ship something out and the postal service doesn't treat it like they're supposed to but it's out of my hands and that's why you buy insurance.

If the seller has all the documentation of the dialog before shipment and payment, I don't see any reason to offer the refund. It sounds like it is almost 100% that the buyer is scamming you. I know EBay has a reputation for siding with the buyer, but I'd figure it's worth it. You're getting screwed if you refund it (with or without a return because the item you're getting back will be in worse condition than you shipped it), you're getting screwed if EBay forces you to refund it.

But don't listen to that silliness about mail fraud. There's no way that the federal government is going to bother with a small dollar EBay transaction to another country. And absolutely no way they bother bringing charges once they have documentation of your email exchange with the customer. Why would somebody attempting mail fraud warn their intended victim beforehand?

Veteran Sergeant wrote:There's no way that the federal government is going to bother with a small dollar EBay transaction to another country.

It's still a matter of principle. If you are going to argue that in a world where a person exchanges money to another person and in return is exchanged with something broken, and that the only recourse is "tough", then what kind of a system is it? Lack of recourse would engender a deep sense of mistrust, which means no trade, which means no wealth or civilization as we know it. This particular event isn't going to collapse the world economy, but this kind of attitude that "well, as long as I got what I wanted, screw the other guy" eventually would.

Furthermore, what do you really expect to gain from denying a refund? At BEST, you get to keep a little cash now and develop a reputation as someone who promises good stuff and then when you give your money to him you get broken junk in the mail. At best, you're coming across as untrustworthy, if not a blanket scoundrel. No matter what the other person is trying to accomplish (I'm going to assume for the moment that they're not trying to commit outright fraud on purpose), you are in control of your own actions, and other people will see them for what they are.

If the idea of the good structure of society or of personal ramification means nothing, then what about empathy? I mean, it's almost like people arguing on the other side have NEVER gotten a broken or defective product before. If you bought something from Newegg and it came to your door damaged, you would immediately want the other party to fix it, as it wouldn't be fair for you to pay full price for damaged goods. Suddenly you're on the other side of this transaction and it's unfair to do otherwise?

Ailaros wrote:If the idea of the good structure of society or of personal ramification means nothing, then what about empathy? I mean, it's almost like people arguing on the other side have NEVER gotten a broken or defective product before. If you bought something from Newegg and it came to your door damaged, you would immediately want the other party to fix it, as it wouldn't be fair for you to pay full price for damaged goods. Suddenly you're on the other side of this transaction and it's unfair to do otherwise?

If Newegg warned me in advance that a certain method of shipping was unreliable and I acknowledged it, then no - I wouldn't immediately want the other party to fix it. I accepted responsibility the moment I asked for the item to be shipped against the sellers recommendation.

Principle? Now you've lost me. He tells seller "Don't buy this, it will probably break" Seller says "No worries, I'll fix it if it does".

Where, and according to what kind of bizarre ethical and moral philosophy you've invented, is there a "principle" involved that suggests that he has any further responsibility? I've studied ethics and values a fair amount, and there's not a single reason I can find for him to feel any guilt in this situation.

Trade involves a certain amount of trust. The seller demonstrated reasonable trustworthiness by divulging his worries that the product would not survive the trip intact. The buyer accepted these terms. Your analysis of trade and business is woefully incomplete. There are two sides to every transaction, and business only takes place because it is advantageous to both sides. While you argue that the buyer is being left with no recourse, at the same time, your solution offers the seller no recourse and no protection. A transaction requires both sides, and if you place sellers with no incentive to trade, you've destroyed commerce just as fast.

rigeld2 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:If the idea of the good structure of society or of personal ramification means nothing, then what about empathy? I mean, it's almost like people arguing on the other side have NEVER gotten a broken or defective product before. If you bought something from Newegg and it came to your door damaged, you would immediately want the other party to fix it, as it wouldn't be fair for you to pay full price for damaged goods. Suddenly you're on the other side of this transaction and it's unfair to do otherwise?

If Newegg warned me in advance that a certain method of shipping was unreliable and I acknowledged it, then no - I wouldn't immediately want the other party to fix it. I accepted responsibility the moment I asked for the item to be shipped against the sellers recommendation.

Which is why i asked to see the original listing.

or else it's anyones story

rigeld2 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:I've worked for an eBay seller before, so I know how frustrating it can be to handle business over the internet, but your frustration doesn't give you the legal justification to just do whatever you want. It is precisely because of this that we have certain laws in the first place...

"Yay I won! Plz2send to Italy."
".. It's gonna break. A lot."
"I don't care! I'll fix it!"
"Okay, I'll send it - but don't hold me responsible for damages."
<time passes>
"ITS BROKE! I DEMAND REFUND"
"Uh - no... I told you it'd be broke. You said you'd fix it."
"GIVES ME MAH MONIES AND MO FREE STUFZ"

Yeah, that's not mail fraud. That's normal business.

This is well put. You just can't be surprised when people act like morons. It's what they do.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Principle? Now you've lost me. He tells seller "Don't buy this, it will probably break" Seller says "No worries, I'll fix it if it does".

Selling something fragile to someone halfway round the world was only going to end in tragedy.
Just because someone says they don't mind if it breaks, doesn't mean it absolves you of your responsibility to provide them with the product you said you would. If sellers could take the things said to them by customers and use them to trample over the customers' statutory rights, commerce would be impossible.
It's also about scale. If you tell me that those cadians you sent me might fall apart in the post, that's fine becuase they cost very little and I can glue them back.
But if I've spend a couple of hundred pounds on something only for it to be unusable when I receive it, I'd want my money back. Hell if an actual irl store took that attitude with me I'd intimidate staff/customers until I got my refund.
edit:
Goes without saying that you shouldn't give him a penny back until you've received the goods back and can see for yourself what has happened. If it's obvious he's smashed it up with a hammer then yeah he can go feth himself.

nope you listed risks and he knows the risks too... doubt this was the first thing he bought from overseas.

Joey wrote:But if I've spend a couple of hundred pounds on something only for it to be unusable when I receive it, I'd want my money back. Hell if an actual irl store took that attitude with me I'd intimidate staff/customers until I got my refund.

The Buyer took responsibility for the item when he said to ship it anyway, and if it broke he would fix it. I would not issue a refund.

If you bought something from my store and I told you that on the ride home you have to be careful about potholes, and if you hit one the item may be damaged, as it is fragile. Then you said I don't care I will just glue it back together if it breaks. Then if it broke, I would not issue a refund to you as you accepted the risks. If you were to "intimidate staff/customers until I got my refund" I would have the police remove you.

P.S. your post seems like it was facetious, was it?

Scam? You did message him.

With fraud there has to be a material false statement (and other stuff too) with the intent to deceive or there can be no fraud. If I tell you: "This item is fragile and it may be broken over the long distance it has to be shipped." and you say: "Okay, I'll glue it back together if that happens." there is no intent to deceive or defraud. Yeah, it sucks when I ship something out and the postal service doesn't treat it like they're supposed to but it's out of my hands and that's why you buy insurance.

from RexGhost and quoted for truth.

Having said that however, I would request the item back and then issue a refund. It sadly is the cost of business sometimes, to eat a sale because of the ignorance of the consumer. Though I think you are justified in your stance to keep the money and tell the consumer to deal with it, the ultimate goal of your business is to continue to make money. By giving a refund you aren't conceding and stating any malfeasance on your end, you are simply continuing to run your business in a respectful manner. Lesson learned, move on.

DeathReaper wrote:

Joey wrote:But if I've spend a couple of hundred pounds on something only for it to be unusable when I receive it, I'd want my money back. Hell if an actual irl store took that attitude with me I'd intimidate staff/customers until I got my refund.

The Buyer took responsibility for the item when he said to ship it anyway, and if it broke he would fix it. I would not issue a refund.

If you bought something from my store and I told you that on the ride home you have to be careful about potholes, and if you hit one the item may be damaged, as it is fragile. Then you said I don't care I will just glue it back together if it breaks. Then if it broke, I would not issue a refund to you as you accepted the risks. If you were to "intimidate staff/customers until I got my refund" I would have the police remove you.

Well your first statement is what's really wrong here - the buyer should NEVER have any liability for it. If you're selling someone a good, it's your responsibility to make sure it gets to the buyer safe and sound. If you can't gaurentee that, don't make the sale.
Your allegory is somewhat misleading. If you sold me a priceless Ming vase (how can you sell someone something that's priceless? Anyway.) and told me there was every chance it would break on the way home, and I, eager to get my hands on cheap Chinese antiques, said I'd glue it back together if it did, it would STILL be your fault if it broke on the way home, assuming I wasn't tossing it up and down with gay abandon on the way home (this whole discussion is moot if the delivery company were being gaks), since the good was damaged.
In the UK at least it would be illegal to act like the OP has done. You cannot voluntarily waive your consumer rights, any more than you can waive any other rights.

Tell you what, have him ship it back exactly as he bought it, issue him a refund and then sell it to me!

Joey wrote:In the UK at least it would be illegal to act like the OP has done. You cannot voluntarily waive your consumer rights, any more than you can waive any other rights.

I doubt that's true, and you can absolutely waive your own rights (in the US anyway - damn ferners. ).

The seller has no control over who bids on eBay. Whether he said "no overseas" or not, after the item was won, the OP warned the buyer that there would likely be issues.
The buyer said he'd fix whatever issues there were.
The seller shipped - due diligence done.
The buyer received and was shocked - SHOCKED I SAY - to discover there were issues.

No, there's no reason to cave to the buyer in this case.

rigeld2 wrote:

Joey wrote:In the UK at least it would be illegal to act like the OP has done. You cannot voluntarily waive your consumer rights, any more than you can waive any other rights.

I doubt that's true, and you can absolutely waive your own rights (in the US anyway - damn ferners. ).

The seller has no control over who bids on eBay. Whether he said "no overseas" or not, after the item was won, the OP warned the buyer that there would likely be issues.
The buyer said he'd fix whatever issues there were.
The seller shipped - due diligence done.
The buyer received and was shocked - SHOCKED I SAY - to discover there were issues.

No, there's no reason to cave to the buyer in this case.

Basically.

If the OP has all of this in writing and documented then there should be no problem raising hell if they make you refund it. Pretty much everything you say or write down can be used against you at some point, so having that should be enough.

This is a country that a woman won a million dollars for spilling coffee on herself at McDonalds. I think you will be alright.

Ignatius wrote:If the OP has all of this in writing and documented then there should be no problem raising hell if they make you refund it. Pretty much everything you say or write down can be used against you at some point, so having that should be enough.

This is a country that a woman won a million dollars for spilling coffee on herself at McDonalds. I think you will be alright.

The first part I agree with.

The Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants lawsuit did not end with the defendant getting "a million dollars for spilling coffee on herself at McDonalds"

I personally have met and talked with the OP in the past, and from what he told / showed me, he has a sound organizational and business structure with no intent to deceive or 'cheat' his customers out of a satisfactory transaction.
The first problem with his situation was that he was dealing with a person that obviously has never attempted to obtain items via overseas shipping. This person insisted MULTIPLE TIMES that he was willing to deal with the hardships the model would suffer through trans-Atlantic travel.

Now: if you are stating that it is the producers' fault for deferring to sell to this customer for fears of the product not surviving transit, eventually caving due to the blatant requests of this consumer, then quite frankly I cannot see where you are making any sense...

The situation would be different if the buyer never acknowledged the fact that the model might suffer damage and the seller never provided any input as to whether or not it would survive the trip.

I don't know... legalities aside, my morality says that none of this should be upon the OP

Last time I fought ebay on a sale. The guy got to keep the item I sold him, I had to pay him back his 250$, and they attempted to charge me for the selling fee still.

I completely refuse to sell anything over seas now simply because of ebay and paypals inability to investigate the issue. When it takes them 3 weeks to investigate I expect more than "it was an international card, nothing we can do."

Terrible seller protection, it is all about the buyers. So good luck fighting it, i wish you the best.

In the UK at least it would be illegal to act like the OP has done. You cannot voluntarily waive your consumer rights, any more than you can waive any other rights.

In the US:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law."

Though this is an example of one of our Miranda Rights when being arrested, it demonstrates how our system is set up. Many of our rights are situational, and can be signed away in a contract. Our system of contract laws is Byzantine and confusing, which is why most businesses keep a contract lawyer on retainer for reading through their paperwork.

In the example given above, if the Ming vase was in perfect condition when it was loaded into your vehicle, then the seller's responsibility for it ceased the second it left his hands. The drive home? That's your responsibility, Buyer, you bought it. Hit a pot-hole and smashed the vase up? Not the seller's fault, or responsibility.

Midnightdeathblade wrote:I recently had a sale on ebay of one of my warhound titans. I described the model (construction, durability, and size) and set the price at $100 and $15 shipping. A man from italy bought one. I wasnt sure if the titan would survive shipping overseas, and I told him this. So after a week or so of negotating, I shipped it, EXPRESS ($35) overseas. It arrives apparantly in pieces wich is no surprise to me (its not supposed to be thrown around like that) and he wants a full refund. He is also complaining that i didnt include the weapon barrels (this i also messeged him about) (they always break off durring shipping, and are easy to make) SOOO, should I isssue a refund?

NEGATORI!

DeathReaper wrote:

Ignatius wrote:If the OP has all of this in writing and documented then there should be no problem raising hell if they make you refund it. Pretty much everything you say or write down can be used against you at some point, so having that should be enough.

This is a country that a woman won a million dollars for spilling coffee on herself at McDonalds. I think you will be alright.

The first part I agree with.

The Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants lawsuit did not end with the defendant getting "a million dollars for spilling coffee on herself at McDonalds"

Which is a pity, because said coffee caused THIRD DEGREE BURNS! It was delivered at a range that was far above acceptable coffee heating. Most of the money was going towards her medical bills (Which is the amount she ASKED FOR)

. At best, you're coming across as untrustworthy, if not a blanket scoundrel. No matter what the other person is trying to accomplish (I'm going to assume for the moment that they're not trying to commit outright fraud on purpose)

Mail fraud does not mean what you think it means

In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication. It has been a federal crime in the United States since 1872.

Intentionally deprive, he stated his issues, and that there might be issues should it go oversea's, if he kept the emails he can easily debunk this in court. As the owner got his titan, he wasn't deprived.

Ailaros wrote:I think I'm actually on the pro-refund side of this. In what other business transaction could you spend money and then not get the promised proper good or service in return? He may be a big whiner who got what he deserved, but you're also coming dangerously close to committing mail fraud.

It's why most small-time people who ship professionally will take out insurance on packages larger than $50 or $100 (Amazon can afford not to do this, because they can just ship you another of something and it doesn't hurt their bottom line - you can't).

I'd offer him the refund so long as he gives you back your titan. When (and only when), you receive the product back, then give him back his money. If, as people are mentioning, it is repairable, then repair it and sell it to someone else - next time to someone in your hemisphere, and with purchasing insurance.

Plus, any legal ramifications aside, "buyer beware" is a pretty disreputable way to run a business transaction, especially in a world of "the customer is always right".

Nope, no mail fraud committed. The Seller should have required the Buyer to purchase insurance. The Seller should NOT ship overseas (and especially not to ITALY). But neither of these points makes this the Seller's issue. The Buyer was warned and has his purchase; I suggest he bust out his glue and fix his busted model...

Psienesis wrote:
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law."

A wise man once said: "I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability."

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants lawsuit did not end with the defendant getting "a million dollars for spilling coffee on herself at McDonalds"

Which is a pity, because said coffee caused THIRD DEGREE BURNS! It was delivered at a range that was far above acceptable coffee heating. Most of the money was going towards her medical bills (Which is the amount she ASKED FOR)

She still got something.

Initially McDonalds offered her under a thousand dollars, when her expected medical bills were going to cost about between 10,000 and 25,000.

The case settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

The Jury awarded 2.7 million, the courts reduced it to about 600,000.

So presumably the agreement was for less than what the court awarded to her.

3rd time asking,

I guess that means OP dont want to show us the ebay listing and details containing item description.