> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Opinions wanted, ebay item condition > Sent: 15 Jun 2005 14:57:56 > > Wiggers, Ebay is not equivalent to a livestock auction.
Yes, it is. Cameras don't go moo, but otherwise, the same. What does eBay say it is? An online auction website. Take care - not all country boys are dumb. > In the latter, > you bid solely on the appearance of the animal. The seller does not say: > "This heifer will deliver 50 gallons of milk a day, guaranteed". If he > did, and it didn't, you would certainly have a legal basis for a refund. Yes, that's what a guarantee is. And any seller can add a warranty as a selling point. If they do, they have to honor it. It removes risk from the buyer and therefore the seller can get more for the item. If the seller says "I think this animal could give 50 gallons of milk a day, but I don't promise that" then too bad for you if it does not. It is the buyer's job to parse the language and understand what, if any, promises are being made. > On Ebay, sellers make claims about their items in order to earn a higher > bid. If the claims are false, the seller is either acting fraudulently or > at best is mistaken. Either way, it's his fault, and the onus is on him > to rectify it. Nope. If the seller lied, that's one thing. If the seller honestly didn't know, that's another. And if nobody in their right mind would object to the teeny, tiny, little problem that you or I saw, or if we're one of six subject-matter-experts in the world and no one but us could know about this problem, then that is hardly the seller's fault, and no, they should NOT have to refund. I've two lenses that were described by the two different sellers as having 'minor cleaning marks' on one of the elements. One looked like someone had taken a screwdriver to it. The other had these itty-bitty swirl marks that I had to use a loupe and a flashlight to even see. Which seller lied to me? Which was dishonest? Which owes me a refund? Which should be in jail? Their standards for 'minor cleaning marks' might have been different than mine. Under your approach, if YOU don't find the marks acceptable, the SELLER is 'FALSELY SELLING'. They both said it was a lens to fit a Canon FL mount. They were. They both said it was in operating condition. They were. They both said it took good photographs when they used them. I have no idea if that's true or not. They both said they had 'minor cleaning marks' on one of the elements. Now, who lied? Who misrepresented their lens to me? Whom should I demand a refund from? > I'm sure you understand your farm auctions. You got burned on Ebay > because you don't understand Ebay auctions, or, indeed, the law of the > land. May I say that in my opinion, you have no idea what you're talking about. An auction is an auction. Sellers cannot lie about the condition of what they are selling. That is a crime, and it is called 'fraud'. Condition is subjective. I say it looks pretty nice for it's age. You say it is all dinged up and unacceptable. Do we disagree? Yep. Did I lie? Maybe. Depends on a whole lotta conditions. Has no one ever heard of Caveat Emptor before? It is not a license for sellers to lie. It means buyers have to do their homework, asking questions, making judgements, choosing wisely - and sometimes, there is disappointment. Buyers have the right not to be lied to. That does not mean they have the right not to be disappointed. You and several others here seem to equate 'being disappointed' with 'being intentionally misled'. The fomer is tough teat for you. The second is a crime.
