I guess the thing that I keep in mind is that many of the best deals I've got on eekBay were from sellers who did NOT know what they had. A seller like myself who has a few hundred buys and sells, virtually all camera stuff should be expected to deliver as advertised, or BETTER. A seller who has a great variety of things, like an online garage sale, I don't expect to have a clue. As such I cut them a lot of slack if I recieve a surprise, as long as they are willing to make good. If all eekBay sellers knew what they had, super deals would cease to exist. That's no fun! ;-( I DO agree that ALL shipping costs should be included in refunds for mis-represented items.
And now for MY pet eekBay peeve: I DON'T agree that buyer questions should be visible to competing buyers. I hate having my questions drive the price up just because I know which ones to ask! Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:02 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: EBay question (yet another) > > > That has been my way of dealing with NAD's in the past but I have > reached the point, because I get more and more of them, where I > no longer feel it is the way to do it. Heck it's not like I am a > high volume ebayer where the averages eventually catch up with > you either. The seller is responsible for his listing. At the > minimum a NAD costs buyers time and frustration, sometimes a few > bucks if the seller will not refund postage (I firmly believe > that in the case of NAD that is only fair, other reasons like DOA > or something maybe the shipping companies fault and the seller > should not be held responsible for both ways, but should pay the > return shipping. > > Not having a clue about what you are doing is not an excuse. It > is not like the buyer gets to handle it and look it over first, I > have not noticed any ebay sellers will to ship "on approval" in > which case I would have no problem with paying the actual shipping costs. > > In the case of the Polaroid film holder, I was hoping the seller > would have responded with an "I am sorry" and a promise to try > and do better in the future. He hasn't, so he is going to get a > neutral feedback. I do not feel he was deliberately trying to > cheat me but he did lie, intentionally or not. > > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > I would say the seller was confused by the box and did not intend to > > mislead. > > I would wait for the refund and then give the seller an *excellent* > > feedback. > > Making a mistake is easy but not all sellers are willing to make it > > right. > > Some of the worst sellers might even have accused you of "switching" > > the 52 for a 49 and THEN asking for a refund! > > Your seller sounds very honest and willing to do right. > > > > Don
