You have far too much free time Mr Whaley. D _______________ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:29 PM Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #755 > That's a really odd way of looking at aan example of human communication > and social intercourse, good Doctor. So it seems to me. > Let me recap for you: > > An eBay seller had experienced an unsettling circumstance, and made > inquiry of the members of this list for some advise on how to handle it. > His buyer had more or less demanded a bit of money back because he > didn't think that what he had received was suitable. > Several folks came up with varied possible responses as to "suitability" > of the purchase, all of which were commented upon by others, until, in > the end, it was more or less agreed upon that the seller might tell the > buyer that if he wasn't satisfied with his purchase, he could return it > for a prompt and complete return of his money, OR, he could accept the > item he bought as-is, without additional hope for any "rebates" or other > reduction in the price upon which he had agreed originally, because, and > note this clearly, the buyer did not say the item he bought didn't > PERFORM as it should, but that if/when he decided to sell it, it might > not bring an adequate return on his investment. > He apparently bought the item with a purpose in mind quite different > from what is to be expected, and didn't disclose it initially. > > That he could use this lens to take pictures with (how odd!) and > experience no degradation due to the minute defect he had 'discovered,' > was not even mentioned. Perhaps not even considered. > Instead, he was miffed that perhaps he might not be able to re-sell it > to someone else, and get whatever remuneration he expected out of it. > Now that's rather a different goal, isn't it? > > Perhaps if if the buyer had told the seller to keep in mind that all he > wanted to do was buy perfect items for resale, he might have been > treated differently, do you suppose? > > Is that about the sum and substance of what has transpired? > Do you find it in any way too severe or demeaning on the buyer? > > Damned as a croook? By whom, and in what way? > That the buyer might well have been characterized as an opportunist, > well, if the shoe fits... > > If that does not fit your perception of what transpired, or how you > personally view it, what is really your complaint? > > Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > > > This poor bugger has been damned as a crook, or at the best a dishonest > > opportunist, and all he has done was say there was a spot on a lens he > > bought... as far as I can see. Have I missed something? > > Yes, you seem to have. The buyer ALSO said he had his own camera store > check out the lens, and the camera store told him the defect was too > small to have any deleterious effect in his photography whatsoever. The > buyer retorted in effect, that be that as it may, he still wanted a > rebate on his purchase, in the amount of £20. > In response, I believe the seller offered the buyer his money back, but > no rebate. > And, that is where it stood, last I knew. > > Is that not a fair business practice? > If you buy something you think is of inferior quality, that does not > suit your purposes, what do you do? > Get your money back in return for giving back the goods in the same > condition it was received? That's fair all around, seems to me. > Or, do you insist on a reduction in the price you've paid? > If the seller agrees, it's still a reasonable bargain. > > But, if the seller and the buyer can't come to a meeting of the minds, > what then? > Start calling each other names? > Imply right out that one's either a crook or dishonest opportunist? Please... > I saw none of that. > > > May I be preserved from similar besmirching of character. > > > > Don > > keith >
