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.

Yeah, again, things like the bolter turret are things NECESSARY for a complete rhino (begin WYSIWYG compliant), and if those aren't included, then again, not a complete rhino..

@Joyous: Yeah, didn't notice the location thing, but it was just an observation. Besides, you call Ottawa "frozen"? BULL, you are getting like -7 out there, and I am here sitting here in -25 near Winnipeg.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

two_heads_talking wrote:Well having read it all, it appears that it clearly states therre is no acc sprue included (it even says for clarification purposes).. While it does say complete rhino, it also says no acc. sprue. One must read all the fine print. You've heard the saying Caveat Emptor! right.. The buyer beware... In this case, just a bit of simple attention to detail on both parts would have easily fixed this.

I see nothing wrong with the seller, nor his auction.

It does bury this last piece of vital information at the end after the usual blah about posting nicely and thankyou for looking etc. I missed it the first time I looked. It should have been written alongside the information detailing the contents of the kit, the parts describing the sprues in the kit and where he claims it's "complete".

If the seller isn't being disingenuous and trying to play down the fact that the kit isn't nearly as 'complete' as he claims then he needs to re write his auctions. They are misleading, deliberately or not. He comes across as being a bit crafty in the way the auction has been worded, he should be up front about the contents of the kit, not tell you what you're getting and then spacing out his description with some waffle before adding a note to mention that there's stuff you're not getting.

That's what happens when you scan text. If you don't read the whole thing, you miss out. Personally if I'm interested I read, if there is a question, I use the 'ask seller a question' button. If one is too damn lazy to ask and assumes, well you know what assuming does right? Again, this could have been written better, but the buyer could have learned to read too.

First point:

Your poll is an invitation to a cop out as I see it. Either the auction lot is legit or it is not. There is no 'shady' in law.

Second point:

I am a buyer who successfully defended a non-payment case of a fraudulent auction. I got suspicuious after the fact, and was warned by someone from Warseer. warseer helped me defend my case to eBay.

In my experience it takes weeks for eBay to do anything and they are very reluctant to act even when there is good evidence of a seller breaking the rules. This is your first problem, even if we do agree there is a case to answer, and even if we do word it for you so that you can show the auctuion broke eBay rules, still they wont do nothing.

No. Their first action is to send macro form letters telling you how to contact the seller (with your own name adress and phone number) - I baulked on this as I was NOT going to give my home details to a con man. ebay didnt care and just spammed the same 'advice' over and over. To put it bluntly they only care about minimising overheads dealing with customer service cases and disputes is an overhead) and getting their %. Unless you dig your heels and show you wont go away and are taking this up with your local trading standards body in they are happy to let the customer hang out to dry. It doesnt help here that you are dealing with a foreign transaction (mine was within the same country).

Be parepared for a long battle.

Third point:

I won my case because while the items sold were in the correct category (Epic forgeworld miniatures masquerading as 40K scale) the item decription and title were not accurate. You only need to win one of these arguemtns to challenge an auction, though two or more is better. Frankly you can only hope to get him on an unclear and misleading main description. Title and category appear to both be legit.

Look here:
http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/listing-ov.html

ok, its the Uk site, but it gives you the idea. Look and Canadian and US law based eBay sites for your own case.

Good luck, if you want more help, feel free to ask further questions as needed.

two_heads_talking wrote:
If one is too damn lazy to ask and assumes, well you know what assuming does right?

Makes an Ass out of you and Ming? I think Ming might have something to say about that!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I think at this point we're either talking at cross purposes, or people simply aren't going to relent.

When you have people repeatedly saying "sure it's legal, it's just misleading and bad business practices" and others respond "hey, let the buyer beware," I think it's time we all realize we agree. Of course it's legal. Of course it's operating in bad faith. Sellers shouldn't do that, but buyers should be aware.

Now, anybody that says the seller is utterly innocent and is practicing business the way it's meant to, well, I don't know what sort of world they want to live in, but I'd love to hear arguments about how this seller is a paragon of virtue.

I think the resolution of the seller being stuck with the item, but leaving negative feedback is entirely apporpriate in this case. The sller got what he bargained for, so shouldn't get his money back, but it was a negative experience! The seller was hoping to find somebody that wouldn't read every line of the auction, and did. this is why negative feedback exists: to warn other buyers of sellers that are potential problems.

I also have to say, the guys reaction to the negative feedback could have been a bit more professional. a comment like "all items specified in item description were included but buyer was still unhappy." is a lot more convincing than his shock and rage. Frankly, I read his response and more or less was convinced that he's a jerk.

Ozymandias wrote:Makes an Ass out of you and Ming? I think Ming might have something to say about that!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

He is a bit merciless...

He also claims it to be new.

Which is untrue. GW do not, to my knowledge, sell such sprues to anyone anymore, whether wholesale or direct. The box would have been opened, requiring the breaking of the Shrinkwrap. At that point, it is no longer new and automatically becomes defined as 2nd hand.

So thats two extremely misleading statements which lead to believe the seller is an arse.

Hellfury wrote:If it isn't you (and no this isn't an allegation, it is just deductive reasoning) then why would you say something like this:

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:I have seen his auctions before, never seemed bad to me, the description he gives lets you know you need a vehicle accessory sprue to finish the kit, but otherwise the the tank is complete.

I'm not sure If I read about this guy on Warseer, or here on Dakka, but he has history, and seem to be pretty decent.

How can you know of his history, and that history 'to be pretty decent' when you cant even see the sellers name?

Don't take it the wrong way or get overly defensive, I am just genuinely curious how you can know this information about a seller whose name isn't disclosed if it isn't you.

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:If you would read the details, which most of you obviously don't, you will see the seller is from Medina, Ohio (I couldn't even point out Ohio on a US map), I am from the frozen north you Yanks call Canada. Ottawa, Ontario to be exact, and that has been in my Avatar since I joined Dakka.

Not saying you are lying mate, but that little United States flag next your username doesn't help that defense.

In your defense, those flags aren't always correct (that and Ottowa is close enough to the states for the IP to read from the U.S.), but to the casual observer, it is one thing that can be used to pick apart such a defense as you have given.

GAH! I should stop posting at work...we are on IBMs main network and our IP is out of the US...when I post from home, it shows the little Canadian flag

And as for knowing his auctions...that actually was a mistake on my part. I remembered someone selling rhinos exactly like this, and thought it was this guy, but someone in this thread pointed out that Battlewagon Bits does the same thing, and thats where I knew it from. The 'from Warseer or Dakka' comment sort of adds support to my theory that I wasn't sure where I had heard about him, and as a result It was BWB all along, lol.

Anyways I still defend him, as I am a nitpicker for reading all the fine print when I buy things, and I wouldn't miss something like this. But to a 'skimming' glance it might be misleading.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The box would have been opened, requiring the breaking of the Shrinkwrap. At that point, it is no longer new and automatically becomes defined as 2nd hand.

Actually, this makes it no longer mint. It is still new, as it has never been used before. As the auction winner is not buying it directly from the producer, it's 2nd hand. 2nd hand has nothing to do with its classification of new or mint, only the source of purchase. I used to deal with a lot of action figure collectors(being one myself), so I made sure to school myself on this information using Toyfare and other such Figure Collection Guides that have pricing based on rarity and whether it's Mint in Box(damaged or mint box makes a difference, too), new, used, repackaged, or missing pieces.

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:

Anyways I still defend him, as I am a nitpicker for reading all the fine print when I buy things, and I wouldn't miss something like this. But to a 'skimming' glance it might be misleading.

Nice understatement. My point, and the point of others, is that if it could be misleading, why? I think the auction was written in such a way as to encourage the misreading, not to accurately and completely apprise a seller of it's condition. If the seller is trying to be misleading, than that's something that I think really deserves the negative feedback and a certain bad reputation. I read auctions fully, but I still don't like that people are trying to play gotcha games on eBay.

I don't like the gotcha games either, and maybe that's why I am not opposed to what he has done here. I love not getting screwed by those kind of people and even turning things around on them at times.

I wouldn't give this negative feedback, but I would send him an email with this thread linked in it

EDIT: I DO have a little yankee flag by name...damn it all.

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:I don't like the gotcha games either, and maybe that's why I am not opposed to what he has done here. I love not getting screwed by those kind of people and even turning things around on them at times.

I wouldn't give this negative feedback, but I would send him an email with this thread linked in it

I think there's just been some confusion based on your posts. You seemed to be implying that he was doing nothing wrong and that you didn't find any fault in his actions, which frankly confused me.

I see what you mean about spotting these guys, it's one of life's little pleasures to look at an auction and in 5 seconds say "shady" and move on. I'd give negative feedback because the seller seems to be working hard at maintaining the illusion that it's a truly complete kit. A misread sentence is one thing, that happens. I could see a buyer being pretty upset with this guy.

The guy is a scammer. Another reason why you should support your FLGS.

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:...as a result It was BWB all along, lol.

Hmm. Interesting. As well as surprising.

Hellfury wrote:

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:...as a result It was BWB all along, lol.

Hmm. Interesting. As well as surprising.

Care to quantify that statement? The things in question are identical products, including what pieces are missing. And even when I first mentioned hearing about the 'guy' I made a note to say I wasn't sure where I'd heard about it.

Oh wait, that ruins your little conspiracy theory, sorry.

Polonius wrote:I think there's just been some confusion based on your posts. You seemed to be implying that he was doing nothing wrong and that you didn't find any fault in his actions, which frankly confused me.

I actually don't find anything wrong with what he did. *IF he didn't put that last line in, I'd have major issues with the guy and his auctions. I may even buy it just to get even with him by way of Ebay auction protection

olympia wrote:The guy is a scammer. Another reason why you should support your FLGS.

Very true in regards to buying locally. If in doubt, buy it locally. My local GW has sold me kits without pieces before, but always replaced any missing pieces immediately (usually by opening a new box and givig me said piece).

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:I actually don't find anything wrong with what he did. *IF he didn't put that last line in, I'd have major issues with the guy and his auctions. I may even buy it just to get even with him by way of Ebay auction protection

So you seriously don't see a problem with him stating that it's a complete rhino when it's not?

You wouldn't be the slightest bit annoyed if you bought something listed as 'complete' that turned out to be missing key components required to complete its assembly?

@ Joyous: The reason you confusing this guy with BWB is interesting is that BWB goes out of it's way to explain what's included, and what's missing. This guy goes out of his way to obfuscate what is missing. the fact that you conflated the two seems to indicate that you assume he's operating on the same level of being forthright.

I do have a hypothetical for you. You say you don't see anythying wrong with what he did. In an ideal world, would every business operate like him, or is there some courtesy, respect, or ethics that would be followed by merchants? I'm asking because if you're just a hard core social darwinism, then you might even encourage this sort of behavior to seperate the strong from the weak.

insaniak wrote:

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:I actually don't find anything wrong with what he did. *IF he didn't put that last line in, I'd have major issues with the guy and his auctions. I may even buy it just to get even with him by way of Ebay auction protection

So you seriously don't see a problem with him stating that it's a complete rhino when it's not?

You wouldn't be the slightest bit annoyed if you bought something listed as 'complete' that turned out to be missing key components required to complete its assembly?

Personally no. I don't just read the 'complete rhino' I read the whole description. Then I wouldn't bid, as it is missing the accessory sprue.


It is not missing 'key components'. It is missing a couple cupolas and some weapon accessories. Both can be easily scrounged or plasticarded. I would just be happy I got a sweet deal ona rhino.

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:...as a result It was BWB all along, lol.

Hmm. Interesting. As well as surprising.

Care to quantify that statement? The things in question are identical products, including what pieces are missing. And even when I first mentioned hearing about the 'guy' I made a note to say I wasn't sure where I'd heard about it.

Oh wait, that ruins your little conspiracy theory, sorry.

First off, I was replying to the assertion you made that it was a BWB auction.
I didn't challenge that assertion, so why are you being so defensive about it?

Good lord man. I know it is acceptable if not promoted form on the internet to fly off the handle for no apparent reason over nothing, but sheesh...

My quesiton is this: why would you label an auction as being complete, except that it's missing parts, and seperate the words complete and missing by paragraphs of text, except to entice buyers to think that it's truly complete?

Can anybody think of a reason the auction was listed this way other than to be misleading?

Polonius wrote:@ Joyous: The reason you confusing this guy with BWB is that BWB goes out of it's way to explain what's included, and what's missing. This guy goes out of his way to obfuscate what is missing.

I do have a hypothetical for you. You say you don't see anythying wrong with what he did. In an ideal world, would every business operate like him, or is there some courtesy, respect, or ethics that would be followed by merchants? I'm asking because if you're just a hard core social darwinism, then you might even encourage this sort of behavior to seperate the strong from the weak.

Bah to many posting to reply, lol. In an ideal world, no every business would not operate like him, nor am I saying that they should. All I am saying (or trying to say) is that the responsibility should be on the buyer here. The seller has provided an acceptable description of the product, if it does stray from the normal a bit. In today's world there shoudl be a lot higher level of buyer awareness, but there isn't. People are getting dumber, and while Darwin was a bit of a nut, his theory does hold some promise

I mean if people keep eating deep fried twinkies don't they deserve what they get?

If nobody bid on this guy's auction, he would likely change his business strategy pretty quickly. But people keep bidding, in ignorance, or with full knowledge, whatever the reason, so he can keep his status quo.

Polonius wrote:Can anybody think of a reason the auction was listed this way other than to be misleading?

Simple error when making the listing? Or oversight on his part?

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:Personally no. I don't just read the 'complete rhino' I read the whole description. Then I wouldn't bid, as it is missing the accessory sprue.

And if you were unfamilliar with the kit, and didn't realise that those key components were on the accessory sprue? Shouldn't you be able to assume that the kit is complete, because he says it is, and that the accessory sprue doesn't include anything that is required to complete the kit?

It is not missing 'key components'. It is missing a couple cupolas and some weapon accessories.

Without the cupola and the plug that goes beside it, you have two great gaping holes in the top of the rhino.

That certainly fits my definition of 'key components'... without them, the rhino is not completely built.

Both can be easily scrounged or plasticarded.

That doesn't make them not a part of the rhino.

If I sold you a car, told you it was 'complete but missing some accessories' and when it turned up it was missing both front doors, you'd be ok with that?

Because, you know, you can knock up some doors out of fibreglass, or pick them up from a wreckers. It's not like they're an actual part of the car...

@ joyous: if all you're saying is that the buyer should be more responsible, than why and what are you arguing? I think everybody agrees that the posting was legal, and that buyer needs to beware. You've conceded that the posting could be misleading, and that he's no operating how you'd like an ideal business to operate. All I'm saying is that this is a lousy way to do business. I think we both are right in our major point, I just think you've gotten turned around into trying to defend the guy as being above reproach when I think it's pretty clear he's at least incredibly sloppy in his listings, if not intentionally misleading.

As for error or oversight, I'm naturally willing to accept that. The whole "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" rule. The reason I reject that argument is that he lists what is included, he includes a picture of a hypothetical rhino and so should know what's included in a complete model, and as you've mentioned, other sellers are selling the same basic product (rhinos missing the top hatches/accessories) couple this with his own lauding of his feedback, and I'm less willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt. I"m also a person that tends to favor cutting a buyer slack over a seller.

@Joyous - I think you're very misguided in trying to defend him. Either the auction is properly described, or it isn't.

In this case, he's saying it's "mint, new and complete" but "needs parts"?

That is an inconsistent description, because, if it isn't mint complete on sprue, it won't need parts.

Similarly, the picture is not accurate with what can be assembled with what he actually sends.

As he's already had Negative feedback, and chooses NOT to amend his images or descrption, the only conclusion is that he intends to confuse or surprise the buyer.

That is a malicious listing, and he deserves the Negatives.

As I said, if I were still willing to deal with eBay, I'd probably buy several, SNAD him, and reverse payment.

Then, if he wants anything back, he can pay my inflated S&H charges to get them.

Ebay is the cesspit of the entire internet and a scammers paradise.

I'm a bit hesitant to comment in here due to all the mud slinging in this thread, but here is my two cents.

Ebay is pretty much an online flea market, the only problem though is that you cannot actually handle and examine the products before purchasing. In this case buyers are completely reliant on sellers descriptions as to what they are purchasing which can lead to problems such as this. Ebay does however have some rules on their sales such as being in the correct categories and having an appropriate description.

This auction does in fact meet those requirements, although that may hinge more or less on ones definition of a 'complete' rhino. He does, however, explicitly state that the rhino is missing the accessory sprue. Albeit a bit sly, but not illegal according to the rules given by ebay (to my knowledge at least, I'm no lawyer mind you). I would agree that the description may be meant to confuse readers or to take advantage of those who might just overlook the full description. Overall though, nothing illegal is done here.

I would chock this up to the several ebay sellers out there that WILL take advantage of the buyers, and the best advice you can give is read the entire description. If you get the product and the description does say no accessory sprue (no matter how well they hid it), then you are out of luck. If the description says nothing at all about it then you have legal grounds to demand a refund/replacement.

I'm not so much defending him as I am condemning people who choose not to read the 'fine print' and then bitch when they get 'screwed'.

I don't think this guy is a scammer, a misguided seller maybe with some questionable business ideas, but not a scammer. Again, if he didn't include the sentence about the accessory sprue not being involved, I'd be 100% with you guys.

insaniak wrote:If I sold you a car, told you it was 'complete but missing some accessories' and when it turned up it was missing both front doors, you'd be ok with that?

Because, you know, you can knock up some doors out of fibreglass, or pick them up from a wreckers. It's not like they're an actual part of the car...

Thank you this proves my point completely. I'll explain.

If I was buying a car, but wasn't 100% sure of what was actually included in the I'd talk to a friend/co-worker/family member who does know what every piece involved does and if those pieces are included in your 'sale' description.

If I find out the car you are selling me is missing its doors (not a valid comparison, I'd have chosen windshield wipers or antenna for closer comparison) then I would weigh the cost of buying used doors over the deal I am getting with the car. If your deal makes it worth me buying a couple doors from a wrecker or getting a local greasemonkey to bang some out of sheet metal, then I would still take your deal and be glad happy I saved a bunch of money (by switching to Geico...).

Am I still not getting across my perspective here?

The key is that an appropriate description would have to be made "in good faith", and that basic test is not met.

It is deceptive and misleading.

Therefore, it is illegal and grounds for SNAD.

Using the car analogy, I show a picture of a brand new Corvette, saying that I'm selling a complete Corvette. I note that it "needs new tires."

When you get the car, the car has no bearings, hubs, wheels or tires.

But hey, you read the fine print, so it's all good, right?

...that analogy isn't even close here, so I'm not going to respond to it, other than saying I'm not responding.