On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:14:25 +1000, in
<3ef70b45$0$26639$afc38c87@no-spam>, " Miro"
<miro01@no-spam> said:
>Nothing beats the feeling of putting a great big gash on a perfect lens. If
>you have a shitty lens, firstly people wont want to steal it and secondly
>another scratch wont make you worry.
If I'd bought it at a bargain basement price, I'd be perfectly happy
with its looks, & I'd take my chances with the rattle. It's the fact
that I paid what would be a good price for the same model lens in good
condition & no rattle that's pissing me off.
>So how about you put aside the cosmetics, work something out and take some
>shit-hot photos.
I'm just waiting for the guy to meet me halfway. So far, he's claiming
that his description was accurate, that it never had a rattle, & that he
has no obligation to me. Call me stubborn, but I don't like it when
people try to scam me, & very few of them get away with it.
The bit that I'm really kicking myself about is that he only lives about
a 20 minute drive from me, so after winning the auction, I asked to come
take a look at the lens (before paying), & I stupidly let him talk me
out of doing so. He obviously knew I'd back out of the sale if I got a
look at the lens before paying.
lionel,
Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying something you may
later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.
Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the respect
it deserves ... NONE
"Lionel" <nop@no-spam> wrote in message news:bd6pkh$9df$g@no-spam
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:19:52 +1000, in
> <3ef6e25d$0$26638$afc38c87@no-spam>, " Miro"
> <miro01@no-spam> said:
>
> >I think in future you must be clear who is responsible for the item. If
you
> >do not pay insurance and you do not pay for the best packing and the best
> >courier you really cant blame the seller.
In article <bd69c8$5s5$1@no-spam>,
"Valar" <remove@no-spam> wrote:
> if you wanted the matters to be settled efficiently then I think you have
> committed a big mistake by bringing it on to a public forum, by doing so the
> seller is less likely to co-operate, what with all the potential damages to
> one's reputation, I dont think he will rest without putting up a fight.
>
> so I applaud your bravery for standing up for yourself, however by the same
> token, I lament the tough road ahead at reclaiming the thou back.
>
>
I don't think Lionel had any idea that the seller would read this ng
when he posted. His original post was asking advice as to what he
should do, and not to publicly humiliate the seller He didn't identify
the seller at all in the origianl post. So, it was the seller that
"went public", not the buyer; and that's when the post got interesting.
BTW, it is morning now, and the seller hasn't posted the photos back to
the auction site yet, as he said he would.
N
Lionel wrote:
> I've just bought a fancy lens via Ebay that was described as being in
> fairly good condition ("some signs of use"), but turned out to have
> major body damage on the side of the lens that wasn't shown in the ad
> photos, as well as an internal rattle, & various scrapes in the metal at
> the front of the lens.
Unfortunately, it's a bit of Caveat Emptor.
In this case, the photo's of the item looked great, the feedback of the
seller were satisfactory, and I'd have suspected little was wrong with the
item.
If you're in Melbourne, and the seller is in Melbourne, I'd have asked to
view the lense prior to purchase, or at least to pick it up from him & pay
then. Harder if you're not in Melbourne, but you say "this guy is local to
me".
The only 2nd hand lenses I've looked at I've asked for additional photo's,
and sample images taken with the lense. A trick here is to get them to write
the ebay item number on a piece of paper, and then photograph the lense
beside that number - so you know that's the one they're talking about, and
not a 'borrowed' photo from the canon/nikon/pentax/whatever website.
In terms of fraud, you've got little to stand on in terms of Vic Police.
Your better option is to follow ebay guidelines...
- leave negative feedback
- follow their fraud protection service
- pickup their $300 (or whatever it is) fraud refund thingy
But in the end, it's 2nd hand, and they're never as good as new - regardless
of what the seller says. Sucks, but that's the way it goes.
Andrew.
Lionel wrote:
> >So how about you put aside the cosmetics, work something out and take some
> >shit-hot photos.
>
> I'm just waiting for the guy to meet me halfway. So far, he's claiming
> that his description was accurate, that it never had a rattle, & that he
> has no obligation to me.
The ding in it is, to me, a prior event. The rattle is a very possible result
of the postage process. It could easily pick up a rattle without the packaging
showing any signs of damage. Ever seen how parcels are thrown around?
> Call me stubborn, but I don't like it when
> people try to scam me, & very few of them get away with it.
ok Stubborn, but imho it's not a big scam, although you didn't take a great
number of steps to prevent this, as I've outlined in another post.
> The bit that I'm really kicking myself about is that he only lives about
> a 20 minute drive from me, so after winning the auction, I asked to come
> take a look at the lens (before paying), & I stupidly let him talk me
> out of doing so. He obviously knew I'd back out of the sale if I got a
> look at the lens before paying.
q.e.d.
Cheers,
Andrew.
VH-MR2 wrote:
> lionel,
>
> Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying something you may
> later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.
>
> Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the respect
> it deserves ... NONE
I've been caught out sticking up for Miro before, thinking he'd become a better
person, only to find him returning to his ways of old. But...
Between the garble & irrationally constructed words, Miro often has good
advice. He often offers crap too. In this, he's no different to any other
usenet poster, perhaps with the exception of myself ;)
I read most posts here, I research elsewhere, I add it all up and end up with a
composite of knowledge, endorsed or backed by my own experience. I find it's
served me well.
I won't get all Dalai Lama on you, but I will offer this advice: To ignore
anyone is to expand your own ignorance.
Cheers,
Andrew :o)
"ahennell" <andrew@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF7701B.BA6BB566@no-spam
> VH-MR2 wrote:
>
>
> I won't get all Dalai Lama on you, but I will offer this advice: To
ignore
> anyone is to expand your own ignorance.
Good advice, however Miro appears to be the only one trying to rile the
situation up into a flame war .. others are merely engaging in a discussion.
As you say, supporting Miro's stance on anything usually ends with you
wearing egg on your face .. this is no different.
I'd like to see this conversation continue in a mature manner .. we can all
learn from what happened here and I am extremely interested in the outcome
something i'm sure others will admit to as well. What I don't want to see
is a huge internet argument about it though.
I'd hope the outcome resulted in a return of the lense and a refund of the
money (less postage) but we shall see.
I will state quite clearly that I don't have the expertise to know if the
damage is bad or not to the lense, but the fact that the side of the lense
with the damage was not indicated on the auction site is IMO a big mistake
on the part of the seller. Better to over inform people and risk losing a
sale than gaining a sale and having an incident like this occur.
B.
"Rob" <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF798F8.88E8CF68@no-spam
> VH-MR2 wrote:
> >
>
> > Good advice, however Miro appears to be the only one trying to rile the
> > situation up into a flame war .. others are merely engaging in a
discussion.
> > As you say, supporting Miro's stance on anything usually ends with you
> > wearing egg on your face .. this is no different.
>
> I believe that only happens when a retort is fired off without due
> consideration, thereafter the thread usually quickly deterioirates.
>
> Rob
You should be careful dealing with the thought Nazi's, they have long
memories and they must not be contradicted.
"ahennell" <andrew@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF7701B.BA6BB566@no-spam
> VH-MR2 wrote:
>
> > lionel,
> >
> > Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying something you
may
> > later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.
> >
> > Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the
respect
> > it deserves ... NONE
>
> I've been caught out sticking up for Miro before, thinking he'd become a
better
> person, only to find him returning to his ways of old. But...
You should only say what you feel reflects your interpretation or
understanding of a subject. Whether it be based on fact or opinion matters
little or not at all. The freedoms of thought are intended to be universally
individual not pooled into factions and cohorts.
If Usenet is meant to reflect similarity and total uniformity then it may
come as a shock to most others that it is as diverse as society and those
choosing to struggle with mere thought alone must have a similar deficit in
other areas of their lives.
If I see that someone agrees with me I feel that is ok, if someone disagrees
I could care less.
Where ever did you form that opinion Rob?
Perhaps you are an E-bay dealer yourself- hmm? The warnings issued by E-bay
themselves should serve as notice you simply can't trust the place. Consumer
laws (Trade Practices Act) are quite clear about what you can expect in the
way of recourse from an auction -- NOTHING!
What right minded individual would pay out $1000 to a stranger identified
only by a series of secret codes not even E-bay can trace? Worse than
this... 90% of the sellers on e-bay are making a business out of it but
unlike a "real" business, the buyer has absolutely no come back on the
phantom seller either legally or via e-bay. When the Tax office eventually
wake up to the scams going on there, all hell will break loose.
Those idiots who think posting the price in US dollars is some how going to
circumvent Australian GST are in for the biggest shock of their lives.
JT
"Rob" <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF69A36.FEA3A84A@no-spam
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
> Give it time to work out before you cut off your nose to spite your
> face. Most sellers can be trusted.
>
> Rob
ahennell wrote:
> And FWIW, I buy & sell on ebay (and other sites), and I transact usually in US
> dollars, and it's all above-board, legit & taxed. And I'm not a minority.
> (note also that if your selling is just part of your hobby, and not a primary
> income, the tax office don't care - it's explained quite clearly in the various
> acts of parliament).
Thanks Andrew.
In addition to what you said (which was well said) transacting in US$
simply means that the seller will have a far larger pool of potential
bidders.
Yes I buy and sell on eBay, I have people send me over US$5000 blind and
I've sent over $3500 to sellers. Never been burnt. In fact I bought
something the other day from the US worth US$250 and the guy shipped it
pre-payment based solely on my eBay ID and my word.
If you can't sort out the sellers with integrity don't bid.
Rob
VH-MR2 wrote:
>
> Good advice, however Miro appears to be the only one trying to rile the
> situation up into a flame war .. others are merely engaging in a discussion.
> As you say, supporting Miro's stance on anything usually ends with you
> wearing egg on your face .. this is no different.
I believe that only happens when a retort is fired off without due
consideration, thereafter the thread usually quickly deterioirates.
Rob
Well now...
It's an interest worth noting that the people posting replies in the flavor
"It's the buyers fault" all seem to be E-bay dealers... Even if the $20,000
they made out of it last year is just their "Hobby", they are still full-on
dealers.
It's a sad day when someone who relies on people giving them money for their
livelihood (hobby if you wish), thinks the customer is the one who is wrong.
It seems pretty clear from the photos I saw that the lens has bitten the
bitumen (or concrete) and it is just as obvious that such damage could not
occur in the packaging the lens arrived in unless it (the package) was also
damaged.
Given all that... The seller has pulled a scam on the buyer... He's taken
advantage of the fact that a buyer seeing only the good side of the lens
could be duped into thinking it was in the condition it was presented... It
wasn't and that act of deception is called FRAUD in every other industry.
The poster (ahennell) who admits to being a frequent E-bay seller of goods
worth thousands of dollars and it just being a "hobby", hit the nail on the
head when he said there is NO consumer protection at auctions be they real
or on-line. What he curiously omitted to mention is that at a real auction
bidders have the opportunity to "see and feel" before bidding.
On E-bay all there is to rely on is the description of the goods by a
phantom hiding behind an often odd sounding nick-name. Sellers on E-bay have
a duty of care to describe every defect in whatever they sell. Anything less
is fraudulent.
JT
> "" <andrew@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF7701B.BA6BB566@no-spam
> > VH-MR2 wrote:
> >
> > lionel, Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying
something you may
> > later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.
> >
> > > Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the
respect
> > > it deserves ... NONE
> >
> > I've been caught out sticking up for Miro before, thinking he'd become a
> better person, only to find him returning to his ways of old. But...
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:56:04 +1000, in
<n3310-6568F7.06560424062003@no-spam>, Narelle
<n3310@no-spam> said:
>I don't think Lionel had any idea that the seller would read this ng
>when he posted. His original post was asking advice as to what he
>should do, and not to publicly humiliate the seller He didn't identify
>the seller at all in the origianl post. So, it was the seller that
>"went public", not the buyer; and that's when the post got interesting.
Yes, that's correct.
>BTW, it is morning now, and the seller hasn't posted the photos back to
>the auction site yet, as he said he would.
You can compare the photos from the ad (white background) to photos of
what the lens looked like when it arrived at: <http://lo.ve.ly/ebay/>.
I've been waiting for "caveat emptor" to come up in this discussion...
"Caveat Emptor: commercial principle that without a warranty
the buyer takes upon himself the risk of quality".
He didnt really misadvertise it, but by the same token, I'd be pretty
annoyed if it turned up like that. But I'd have asked directly about
whether there was anything else wrong with it at all.
Auspics wrote:
> Well now...
> It's an interest worth noting that the people posting replies in the flavor
> "It's the buyers fault" all seem to be E-bay dealers... Even if the $20,000
> they made out of it last year is just their "Hobby", they are still full-on
> dealers.
>
> It's a sad day when someone who relies on people giving them money for their
> livelihood (hobby if you wish), thinks the customer is the one who is wrong.
> It seems pretty clear from the photos I saw that the lens has bitten the
> bitumen (or concrete) and it is just as obvious that such damage could not
> occur in the packaging the lens arrived in unless it (the package) was also
> damaged.
>
> Given all that... The seller has pulled a scam on the buyer... He's taken
> advantage of the fact that a buyer seeing only the good side of the lens
> could be duped into thinking it was in the condition it was presented... It
> wasn't and that act of deception is called FRAUD in every other industry.
>
> The poster (ahennell) who admits to being a frequent E-bay seller of goods
> worth thousands of dollars and it just being a "hobby", hit the nail on the
> head when he said there is NO consumer protection at auctions be they real
> or on-line. What he curiously omitted to mention is that at a real auction
> bidders have the opportunity to "see and feel" before bidding.
>
> On E-bay all there is to rely on is the description of the goods by a
> phantom hiding behind an often odd sounding nick-name. Sellers on E-bay have
> a duty of care to describe every defect in whatever they sell. Anything less
> is fraudulent.
>
> JT
>
>
>>"" <andrew@no-spam> wrote in message
>>news:3EF7701B.BA6BB566@no-spam
>>
>>>VH-MR2 wrote:
>>>
>>>lionel, Word of advice .. do not let Miro rile you up into saying
>>
> something you may
>
>>>later regret. The guy is here to do nothing but cause trouble.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Most people within the newsgroup treat everything he says with the
>>>
> respect
>
>>>>it deserves ... NONE
>>>
>>>I've been caught out sticking up for Miro before, thinking he'd become a
>>
>>better person, only to find him returning to his ways of old. But...
>
>
>
>
Auspics wrote:
> Well now...
> It's an interest worth noting that the people posting replies in the flavor
> "It's the buyers fault" all seem to be E-bay dealers... Even if the $20,000
> they made out of it last year is just their "Hobby", they are still full-on
> dealers.
oh god, I'd _love_ to have _made_ $20,000 from ebay! LOL. Where'd this figure
come from? and who is "they"? Hearing voices again?
> It's a sad day when someone who relies on people giving them money for their
> livelihood (hobby if you wish), thinks the customer is the one who is wrong.
[sigh] you don't get it do you? Someone who relies on it as their livelihood,
will not rip off their buyers. It's as simple as that.
(and before you decide I'm a bigwig dealer, I'm not - I've sold on ebay to
dispose of old gear (replacing the trading post for that purpose), and in almost
all cases received less than the item's book value.
> It seems pretty clear from the photos I saw that the lens has bitten the
> bitumen (or concrete) and it is just as obvious that such damage could not
> occur in the packaging the lens arrived in unless it (the package) was also
> damaged.
For the dent? no. For the rattle? yes, easily in transit.
> Given all that... The seller has pulled a scam on the buyer... He's taken
> advantage of the fact that a buyer seeing only the good side of the lens
> could be duped into thinking it was in the condition it was presented... It
> wasn't and that act of deception is called FRAUD in every other industry.
In his description of the goods, maybe. But all auctions, online or not, are
buyer beware. Always have been, always will be, and if you don't like it, don't
bid!
> The poster (ahennell) who admits to being a frequent E-bay seller of goods
> worth thousands of dollars and it just being a "hobby", hit the nail on the
> head when he said there is NO consumer protection at auctions be they real
> or on-line. What he curiously omitted to mention is that at a real auction
> bidders have the opportunity to "see and feel" before bidding.
Hallucinating again?
Where did I say "thousands of dollars worth of goods"? I've _bought_ maybe $20k
worth, but sales in total might add up to, oh, $4k max?
What you curiously omitted is any fact in your quotation of me. Iindeed, you
seem to have just made up figures.
Regardless, ebay buyers can (and most DO) take precautions to reduce the risk of
being dudded - it's not rocket science.
> On E-bay all there is to rely on is the description of the goods by a
> phantom hiding behind an often odd sounding nick-name. Sellers on E-bay have
> a duty of care to describe every defect in whatever they sell. Anything less
> is fraudulent.
And buyers can take every step they can to ensure the goods _are_ what is
described, and guess what (here's the interesting part you just don't get)... if
you don't want to buy from ebay, don't. I've yet to see someone with a gun to
their head saying "bid now or die".
You get bargains on ebay. 2nd hand bargains. used, 2nd hand bargains. from
strangers. And you want something like a brand new warranty? [chuckle] But
even with this considered, most ebayers, all I've dealt with, are honourable
people and there has been no malice or fraud of any sort.
Continue the debate all you like, but don't misquote me or just invent things -
it discredits what little credibility you have.
Cheers,
Andrew :o)
Scott Coutts wrote:
> I've been waiting for "caveat emptor" to come up in this discussion...
I did yesterday, when I began with "Unfortunately, it's a bit of Caveat Emptor"
> "Caveat Emptor: commercial principle that without a warranty
> the buyer takes upon himself the risk of quality".
yup
> He didnt really misadvertise it, but by the same token, I'd be pretty
> annoyed if it turned up like that. But I'd have asked directly about
> whether there was anything else wrong with it at all.
exactly :o)
> Given all that... The seller has pulled a scam on the buyer...
You just cant go around being an arsehole saying stuff like that. Being a
their party and all its pretty clear the buyer is miffed for paying too much
and the seller is doing the 3 card trick.
What does that have to do with me ?
hehe sorry, didnt see that one (:
ahennell wrote:
> Scott Coutts wrote:
>
>
>>I've been waiting for "caveat emptor" to come up in this discussion...
>
>
> I did yesterday, when I began with "Unfortunately, it's a bit of Caveat Emptor"
>
>
>>"Caveat Emptor: commercial principle that without a warranty
>> the buyer takes upon himself the risk of quality".
>
>
> yup
>
>
>>He didnt really misadvertise it, but by the same token, I'd be pretty
>>annoyed if it turned up like that. But I'd have asked directly about
>>whether there was anything else wrong with it at all.
>
>
> exactly :o)
>
>
I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
in hot water, probaly more the seller.
Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.
It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
forum.
"Mr Biggus," <fu_kew@no-spam> wrote in message news:<16affvscbo03q9oqvsh70u01cnjjvv11ml@no-spam>...
> report it to ebay.
>
> You know where he lives, drop round with several mates and visit him
Rob <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> wrote in
news:3EF79056.72D95827@no-spam
<snip>
>
> If you can't sort out the sellers with integrity don't bid.
Good point.
Must be why I don't.
Trevor S
I disagree .. the seller chose to identify himself.
"John" <johnwilson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:c46f4728.0306232157.65f68c51@no-spam
> I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
> seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
> remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
> one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
> in hot water, probaly more the seller.
>
> Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
> post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.
>
> It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
> tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
> forum.
>
On 23 Jun 2003 22:57:47 -0700, in
<c46f4728.0306232157.65f68c51@no-spam>, johnwilson@no-spam
(John) said:
>I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
>seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
>remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
>one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
>in hot water, probaly more the seller.
>
>Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
>post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.
Yes, because the seller responded to my original post with his name &
Ebay ID.
>It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
>tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
>forum.
I have tried, & I'm still trying.
Auspics wrote:
> On E-bay all there is to rely on is the description of the goods by a
> phantom hiding behind an often odd sounding nick-name. Sellers on E-bay have
> a duty of care to describe every defect in whatever they sell. Anything less
> is fraudulent.
>
> JT
Hear, hear.. (or should it be here here???) I agree fully.
But then.... I let the shop assistants know that they gave me back too
much change :-)
There are ways to protect yourself online... when buying, if it is
expensive.. I always PHONE or and CONFIRM address details on
www.whitepags.com.au
The guy from this auction looked fully legit... I'd be pretty cross with
that lens... it was sold dishonestly... the fact that he lives close to
the buyer makes it very easy to work out IMO.... pay him a visit.
BRenton
Auspics wrote:
>
> Well now...
> It's an interest worth noting that the people posting replies in the flavor
> "It's the buyers fault" all seem to be E-bay dealers... Even if the $20,000
> they made out of it last year is just their "Hobby", they are still full-on
> dealers.
What hobby horse have you fallen off, did the ATO knock back your job
application?
> On E-bay all there is to rely on is the description of the goods by a
> phantom hiding behind an often odd sounding nick-name. Sellers on E-bay have
> a duty of care to describe every defect in whatever they sell. Anything less
> is fraudulent.
Speak for yourself, some eBayers (I buy as much as I sell as it's a
hobby so I obviously don't fit your "dealer" profile) make very effort
to fully describe all aspects of their wares and have feedback to
qualify their integrity.
Rob
If it looks like a fish, feels like a fish, tastes like a fish and smells
fishy, what is it?
If 30% of E-bay sellers are squeaky clean (as you claim to be), twice that
many are crooked. These are not my figures, they came from US researchers.
Keep in mind too: "You are known by the company you keep".
If you went into Myer stores and were greeted by a warning to check out the
credentials of the sales people before buying anything and even then... Use
a third party to handle the money until you got the goods... Would you buy
there without being able to see the goods or a true example of them? Do
yourself a favor "Rob" get your head out of your arse and discover you
really aren't wearing sunnies after all.
JT
"Rob" <audiobANTISPAM@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF80845.53DBD278@no-spam
> Auspics wrote:
> >
> > Well now...
> > It's an interest worth noting that the people posting replies in the
flavor
> > "It's the buyers fault" all seem to be E-bay dealers... Even if the
$20,000
> > they made out of it last year is just their "Hobby", they are still
full-on
> > dealers.
>
> What hobby horse have you fallen off, did the ATO knock back your job
> application?
>
> > On E-bay all there is to rely on is the description of the goods by a
> > phantom hiding behind an often odd sounding nick-name. Sellers on E-bay
have
> > a duty of care to describe every defect in whatever they sell. Anything
less
> > is fraudulent.
>
> Speak for yourself, some eBayers (I buy as much as I sell as it's a
> hobby so I obviously don't fit your "dealer" profile) make very effort
> to fully describe all aspects of their wares and have feedback to
> qualify their integrity.
>
> Rob
Hey John...
The seller omitted to describe major faults with the lens and then expects
to just pocket the money and exonerate himself through this group. How the
hell is that going to do "a lot for the case of the buyer" for Christ sake?
The law isn't interested. The buyer will be breaking the law to get into a
punch up with the seller. The only show he's got in getting some (any)
satisfaction from the seller is to make it public. FWIW if it were me, my
next point of call would be a current affairs TV show. More people need to
be aware of the danger of buying off e-bay.
JT
"John" <johnwilson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:c46f4728.0306232157.65f68c51@no-spam
> I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
> seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
> remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
> one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
> in hot water, probaly more the seller.
>
> Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
> post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.
>
> It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
> tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
> forum.
>
> "Mr Biggus," <fu_kew@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<16affvscbo03q9oqvsh70u01cnjjvv11ml@no-spam>...
> > report it to ebay.
> >
> > You know where he lives, drop round with several mates and visit him
Auspics wrote:
>
> If it looks like a fish, feels like a fish, tastes like a fish and smells
> fishy, what is it?
> If 30% of E-bay sellers are squeaky clean (as you claim to be), twice that
> many are crooked. These are not my figures, they came from US researchers.
> Keep in mind too: "You are known by the company you keep".
>
> If you went into Myer stores and were greeted by a warning to check out the
> credentials of the sales people before buying anything and even then... Use
> a third party to handle the money until you got the goods... Would you buy
> there without being able to see the goods or a true example of them? Do
> yourself a favor "Rob" get your head out of your arse and discover you
> really aren't wearing sunnies after all.
It's really really simple, if you don't like the concept then don't go
to the site, many people do however.
You're a warped bastard, but I like you :-)
Cheers,
Rob
Auspics wrote:
Do
> yourself a favor "Rob" get your head out of your arse and discover you
> really aren't wearing sunnies after all.
BTW Real photographers don't wear sunglasses <vbg>
You obviously got stung, otherwise I can't understand why you'd be so
against the concept. Need some guys to do some head kicking for you? ;-)
Rob
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote:
[snips]
> FWIW if it were me, my
> next point of call would be a current affairs TV show. More people need to
> be aware of the danger of buying off e-bay.
You're coming across to me as very pro-retail. Am I reading you wrong or is
that the crux of it?
KC
I don't quite understand the question but yes... After buying stuff
secondhand only to find it had faults which took some time to become
obvious, I beleive if I'd bought retail I'd at least have some legal
recourse. 3 cameras, 4 lenses and all frm E-bay, all duds. My car is another
fine example. An Ex Police car the 2nd owner sold at 100,000 klm. Looked
like new.
Drove pretty well to. RAC said it was OK. I bought it at Christmas. So far
it's cost me nearly $1000 in repairs AFTER the 3 months warranty expired. If
I'd bought a new one I might have paid a bit more for it but at least I'd
have a factory trained mechanic to attend to any repairs for a year instead
of some backyard bozo the car dealer used. The same applies to cameras and
the repairers secondhand camera dealers use.
I can honestly say the only time (except for a 10D quite recently) I've ever
had a problem with photographic gear I bought is when it was second hand. If
I'd bought it new I'd at least have the benefit of a manufacturer's warranty
and factory trained technicians. No such protection with secondhand gear...
Add to that the uncertaintity of an E-bay description and it's just not
worth the risk.
JT
"Ken Chandler" <news@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3ef8250b$0$30818$afc38c87@no-spam
> "Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> > FWIW if it were me, my
> > next point of call would be a current affairs TV show. More people need
to
> > be aware of the danger of buying off e-bay.
>
> You're coming across to me as very pro-retail. Am I reading you wrong or
is
> that the crux of it?
>
> KC
>
>
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
news:o8XJa.1119$g_1.10009@no-spam
> I don't quite understand the question but yes... After buying stuff
> secondhand only to find it had faults which took some time to become
> obvious, I beleive if I'd bought retail I'd at least have some legal
> recourse. 3 cameras, 4 lenses and all frm E-bay, all duds. My car is
another
> fine example. An Ex Police car the 2nd owner sold at 100,000 klm. Looked
> like new.
>
<snip>
Im sorry, it seems that your opinion in this matter has been tainted by your
personal experiences, and shouldn't we all be somewhat dogmatic bigots given
our past shapes who we are. However far from achieving at any logical
conclusion, your extreme point of view is simply a matter of choir-preaching
futility. Have faith in the humanity thats so capable of tit-for-tat and
vigilantism, and if enough buyers get ripped off, ebay will tumple from the
bottm-up no doubt.
So why don't we all just take a deep breath to re-oxygenate those higher
cortical neurons and let the buyers get their bargains and the sellers
recuperate their mistakes for paying full retail back in those dark,
unmentionable pre-ebay days when the trade-in industry was still going
strong... (talk about caveat emptor in those days, at least now we cut out
the middle person!)
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:31:26 +1000, in
<3ef82880$0$26636$afc38c87@no-spam>, " Miro"
<miro01@no-spam> said:
>> Yes, because the seller responded to my original post with his name &
>> Ebay ID.
>
>
>There you go, you went and destroyed all the diplomatic avenues. How lomg
>did that take ? 6 emails ?
Funny you should say that, but I got a call from him this evening, &
we're making good progress on working out a compromise.
In article <c46f4728.0306232157.65f68c51@no-spam>,
johnwilson@no-spam (John) wrote:
> I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
> seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
> remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
> one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
> in hot water, probaly more the seller.
>
> Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
> post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.
>
> It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
> tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
> forum.
>
Not true: the seller chose to "out" himself within 10 minutes of the
original post. You watch too much American Courtroom TV Drama if you
think the buyers original post opens him up to legal allegations of
slander by the seller, or if you think anything said here amounts to
anything resembling legally admissable evidence.
I hope there is a happy ending for both parties.
N
> Drove pretty well to. RAC said it was OK. I bought it at Christmas. So far
> it's cost me nearly $1000 in repairs AFTER the 3 months warranty expired.
If
> I'd bought a new one I might have paid a bit more for it but at least I'd
> have a factory trained mechanic to attend to any repairs for a year
instead
> of some backyard bozo the car dealer used. The same applies to cameras and
> the repairers secondhand camera dealers use.
>
I buy almost everything off eBay. If they had fresh food I might buy that as
well. I dont know what your criteria for a seller might be but I suspect it
varies greatly from my own.
Some people have eyes bigger than their stomach and bid on the wrong items.
Auspics wrote:
> I don't quite understand the question but yes... After buying stuff
> secondhand only to find it had faults which took some time to become
> obvious, I beleive if I'd bought retail I'd at least have some legal
> recourse.
that's the law - 2nd hand doesn't carry warranty, nor does it carry a retail
price tag.
> 3 cameras, 4 lenses and all frm E-bay, all duds.
you poor sod - In over 50 purchases, I'm yet to get a dud.
> My car is another
> fine example. An Ex Police car the 2nd owner sold at 100,000 klm. Looked
> like new.
from ebay? auction? car yard? where?
> Drove pretty well to. RAC said it was OK.
So a 3rd party confirmed it's in good condition?
> I bought it at Christmas. So far
> it's cost me nearly $1000 in repairs AFTER the 3 months warranty expired.
What were the repairs? How long after the 3 months warranty expired? (a year or
two later doesn't count!) What attributed to them being needed? your driving
perhaps?
> If
> I'd bought a new one I might have paid a bit more for it but at least I'd
> have a factory trained mechanic to attend to any repairs for a year instead
> of some backyard bozo the car dealer used.
So take your car to a fully trained mechanic (which all licensed motor repairers
are), or to a dealer's service centre. It's not brain science you know!
> The same applies to cameras and
> the repairers secondhand camera dealers use.
If it's a camera dealer, they use only the best repairers (if needed), because
their livelihood depends on the camera working If you're buying from some guy
in the street, then you get what you get.
> I can honestly say the only time (except for a 10D quite recently) I've ever
> had a problem with photographic gear I bought is when it was second hand.
As I said, you poor sod - you've picked badly. Probably at a dirt-cheap bargain
price too tho.
> If
> I'd bought it new I'd at least have the benefit of a manufacturer's warranty
> and factory trained technicians. No such protection with secondhand gear...
and camera repairers aren't factory trained? Many, if not most, are. If you
buy a 2nd hand Canon, nothing stopping you taking it to Canon for service! Yes
they'll charge, but they charge for camera's bought new but out of warranty
too. Gee the world's a harsh place, isn't it?!?
> Add to that the uncertaintity of an E-bay description and it's just not
> worth the risk.
To use your own advice - pull your head our of your arse & read the posts that
have explained how to avoid any problems - posts buy regular ebay buyers who
have yet to be sold a dud.
Lionel wrote:
> Funny you should say that, but I got a call from him this evening, &
> we're making good progress on working out a compromise.
Lionel, I'm pleased to hear that... but Auspics will be devestated! All ebay
sellers are vile scum who are not to be trusted! just ask him!
;o)
I'll agree with that Miro.
I'll also agree that I (once) expected if someone is offering something for
sale they would describe it as it was... This clearly is not the case in all
the items I bought second hand so ...my opinion about E-bay is 100% the
opposite of yours. I've seen many people who bought goods there (this thread
has some examples) and got something less than was their expectation.
Valar' is quite right that MY opinion is tainted with past experiences. I am
58 years old. If I never formed an opinion in my life... I'd just be another
brain dead old fart waiting for God. I'm not. I'm an old fart with an
opinion and an attitude.
The opinion?
It varies as I mature but basically it's "If it you don't feel comfortable
with it, don't do it".
The attitude? Ignore the mongrels who think it's OK to lie and deceive just
so long as there's a buck to be had. There's danger everywhere.
Personally I am rather content in the knowledge that I probably won't be
around long enough to see the damage to our society some of the posters here
might cause with their attitudes and opinions. I'd give it all away now if I
had to do business with many of them.
JT
" Miro" <miro01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3ef8bc8c$0$26636$afc38c87@no-spam
> I buy almost everything off eBay. If they had fresh food I might buy that
as
> well. I dont know what your criteria for a seller might be but I suspect
it
> varies greatly from my own.
>
> Some people have eyes bigger than their stomach and bid on the wrong
items.
>
>
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:11:19 +1000, in
<3EF8BE77.3FA2A822@no-spam>, ahennell
<andrew@no-spam> said:
>Lionel wrote:
>
>> Funny you should say that, but I got a call from him this evening, &
>> we're making good progress on working out a compromise.
>
>Lionel, I'm pleased to hear that... but Auspics will be devestated! All ebay
>sellers are vile scum who are not to be trusted! just ask him!
<grin>
Well, I've spent quite a lot of money via Ebay, & this was the first
time I've had a disagreement with a seller. Previously, I've been
perfectly happy with my purchases (including a couple of other lenses, &
two cameras).
I've had a chat with Canon & a local repairer they recommended. I'm
taking the lens in there today for a quote on replacing the dinged up
part of the housing, & to check out the rattle. The person at the repair
place guesstimated about $200, based on my description, but of course
they'll need to open it up to give an exact figure.
Obviously I don't expect the seller to pay to bring it to 'as new'
condition, so we've tentatively agreed to go halves on the repair cost,
if it's within cooee of the price that was mentioned to me. If it's much
different, we'll work it out from there. If the rattle turns out to be
something significant, I expect we'll need to take it up with the
Express Post people.
"Lionel" <nop@no-spam> wrote in message news:bdanmk$ats$0@no-spam
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:11:19 +1000, in
>
> Obviously I don't expect the seller to pay to bring it to 'as new'
> condition, so we've tentatively agreed to go halves on the repair cost,
> if it's within cooee of the price that was mentioned to me. If it's much
> different, we'll work it out from there. If the rattle turns out to be
> something significant, I expect we'll need to take it up with the
> Express Post people.
>
Well i'm glad to see the mature manner has continued with both the buyer AND
the seller .. good on both of you.
I have though of selling dodgy stuff on ebay, you know, not quite as
described.
after this i have grave doubts.
my reputation is worth more than the extra money.
my descriptions will be accurate.
"Narelle" <n3310@no-spam> wrote in message
news:n3310-61D255.07003925062003@no-spam
> In article <c46f4728.0306232157.65f68c51@no-spam>,
> johnwilson@no-spam (John) wrote:
>
> > I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
> > seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
> > remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
> > one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
> > in hot water, probaly more the seller.
> >
> > Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
> > post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.
> >
> > It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
> > tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
> > forum.
> >
>
>
> Not true: the seller chose to "out" himself within 10 minutes of the
> original post. You watch too much American Courtroom TV Drama if you
> think the buyers original post opens him up to legal allegations of
> slander by the seller, or if you think anything said here amounts to
> anything resembling legally admissable evidence.
> I hope there is a happy ending for both parties.
> N
"Paul" <mr_nrgathotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef69637$1@no-spam
> Hi Miro,
>
> The lens is a 20-35/2.8 L series lens.
>
> If Lionel wishes to file any forms with ebay then i will be more than
> willing to particpate.
>
> I'm not using any line, but it definately had no rattles when i shipped
it.
>
> I have email Lionel privately and will not discuss this matter any further
> in this forum.
>
> Paul
Look for the 'Square Trade' section on ebay - this would be your best bet
Boc
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:51:32 +0800, in
<bdbkbu$r8ejd$1@no-spam>, "Andy G"
<dalinean@no-spam> said:
>I have though of selling dodgy stuff on ebay, you know, not quite as
>described.
>after this i have grave doubts.
>my reputation is worth more than the extra money.
Exactly.
>my descriptions will be accurate.
Wise decision.
Sure, you might get some easygoing type who'll just wear it, but you
might also cop someone like me. ;)
Contrary to popular opinion, you are *not* totally anonymous on the the
ne - especially with people who do this stuff for a living.
"Andy G" <dalinean@no-spam> wrote in message news:bdbkbu$r8ejd$1@no-spam
> I have though of selling dodgy stuff on ebay, you know, not quite as
> described.
> after this i have grave doubts.
> my reputation is worth more than the extra money.
>
> my descriptions will be accurate.
ebay i think is more about getting rid of stuff you no longer need
i have had great success of getting rid of stuff that i dont need/want anymore
for those that havent really used ebay , you will be suprised at what people will pay
for stuff that you would throw out because it doesnt work or whatever ,
people all over the world
and also suprised the stupid amounts that people will pay for the smallest things
i have a new theory that i put something up and it costs $0.35 to list
most stuff sells for good money, something that doesnt goes in the bin
very few things have made it to the bin, there is usually someone that will pay a few bucks
for something and saves it going in landfill
I guess ebay generally gives you what something is worth and dont have to advertise
in the trading post for $20+ , dont have to deal with every dickhead under the sun
ringing you, and dont have to deal with people coming to your house
also gives you a worldwide audience with pics
give it a great pic, great HONEST description and no problems
"Johnnie5" <ducatiau@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdd20p$420$1@no-spam
>
> "Andy G" <dalinean@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdbkbu$r8ejd$1@no-spam
> > I have though of selling dodgy stuff on ebay, you know, not quite as
> > described.
> > after this i have grave doubts.
> > my reputation is worth more than the extra money.
> >
> > my descriptions will be accurate.
>
> ebay i think is more about getting rid of stuff you no longer need
>
> i have had great success of getting rid of stuff that i dont need/want
anymore
>
> for those that havent really used ebay , you will be suprised at what
people will pay
> for stuff that you would throw out because it doesnt work or whatever ,
> people all over the world
>
> and also suprised the stupid amounts that people will pay for the smallest
things
>
> i have a new theory that i put something up and it costs $0.35 to list
> most stuff sells for good money, something that doesnt goes in the bin
>
> very few things have made it to the bin, there is usually someone that
will pay a few bucks
> for something and saves it going in landfill
>
> I guess ebay generally gives you what something is worth and dont have to
advertise
> in the trading post for $20+ , dont have to deal with every dickhead under
the sun
> ringing you, and dont have to deal with people coming to your house
>
> also gives you a worldwide audience with pics
>
> give it a great pic, great HONEST description and no problems
>
>
I will not use the trading post ever again - $20 for a friggen add? and
thats one of the cheap ones - ad highlights to it and there is another $20
ebay just costs a few $ at most for small items - certainly the way to go
Boc
"Bocİ" <Boc@no-spam> wrote in message news:5FpKa.13$3M2.755@no-spam
>
> I will not use the trading post ever again - $20 for a friggen add? and
> thats one of the cheap ones - ad highlights to it and there is another $20
>
> ebay just costs a few $ at most for small items - certainly the way to go
>
> Boc
i only ever use the trading post for a car or a bike as $20 isnt much in that case
and also i have found that you cant sell a car or a bike for what it is worth on ebay
as people are looking for a bargain , you could be lucky but generally no
BUT if its something old piece of shit that you have had in the shed for years and
might not even work then go for your life , people will buy most bikes for under $1K
without any real worry at way more than you can get in the paper
but it never ceases to amaze me that people advertise something in the tradingpost for $60
when the add has cost em $20
and you think the trading post is expensive , try calling the other papers and see what they charge