I am tired of arguing with you. You must be from another planet or something if you think its OK for a seller to make HUGE mistakes in their ads, causing them to be blatantly false and then the buyer is left holding the bag because the seller was only "iognorant" and not "lying". That is absolutely ridiculous. Ignorance is no excuse for not delivering what you advertised. PERIOD. Its doesn't matter if its deception or stupidity. FALSE claims by the seller can not be the responsibility of the buyer. In those cases the buyer deserves a full refund/ renegoiated price. You cant say just because the seller wasn't lying its OK and the buyer shouldn't/doesn't get what he bid on and paid for because it was only a little "honest" miatake on the SELLER'S part. That's insanity. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Wigwam Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:42 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Opinions wanted, ebay item condition J. C. O'Connell wrote: >There is only one meaning of the word "FALSE" >as far as I know. NOT TRUE. > > Your logic is flawed. There are many more states than just TRUE or FALSE. Condition One: I say a camera is a Pentax. It either IS or it IS NOT. So you can say my statement is TRUE or FALSE. I say a camera is working. It either IS or IS NOT working. So you can say my statement is TRUE or FALSE. Right? Maybe. Condition Two: I went out and took pictures with the camera. From my point of view, it works. I'm satisfied. You took the camera to a shop and they tested the shutter speeds, and they're off. You're not satisfied. From your point of view, it does not work. Who is the liar? Do I owe you a refund? Should I give you a discount? How much is appropriate? Who decides? Condition Three: I say a camera is in 'great cosmetic shape.' You say it is not. Now, which statement is TRUE and which is FALSE? Does the buyer always get to decide? You mean the seller has to know what every potential buyer might call the cosmetic condition? How can that be right? So you tell me - is every statement TRUE or FALSE? >What you don't seem to understand is that there >are many instances where an item listing has >made false claims as a matter of FACT, not >opinion, and that is what I am mostly reffering to >(there are cases where even opinion could be >argued too but that's another issue for another day.) > > If you disagree, then it is fact, if not, then it is opinion. I got that. >i.e you buy a size XL T-shirt and is says right >on label size L. things like that. "working" >items that don't work, Used items (obviously worn) sold >as new, sealed items delivered unsealed, complete >items actually missing parts, etc, etc >I could go on and on. Just because these were sold >at ebay auciton doesn't mean the buyers don't >deserve full refunds or cant renegoiate prices >paid which is what you claimed to be the case just >because they were sold in auction format. That isnt >true, its false. > > Nope. If I am a seller and I have ten thousand shirts to sell and they say XL in them and I sell them as L, then I'm wrong and you deserve a refund. If I sell them as XL and you find out that XL meant XL in Japan, which is M here in the USA, then I made an honest mistake, you should get a refund. If I sell them as XL and they are XL according to the manufacturer, but you're a fat bastard and don't want to admit that you're actually a XXL, then too bad for you. And by the way - try looking at sizes some time. There is no real standard on M, L, and XL between manufacturers. They're more or less in agreement, but it's still a pretty loose standard. Great example you gave - shows how wrong you are. >And this is huge, it DOES NOT matter whether the >person lied or was mistaken if the claims were false, >if it did every crook out there would just lie and >then "play dumb" like he didn't know when he really >did. > Yes it does. Read 'mens rea' and 'intent' sometime in a law dictionary. Crooks do lie and pretend they didn't know. It's sad, but it happens. You could punish the innocent with the guilty, but we don't do that in the US - we presume innocence unless proven otherwise. >A mistake is no better than a lie, the seller >has to take responsibility for truth in their listings. > > Nope. Only intentional deception and direct statements such as 'this is new' as opposed to 'I think this looks great', which can't be parsed in any legalistic way unless you can prove in court that I *don't* think it looks great. Of course, I'll never admit that, so you lose. Point is - whether the seller is being honest or not, if they say 'I think it looks great' it doesn't mean anything you can demand a refund for. >If they were mistaken then they have to refund/renoegoiate with the >seller. The seller made the mistake in that case, not the buyer... > > No, they don't. And regnegotiating is right out - or everyone would bid whatever they wanted to get the item, knowing that they could renegotiate later after they make up a bunch of 'problems'. Tell me this - if I sell a camera as 'junk' and you buy it and find out it is 'mint', do you owe ME money? Can I come back to you after the sale and say "Hey, wait a minute - you got a better deal than I intended, because the description was not correct. Give me more money." Will that fly with you? No, because the deal is over. Offer, acceptance, consideration - we call that a contract. No renegotiation.
