Can't buy used items with no real description and just assume they are mint condition. His username is in the atariage thread linked above if you plan on blocking him.
Suck it up and just keep them, they are in good enough condition for what you paid anyway. And this isn't really the sellers fault, gotta have some accountability.
I love when I find stuff like that in games. My copy of MUSHA had a small review written in the back by the previous owner who was most likely a teenage boy. It was fun to read his review. i don't see why people get up in arms on this kind of stuff.
You have a picture of that?
Robert Hunter, wherever you are, nice review!
Edit: Sorry this image is so huge. I tried editing it three times to make it smaller but it won't get any smaller.
That is really neat. Im going to start looking through my manuals more.
I know it probably is outside the realm as I haven't had a use for it but this site does have that Hall of Shame. Perhaps our topic starter should be added to it as a warning to others if that's allowed. No one here should have to be a victim of this level of ebay snark when nothing was wrong with the listing. Anyone fishing this hard is a liability to anyone here who is a collector, gamer, or seller who pass goods along. Attitudes like this makes people hate selling even further, trust even less, and make less want to bother if they're going to need to photograph every angle on a game, every side of a box, every side of an insert, and every page in a manual to avoid unreasonable levels of self imposed butt hurt and snowflake entitlement behavior.
Hey guys just curious about a return. I bought 4 vectrex games from an ebay seller with manuals and the poicture showed everything to be in nice shape. The listing stated the condition was simply used, no acceptable or anything like that. The description was that what was included in the pictures was what you got. So I bought them and everything was in good shape except when I opened the manuals they all had high scores written in the back. This wasn{t mentioned anywhere in the listing, nor was it in the photos. So I contacted the seller and he basically told me to screw off and that he wouldn't accept a return so I opened a case. And I stated the items were not as described by the pictures. there was no indication the manuals had been damaged by pen. And he sent me the following:
This transaction was for a multi-item lot of 35 year old consumer items. These items are used and were described as such. They are not described as new, mint or like-new or collector's quality. The manuals, including the high score tables shown in the buyer's detailed photos, were previously used for their intended purpose. There is no conflict between the description of the items in the original listing the items that the buyer received. They are used items and there was no advertised or implied purpose of these items which has expired. The purpose of the high score tables inside of the manuals is to write high scores in them. The high score tables are used. They are still able to be used some more and the item is as described.
He basically says that he is right because he stated as used, but my question is will ebay still protect me under the money back guarentee as the items had damage to them that wasn't mentioned?
Thank all!
Why haven't you responded in this thread after the initial post? Do you still feel you are in the right after reading everyone's responses?
I know it probably is outside the realm as I haven't had a use for it but this site does have that Hall of Shame. Perhaps our topic starter should be added to it as a warning to others if that's allowed. No one here should have to be a victim of this level of ebay snark when nothing was wrong with the listing. Anyone fishing this hard is a liability to anyone here who is a collector, gamer, or seller who pass goods along. Attitudes like this makes people hate selling even further, trust even less, and make less want to bother if they're going to need to photograph every angle on a game, every side of a box, every side of an insert, and every page in a manual to avoid unreasonable levels of self imposed butt hurt and snowflake entitlement behavior.
The HOS closed nearly a year before your join date.
I'm aware of that now. I've been around off and on a long time but only recently signed up to post. I never noticed it was put to bed.
Also believe perhaps the original poster hasn't responded to all this perhaps because maybe Xenu beamed him back to the dc-8 looking mothership so they can go hunt down some thetans?
I read through this case. If the seller looked through every page and noticed writing, he should have said something. But if he didn't, no harm since it was listed as used. I think that minor defects like bends, creases, tears, writing etc are all implied under the term "used"
I think the seller had no obligation to accept the return but if he wanted to be a nice guy he could have voluntarily offered a return.
Condition item specifics for "Used" in the video games > wholesale lots category is as follows:
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
Condition item specifics for "Used" in the video games > wholesale lots category is as follows:
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
I would not want to encourage a buyer like OP. He doesn't appreciate the good deal he got. There's just no way some sellers can visibly inspect and document the condition of each page of each manual in a multi game lot sold as "used" with an excellent price. If it's such a deal breaker for OP, then OP needs to ask questions before buying and making the seller spend time + effort + money to send it.
A system that doesn't allow sellers to give negative feedback on buyers leads to this kind of flippant buyer behavior.
Condition item specifics for "Used" in the video games > wholesale lots category is as follows:
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
Or if the OP is this nit picky about condition, they shouldn't buy "used" lots without reaching out and asking additional questions when the detail is lacking. A used lot is just that - used. If the description was lacking the level of detail he needs for comfort, then he shouldn't have handled it with a buy-first ask-later mentality. Buying used lots always welcomes this "risk" and it's absurd to expect the seller to detail out everything - especially in decently sized "wholesale" lots.
In principle i agree with both of you. But I'm just judging the situation as it is, which is buying/selling on eBay. I've been dealing with eBay long enough that i understand and accept everything with the listing is the responsibility of the seller, and i sell on eBay with that mind set. EBay is set up for the buyer to have the right to return an item they feel is not exactly what they expected. That has been a cornerstone of their policy for a while now. And no I don't think it's the buyer's responsibility when shopping on eBay to have to ask questions before buying, seeing how they structure their policies for buyers.
But like i said, i agree with the idea in principle that buyers should exercise due diligence and try to be fair. But that's not how things work on eBay and ignorance of that leads to these little spats. You give up that expectation when using eBay to sell which regardless of how much sellers complain about the policies, is still the best and most far reaching market to sell their items.
In principle i agree with both of you. But I'm just judging the situation as it is, which is buying/selling on eBay. I've been dealing with eBay long enough that i understand and accept everything with the listing is the responsibility of the seller, and i sell on eBay with that mind set. EBay is set up for the buyer to have the right to return an item they feel is not exactly what they expected. That has been a cornerstone of their policy for a while now. And no I don't think it's the buyer's responsibility when shopping on eBay to have to ask questions before buying, seeing how they structure their policies for buyers.
But like i said, i agree with the idea in principle that buyers should exercise due diligence and try to be fair. But that's not how things work on eBay and ignorance of that leads to these little spats. You give up that expectation when using eBay to sell which regardless of how much sellers complain about the policies, is still the best and most far reaching market to sell their items.
"And no I don't think it's the buyer's responsibility when shopping on eBay to have to ask questions before buying, ..."
If this sort of thing is a deal breaker, it should be the buyer's responsibility to ask. Otherwise, the buyer has wasted the seller's money, time, effort, and generosity (in this case).
Condition item specifics for "Used" in the video games > wholesale lots category is as follows:
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
It seems that you are hung up on the part about “imperfections” being in the description. It’s obviously only talking about FURTHER “imperfections” than one would expect from the description of “used.” “Used” already describes typical imperfections from normal use. If the cover was torn off and pages or staples were missing, then we’d have an imperfection beyond what was already described by “used,” which is exactly what they are saying should be in the description. A used item described as used and showing only typical signs of normal use would not be a defect or additional “imperfection.” For someone concerned with the exact level of normal wear and tear to the point that the OP is (someone concerned with how “used” it is), he should not be hiding behind delusions of what constitutes “used” versus additional damage/defects/imperfections.
In principle i agree with both of you. But I'm just judging the situation as it is, which is buying/selling on eBay. I've been dealing with eBay long enough that i understand and accept everything with the listing is the responsibility of the seller, and i sell on eBay with that mind set. EBay is set up for the buyer to have the right to return an item they feel is not exactly what they expected. That has been a cornerstone of their policy for a while now. And no I don't think it's the buyer's responsibility when shopping on eBay to have to ask questions before buying, seeing how they structure their policies for buyers.
But like i said, i agree with the idea in principle that buyers should exercise due diligence and try to be fair. But that's not how things work on eBay and ignorance of that leads to these little spats. You give up that expectation when using eBay to sell which regardless of how much sellers complain about the policies, is still the best and most far reaching market to sell their items.
"And no I don't think it's the buyer's responsibility when shopping on eBay to have to ask questions before buying, ..."
If this sort of thing is a deal breaker, it should be the buyer's responsibility to ask. Otherwise, the buyer has wasted the seller's money, time, effort, and generosity (in this case).
You state that in a very matter-of-fact manner. But you are disregarding that it can be viewed from the opposite perspective as well. If the seller is opposed to a buyer wanting a refund for any specific imperfections (like in this case), then maybe they should have stated those imperfections in the description to avoid this. THAT would have been the proper way to avoid wasting his money, time, effort, and generosity. Come on man, you know how Ebay works. As a seller you need to be vigilant in describing your item for sale as thoroughly accurate as possible, at least when it comes to obvious things like writing on the item(s).
Condition item specifics for "Used" in the video games > wholesale lots category is as follows:
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
It seems that you are hung up on the part about “imperfections” being in the description. It’s obviously only talking about FURTHER “imperfections” than one would expect from the description of “used.” “Used” already describes typical imperfections from normal use. If the cover was torn off and pages or staples were missing, then we’d have an imperfection beyond what was already described by “used,” which is exactly what they are saying should be in the description. A used item described as used and showing only typical signs of normal use would not be a defect or additional “imperfection.” For someone concerned with the exact level of normal wear and tear to the point that the OP is (someone concerned with how “used” it is), he should not be hiding behind delusions of what constitutes “used” versus additional damage/defects/imperfections.
Its debatable that writing in the manuals could be constituted as normal use. Personally I see that as being beyond normal use since its not a sign of use that's going to happen in normally enjoying the item, and its especially a problem when it was not at all described in the listing which is the biggest issue and why I have no problem with the buyer wanting a refund.
Also should be noted, I am arguing exclusively within Ebay's policies, not my own principles (which seems like is what you and everyone else in the thread on the seller's side is doing). We have to see this from the perspective of Ebay's policy. The buyer received something that was not up to par with what he believed he bought, and he was accurate in that assessment. Him wanting a refund is totally warranted given Ebay's policy on the matter, end of story.
I wouldn't say that. It's not debatable that a part of the manual that is intended to be written in would be anything other than normal, intended, use when written in. Obviously, we’re debating it anyway, but that’s because one of us is just plain wrong.
To channel the bureaucrats from Futurama, it's technically correct, which is the best kind of correct particularly because it's not debatable.
It's being used as intended. If we were talking about random pages with crayon scribbles, sure, but we are talking about pages intended for notes and high scores being used (there goes that word again) for notes and high scores.
If my used car's service history has writing in it, it's not an imperfection just because the car and everything related to it is now a collectible, even if people usually don't use that part of the manual. If the buyer cared about HOW used something was beyond knowing that it was simply used and the buyer's purchase decision hinged on that then the buyer cannot simply distort the meaning to suit his interpretation at someone else's expense. The seller has fulfilled his end of the bargain. The buyer is the one who bought it blindly without ensuring that it met the level of use he desired/required.
One thing is for sure: it is definitely within the definition of reasonable use to be called "used." He took the chance and blindly purchased it despite having different expectations than what was described and then he expected someone else to pay the price for his mistake. That is WRONG. No excuses for that buyer.
It is normal use. It's writing in the space that the author provided, for writing by the user, who used the manuals in the course of their intended use. What's debatable?
The buyer made a completely unfounded assumption about interiors , based on nothing whatsoever, then found himself unhappy that the product didn't meet his fairy-tale definition of the vague condition description. It's ridiculous.
I wouldn't say that. It's not debatable that a part of the manual that is intended to be written in would be anything other than normal, intended, use when written in. Obviously, we’re debating it anyway, but that’s because one of us is just plain wrong.
To channel the bureaucrats from Futurama, it's technically correct, which is the best kind of correct particularly because it's not debatable.
It's being used as intended. If we were talking about random pages with crayon scribbles, sure, but we are talking about pages intended for notes and high scores being used (there goes that word again) for notes and high scores.
If my used car's service history has writing in it, it's not an imperfection just because the car and everything related to it is now a collectible, even if people usually don't use that part of the manual. If the buyer cared about HOW used something was beyond knowing that it was simply used and the buyer's purchase decision hinged on that then the buyer cannot simply distort the meaning to suit his interpretation at someone else's expense. The seller has fulfilled his end of the bargain. The buyer is the one who bought it blindly without ensuring that it met the level of use he desired/required.
One thing is for sure: it is definitely within the definition of reasonable use to be called "used." He took the chance and blindly purchased it despite having different expectations than what was described and then he expected someone else to pay the price for his mistake. That is WRONG. No excuses for that buyer.
It is debatable. I've stated my reasons for why it could be seen the other way. "Used" as a description has different levels of severity, wouldn't you agree? Its really quite subjective, as this thread indicates. Better yet, do you feel two of the same manual that appear to be the same condition yet one has the writing would have differing values? The seller should have been aware of this, and more accurate with his description. Is it really that taxing for a seller to have to do? I don't think so.
Further, if you could collect all the video game instruction manuals of the world with "notes" sections I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of them do not have writing. A very small portion of gamers made use of that, which is why its something that should be disclosed if its there in something you are selling. Most people are not assuming there would be writing, especially when its not disclosed. But regardless of that, it all comes down to who Ebay sides with in a dispute case.
Also, not sure I think you're being fair saying "different expectations than what was described." My opinion, and the OP's point of view which is the one and only that matters, is that what he received WAS different than what was described, because it was not described anywhere that there was writing in the manuals!
Sorry but you'll have to accept that some people feel differently on the matter, and Ebay feels the buyer reserves the right to a refund if there's anything unexpected about the item they receive. There are many sellers who disclose when there is writing in the manuals, and that's the right thing to do as an Ebay seller. On other selling platforms it might be a different story but on there they will get their refund, and the seller should have been more aware of the policy.
Yes, there are many levels of "used." Again, if the specific level of use mattered to the buyer then there is no subjectiveness to it when the buyer deliberately bought it blindly knowing full well the range of conditions that "used" encompasses. The only way he would be justified is if writing in a part of the manual that was intended for writing could not be interpreted as normal use. That is why he is inarguably, categorically, WRONG.
If HOW used it was mattered to him then he had no business buying it blindly without asking how used it was. No one ever implied that "used" described/implied a specific level of how used something was and, therefore it is not a subjective description.
This man deliberately bought a used item described as used without asking how used even though how used it was obviously mattered to him. Sounds like he was hoping it was in better shape than it was but wasn't willing to do his due diligence, so it was a gamble. When you lose that gamble it's dispicable to make someone else pay for your mistake and it's even worse to distort reality to make it look like someone else's mistake. He needs to learn from his mistake and move on. The fact that he even bothered complaining publicly over something so minor means he has seriously deluded himself about acceptable behavior and he needs to be called out on it lest this distorted mindset spreads.
...and you need to stop saying that it wasn’t described anywhere. That’s the MOST unarguable point. It was described with one word: “used.” That word was there. What matters is intended use, not typical or majority use.
Again, how many people typically use it is irrelevant. How many people typically use the service record in their car’s manual? Doesn’t matter, even if the used car is a collectible.
This is not even about “policy.” This is about the OP’s claim that the item is not as described. That is definitely what the buyer would be claiming through eBay. eBay’s stated policy was never one that allows people to claim that the item was not as described for a refund even when the claim is not true. You are mixing up their usual actions with their stated policy. Just because eBay usually lets scamming buyers get away with it doesn’t make it right for buyers to scam sellers. That is a TERRIBLE argument.
It’s also pretty odd to say that opinions trump strict interpretation. They almost never do in any dispute. Your opinion does not change the FACT that this was as-described and that using the scores section of a manual for scores counts as intended use. The intention of the creator matters here, not the expectations of a modern collector. This was obviously a lot more common in the days before hi-scores were saved electronically, and the sections kept appearing in manuals long after they fell out of popularity (now usually as “Notes&rdquo. It’s an apples to oranges comparison anyway when we try to compare how often they are used across all game manuals.
The OP doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. How used it was mattered and he bought it anyway without considering/determining how used it was. It was used. It was described as used. Both parties knew it was used. The use did not exceed the bounds of accepted normal use as indicated by the heading at the top of the page. One participant blatantly ignored his own extra considerations that were crucial to his purchase decision and then tried to pin it on the other after wasting everyone’s time and money.
Yes, there are many levels of "used." Again, if the specific level of use mattered to the buyer then there is no subjectiveness to it when the buyer deliberately bought it blindly knowing full well the range of conditions that "used" encompasses. The only way he would be justified is if writing in a part of the manual that was intended for writing could not be interpreted as normal use. That is why he is inarguably, categorically, WRONG.
If HOW used it was mattered to him then he had no business buying it blindly without asking how used it was. No one ever implied tha "used" described/implied a specific level of how used something was and, therefore it is not a subjective description.
This man deliberately bought a used item described as used without asking how use even though how used it was obviously mattered to him. Sounds like he was hoping it was in better shape than it was but wasn't willing to do his due diligence, so it was a gamble. When you lose that gamble it's dispucable to make someone else pay for your mistake and it's even worse to distort reality to make it look like someone else's mistake. He needs to learn from his mistake and move on. The fact that he even bothered complaining publicly over something so minor means he has seriously deluded himself and he needs to be called out on it lest this distorted mindset spreads.
...and you need to stop saying that it wasn’t described anywhere. That’s the MOST unarguable point. It was described with one word: “used.” Again, what matters is intended use, not typical or majority use.
Again, how many people typically use it is irrelevant. How many people typically use the service record in their car’s manual? Doesn’t matter, even if the used car is a collectible.
This is not even about “policy.” This is about the OP’s claim that the item is not as described. That is definitely what the buyer would be claiming through eBay. eBay’s stated policy was never one that allows people to claim that the item was not as described for a refund even when the claim is not true. You are mixing up their usual actions with their stated policy. Just because eBay usually lets scamming buyers get away with it doesn’t make it right for buyers to scam sellers. That is a TERRIBLE argument.
It’s also pretty odd to say that opinions trump strict interpretation. They almost never do in any dispute. Your opinion does not change the FACT that this was as-described and that using the scores section of a manual for scores counts as intended use. The intention of the creator matters here, not the modern collector. This was obviously a lot more common in the days before hi-scores were saved electronically, and the sections kept appearing in manuals long after they fell out of popularity (now usually as “Notes&rdquo, so it’s an apples to oranges comparison anyway when you try to compare how often they are used across all game manuals.
The OP doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. How used it was mattered and he bought it anyway without considering/determining how used it was. It was used. It was described as used. Both parties knew it was used. The use did not exceed the bounds of accepted normal use as indicated by the heading at the top of the page. One participant blatantly ignored his own extra considerations that were crucial to his purchase decision and then tried to pin it on the other after wasting everyone’s time and money.
Eh, I said my piece and gave my opinion well enough. At the end of the day regardless of how you interpret Ebay's actual policy on the matter everyone knows how they handle these kind of situations. The buyer is always favored and its never a gamble for them. If their item arrives with some kind of surprise and they're not satisifed they can return it. It sucks that sellers don't get more leverage but the fact that everyone who has used Ebay more than once or twice knows this, should be the end of the story. Its not like sellers don't have ways of making their listings better to avoid this. The seller should have better described his item if he knew he would be so opposed to a "not as described" refund request.
Yes, there are many levels of "used." Again, if the specific level of use mattered to the buyer then there is no subjectiveness to it when the buyer deliberately bought it blindly knowing full well the range of conditions that "used" encompasses. The only way he would be justified is if writing in a part of the manual that was intended for writing could not be interpreted as normal use. That is why he is inarguably, categorically, WRONG.
If HOW used it was mattered to him then he had no business buying it blindly without asking how used it was. No one ever implied tha "used" described/implied a specific level of how used something was and, therefore it is not a subjective description.
This man deliberately bought a used item described as used without asking how use even though how used it was obviously mattered to him. Sounds like he was hoping it was in better shape than it was but wasn't willing to do his due diligence, so it was a gamble. When you lose that gamble it's dispucable to make someone else pay for your mistake and it's even worse to distort reality to make it look like someone else's mistake. He needs to learn from his mistake and move on. The fact that he even bothered complaining publicly over something so minor means he has seriously deluded himself and he needs to be called out on it lest this distorted mindset spreads.
...and you need to stop saying that it wasn’t described anywhere. That’s the MOST unarguable point. It was described with one word: “used.” Again, what matters is intended use, not typical or majority use.
Again, how many people typically use it is irrelevant. How many people typically use the service record in their car’s manual? Doesn’t matter, even if the used car is a collectible.
This is not even about “policy.” This is about the OP’s claim that the item is not as described. That is definitely what the buyer would be claiming through eBay. eBay’s stated policy was never one that allows people to claim that the item was not as described for a refund even when the claim is not true. You are mixing up their usual actions with their stated policy. Just because eBay usually lets scamming buyers get away with it doesn’t make it right for buyers to scam sellers. That is a TERRIBLE argument.
It’s also pretty odd to say that opinions trump strict interpretation. They almost never do in any dispute. Your opinion does not change the FACT that this was as-described and that using the scores section of a manual for scores counts as intended use. The intention of the creator matters here, not the modern collector. This was obviously a lot more common in the days before hi-scores were saved electronically, and the sections kept appearing in manuals long after they fell out of popularity (now usually as “Notes&rdquo, so it’s an apples to oranges comparison anyway when you try to compare how often they are used across all game manuals.
The OP doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. How used it was mattered and he bought it anyway without considering/determining how used it was. It was used. It was described as used. Both parties knew it was used. The use did not exceed the bounds of accepted normal use as indicated by the heading at the top of the page. One participant blatantly ignored his own extra considerations that were crucial to his purchase decision and then tried to pin it on the other after wasting everyone’s time and money.
Eh, I said my piece and gave my opinion well enough. At the end of the day regardless of how you interpret Ebay's actual policy on the matter everyone knows how they handle these kind of situations. The buyer is always favored and its never a gamble for them. If their item arrives with some kind of surprise and they're not satisifed they can return it. It sucks that sellers don't get more leverage but the fact that everyone who has used Ebay more than once or twice knows this, should be the end of the story. Its not like sellers don't have ways of making their listings better to avoid this. The seller should have better described his item if he knew he would be so opposed to a "not as described" refund request.
Sure, but just because we all know that that doesn't mean that someone is right for abusing it like the OP wants to do (and oh so many others). Being able to get away with something doesn't make it right. Knowing that this stuff happens doesn't make the seller wrong. It's down-right fraudulent to say that condition was "not as described" in this incident where the condition being disputed is EXACTLY as described. The buyer's expectations regarding how used it was should be irrelevant, even if they aren't in practice thanks to eBay allowing abuse of their policy. Being able to get away with it doesn't make the OP right, it doesn't make us wrong, it doesn't mean we should not voice that it's wrong, and it makes a very poor argument for us being wrong... so how could it possibly be a counterpoint? We all know that. It's the very basis of our complaint about what the OP is doing. Exploiting eBay's preference toward buyers to cheat sellers is not OK even if eBay allows it.
Our Hall of Shame was full of deadbeats who exploited eBay's buyer preference to pull crap like this, some more maliciously than others. I don't think the OP was as malicious as some, but being bone-headed and stubborn about stuff like this can be almost as bad. Were we wrong to consider specific deadbeat buyer behavior when eBay allowed them to get away with it? Nope. We can complain and we can block and we can spread the warnings... not just warnings about specific buyers, but warnings about what can happen if you sell on eBay.
Even if we are complaining about an eBay problem we can't fix, it's still constructive. We are peers setting behavioral expectations amongst each other. When people see how poorly this blew over with us then hopefully they will think twice about behaving like a jerk when they make a similar mistake. If we all just throw our hands up and say "it's totally OK because eBay allows it and our moral compasses are dictated by what eBay allows," then buyers who aren't malicious will begin doing it too. We have to let them know that we aren't OK with it. There is no excuse for the exploitative behavior even if eBay allows it and they know they're going to catch heat for admitting to it. Some people will think twice before burning their bridges. Some people don't want to be the jerk so the least we can do is let them know when they have crossed that line.
If the OP actually listens to his peers and re-evaluates his own position to avoid being a jerk, then I respect him. This "we'll see what eBay says" attitude is NOT helping his case when we all know that eBay allows people to be jerks and exploit sellers. What eBay allows a jerk to get away with doesn't make them less of a jerk... it ENABLES their jerkitude. Can't hide behind that to claim the higher ground.
Didn't i preface my argument by saying in principle i agree with you? I'm not talking about right or wrong here, only what kind of expectations you should have when doing business on eBay. You are making it seem like the buyer here is intentionally looking to scam sellers. I see no reason to believe that's their intention. I'm a realist. Ebay is a huge marketplace, and it makes far more sense to protect myself as a seller with more accurately described listings rather than expect all buyers will have perfect etiquette and moral fairness should something go wrong.
You can live in your fantasy world of thinking you're making a dent in the problem. I'll go ahead and continue to structure my listings in a way that makes it harder for buyers to make claims of "item not as described" and continue my 10+ years of selling without a single return.
I sold a pop vinyl superman false god on eBay at the beginning of the month and he said it had glue on the cape. I never take my pops out of the box and had bought it new from Gamestop so I thought it was rather odd. The buyer asked if he could return it, in good faith I said sure but explained to him that's how that pop looked ( my buddy happened to have one too so we took out of the box and sent him pics to show him) but he could return it regardless even if he was just having buyers remorse. Sent him the shipping label and then radio silence, I emailed him 2 or 3 times and nothing. I even waited 2 days after I could arbitrate the claim in case he had something come up. Called eBay after that and they judged in my favor and needless to say I blocked that buyer. Some people are just bad buyers and want to nitpick about the most trivial of things.
Didn't i preface my argument by saying in principle i agree with you? I'm not talking about right or wrong here, only what kind of expectations you should have when doing business on eBay. You are making it seem like the buyer here is intentionally looking to scam sellers. I see no reason to believe that's their intention. I'm a realist. Ebay is a huge marketplace, and it makes far more sense to protect myself as a seller with more accurately described listings rather than expect all buyers will have perfect etiquette and moral fairness should something go wrong.
...but we ARE discussing what’s right and wrong, regardless. You started out by saying that you, personally, sided with the buyer here based on what eBay allows... now admittedly with no consideration for what was right or wrong. That, right there, is exactly what we are responding to. Let’s look at how your previous posts looks in this light...
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
Eh, I said my piece and gave my opinion well enough. At the end of the day regardless of [what is right or wrong or] how you interpret Ebay's actual policy on the matter everyone knows how they handle these kind of situations. The buyer is always favored and its never a gamble for them [as long as they have no scruples about being a jerk]. If their item arrives with some kind of surprise and they're not satisifed they can return it [as long as they have no scruples about being a jerk]. It sucks that [jerks can exploit innocent and] sellers don't get more leverage but the fact that everyone who has used Ebay more than once or twice knows this, should be the end of the story. [If eBay allows it, we have no right to expect better behavior.] Its not like sellers don't have ways of making their listings better to avoid this. The seller should have better described his item if he knew he would be so opposed to a [fraudulent] "not as described" refund request.
Our comments from the start have been about what is right with full knowledge of what eBay does to enable what is wrong. Again, eBay does not dictate right and wrong. If they did, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. We are showing you what siding with the buyer is actually saying when it comes to right and wrong so that the OP or others will not hide behind it as some justification for claiming that they are NOT being a jerk. eBay letting them get away with it will not let them excuse the behavior with their peers. You got dangerously close to saying that it does, which deserves a response/clarification, like my additions above.
See, I don't view Ebay transactions so personally as you do. Calling it "jerk" behavior and the like. Its a business deal, nothing more. I see nothing fraudulent about what the OP is doing, to your dismay. I find it funny that some of you guys take things so personally and hold someone such as myself in contempt when I express an opinion that goes against your beliefs and values.
And no, I wouldn't encourage that kind of behavior. But only in a perfect world would everyone always think to ask questions about any concerns before buying, and be as considerate as one can be. But its not always going to happen that way. Maybe some people don't realize their concerns until its too late and receive the item. There is nuance here. I also wouldn't encourage someone to not inspect their items for sale thoroughly before listing, and make a mention of something like writing which permanently alters the items beyond what I and many believe is normal use. But I can also understand how some people wouldn't think it a big deal. BUT, as the seller you have more responsibility in that regard when dealing on Ebay.
I can have some sympathy for BOTH sides here, something you are apparently incapable of and that's unfortunate. That's all I'm going to say on this. I've heard your stance on it and duly noted, moving on now.
..The buyer (OP) closed his return request on Saturday and the money is no longer on hold. There had been no communication between us since the message I sent him which he copied and pasted at the beginning of this thread. eBay never intervened because neither of us specifically asked them to. He included a comment in his cancellation, something like "seller was not helpful and misleading".
I do not feel like I was misleading and the circumstances did not compel me to be helpful, but I am grateful for the outcome. I will certainly be reevaluating how I sell on eBay, but I think it is regrettable that that is the case. I really can't be selling four Vectrex games shipped for $30 if there is a chance of them being returned at my expense.
Had this dispute been over a less specialized consumer item, or really any item other than one that both the buyer and seller were devoted enthusiasts of, there would have been no chance of a peer review like this because we would not have crossed paths in an alternate community like this, (where participants actually put stock in peer reviews). I think the outcome is a lot different than it would have been if we only used eBay to sort it out.
Comments
Suck it up and just keep them, they are in good enough condition for what you paid anyway. And this isn't really the sellers fault, gotta have some accountability.
I love when I find stuff like that in games. My copy of MUSHA had a small review written in the back by the previous owner who was most likely a teenage boy. It was fun to read his review. i don't see why people get up in arms on this kind of stuff.
You have a picture of that?
Robert Hunter, wherever you are, nice review!
Edit: Sorry this image is so huge. I tried editing it three times to make it smaller but it won't get any smaller.
That is really neat. Im going to start looking through my manuals more.
Hey guys just curious about a return. I bought 4 vectrex games from an ebay seller with manuals and the poicture showed everything to be in nice shape. The listing stated the condition was simply used, no acceptable or anything like that. The description was that what was included in the pictures was what you got. So I bought them and everything was in good shape except when I opened the manuals they all had high scores written in the back. This wasn{t mentioned anywhere in the listing, nor was it in the photos. So I contacted the seller and he basically told me to screw off and that he wouldn't accept a return so I opened a case. And I stated the items were not as described by the pictures. there was no indication the manuals had been damaged by pen. And he sent me the following:
This transaction was for a multi-item lot of 35 year old consumer items. These items are used and were described as such. They are not described as new, mint or like-new or collector's quality. The manuals, including the high score tables shown in the buyer's detailed photos, were previously used for their intended purpose. There is no conflict between the description of the items in the original listing the items that the buyer received. They are used items and there was no advertised or implied purpose of these items which has expired. The purpose of the high score tables inside of the manuals is to write high scores in them. The high score tables are used. They are still able to be used some more and the item is as described.
He basically says that he is right because he stated as used, but my question is will ebay still protect me under the money back guarentee as the items had damage to them that wasn't mentioned?
Thank all!
Why haven't you responded in this thread after the initial post? Do you still feel you are in the right after reading everyone's responses?
I know it probably is outside the realm as I haven't had a use for it but this site does have that Hall of Shame. Perhaps our topic starter should be added to it as a warning to others if that's allowed. No one here should have to be a victim of this level of ebay snark when nothing was wrong with the listing. Anyone fishing this hard is a liability to anyone here who is a collector, gamer, or seller who pass goods along. Attitudes like this makes people hate selling even further, trust even less, and make less want to bother if they're going to need to photograph every angle on a game, every side of a box, every side of an insert, and every page in a manual to avoid unreasonable levels of self imposed butt hurt and snowflake entitlement behavior.
The HOS closed nearly a year before your join date.
Also believe perhaps the original poster hasn't responded to all this perhaps because maybe Xenu beamed him back to the dc-8 looking mothership so they can go hunt down some thetans?
If he achieves his goal, we can breathe a sigh of relief and /thread. If he rage quits, we'll be in for more trouble here!
I think the seller had no obligation to accept the return but if he wanted to be a nice guy he could have voluntarily offered a return.
Really? I think he's just mad that he's in the wrong
On TWO forums, lol!
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
Condition item specifics for "Used" in the video games > wholesale lots category is as follows:
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
I would not want to encourage a buyer like OP. He doesn't appreciate the good deal he got. There's just no way some sellers can visibly inspect and document the condition of each page of each manual in a multi game lot sold as "used" with an excellent price. If it's such a deal breaker for OP, then OP needs to ask questions before buying and making the seller spend time + effort + money to send it.
A system that doesn't allow sellers to give negative feedback on buyers leads to this kind of flippant buyer behavior.
Condition item specifics for "Used" in the video games > wholesale lots category is as follows:
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
Or if the OP is this nit picky about condition, they shouldn't buy "used" lots without reaching out and asking additional questions when the detail is lacking. A used lot is just that - used. If the description was lacking the level of detail he needs for comfort, then he shouldn't have handled it with a buy-first ask-later mentality. Buying used lots always welcomes this "risk" and it's absurd to expect the seller to detail out everything - especially in decently sized "wholesale" lots.
But like i said, i agree with the idea in principle that buyers should exercise due diligence and try to be fair. But that's not how things work on eBay and ignorance of that leads to these little spats. You give up that expectation when using eBay to sell which regardless of how much sellers complain about the policies, is still the best and most far reaching market to sell their items.
In principle i agree with both of you. But I'm just judging the situation as it is, which is buying/selling on eBay. I've been dealing with eBay long enough that i understand and accept everything with the listing is the responsibility of the seller, and i sell on eBay with that mind set. EBay is set up for the buyer to have the right to return an item they feel is not exactly what they expected. That has been a cornerstone of their policy for a while now. And no I don't think it's the buyer's responsibility when shopping on eBay to have to ask questions before buying, seeing how they structure their policies for buyers.
But like i said, i agree with the idea in principle that buyers should exercise due diligence and try to be fair. But that's not how things work on eBay and ignorance of that leads to these little spats. You give up that expectation when using eBay to sell which regardless of how much sellers complain about the policies, is still the best and most far reaching market to sell their items.
"And no I don't think it's the buyer's responsibility when shopping on eBay to have to ask questions before buying, ..."
If this sort of thing is a deal breaker, it should be the buyer's responsibility to ask. Otherwise, the buyer has wasted the seller's money, time, effort, and generosity (in this case).
Condition item specifics for "Used" in the video games > wholesale lots category is as follows:
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
It seems that you are hung up on the part about “imperfections” being in the description. It’s obviously only talking about FURTHER “imperfections” than one would expect from the description of “used.” “Used” already describes typical imperfections from normal use. If the cover was torn off and pages or staples were missing, then we’d have an imperfection beyond what was already described by “used,” which is exactly what they are saying should be in the description. A used item described as used and showing only typical signs of normal use would not be a defect or additional “imperfection.” For someone concerned with the exact level of normal wear and tear to the point that the OP is (someone concerned with how “used” it is), he should not be hiding behind delusions of what constitutes “used” versus additional damage/defects/imperfections.
In principle i agree with both of you. But I'm just judging the situation as it is, which is buying/selling on eBay. I've been dealing with eBay long enough that i understand and accept everything with the listing is the responsibility of the seller, and i sell on eBay with that mind set. EBay is set up for the buyer to have the right to return an item they feel is not exactly what they expected. That has been a cornerstone of their policy for a while now. And no I don't think it's the buyer's responsibility when shopping on eBay to have to ask questions before buying, seeing how they structure their policies for buyers.
But like i said, i agree with the idea in principle that buyers should exercise due diligence and try to be fair. But that's not how things work on eBay and ignorance of that leads to these little spats. You give up that expectation when using eBay to sell which regardless of how much sellers complain about the policies, is still the best and most far reaching market to sell their items.
"And no I don't think it's the buyer's responsibility when shopping on eBay to have to ask questions before buying, ..."
If this sort of thing is a deal breaker, it should be the buyer's responsibility to ask. Otherwise, the buyer has wasted the seller's money, time, effort, and generosity (in this case).
You state that in a very matter-of-fact manner. But you are disregarding that it can be viewed from the opposite perspective as well. If the seller is opposed to a buyer wanting a refund for any specific imperfections (like in this case), then maybe they should have stated those imperfections in the description to avoid this. THAT would have been the proper way to avoid wasting his money, time, effort, and generosity. Come on man, you know how Ebay works. As a seller you need to be vigilant in describing your item for sale as thoroughly accurate as possible, at least when it comes to obvious things like writing on the item(s).
Condition item specifics for "Used" in the video games > wholesale lots category is as follows:
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I'm inclinced to side with the buyer on this. I have always felt like writing of any sort on games or manuals should be disclosed somewhere in the description, especially if its on paper and can't be washed off. I always make sure to check for writing before creating my listings.
If the seller was unaware of it they should compromise in some way by honoring the return request. It may suck to hear for a lot who primarily sell, but that's part of being a good seller according to Ebay, which is the site you agreed to do your business on. Responsibility of the listing falls on the seller and they need to make the buyer happy, period. That's just how it goes. Either way Ebay is most likely to take care of the buyer here anyways.
It seems that you are hung up on the part about “imperfections” being in the description. It’s obviously only talking about FURTHER “imperfections” than one would expect from the description of “used.” “Used” already describes typical imperfections from normal use. If the cover was torn off and pages or staples were missing, then we’d have an imperfection beyond what was already described by “used,” which is exactly what they are saying should be in the description. A used item described as used and showing only typical signs of normal use would not be a defect or additional “imperfection.” For someone concerned with the exact level of normal wear and tear to the point that the OP is (someone concerned with how “used” it is), he should not be hiding behind delusions of what constitutes “used” versus additional damage/defects/imperfections.
Its debatable that writing in the manuals could be constituted as normal use. Personally I see that as being beyond normal use since its not a sign of use that's going to happen in normally enjoying the item, and its especially a problem when it was not at all described in the listing which is the biggest issue and why I have no problem with the buyer wanting a refund.
Also should be noted, I am arguing exclusively within Ebay's policies, not my own principles (which seems like is what you and everyone else in the thread on the seller's side is doing). We have to see this from the perspective of Ebay's policy. The buyer received something that was not up to par with what he believed he bought, and he was accurate in that assessment. Him wanting a refund is totally warranted given Ebay's policy on the matter, end of story.
To channel the bureaucrats from Futurama, it's technically correct, which is the best kind of correct particularly because it's not debatable.
It's being used as intended. If we were talking about random pages with crayon scribbles, sure, but we are talking about pages intended for notes and high scores being used (there goes that word again) for notes and high scores.
If my used car's service history has writing in it, it's not an imperfection just because the car and everything related to it is now a collectible, even if people usually don't use that part of the manual. If the buyer cared about HOW used something was beyond knowing that it was simply used and the buyer's purchase decision hinged on that then the buyer cannot simply distort the meaning to suit his interpretation at someone else's expense. The seller has fulfilled his end of the bargain. The buyer is the one who bought it blindly without ensuring that it met the level of use he desired/required.
One thing is for sure: it is definitely within the definition of reasonable use to be called "used." He took the chance and blindly purchased it despite having different expectations than what was described and then he expected someone else to pay the price for his mistake. That is WRONG. No excuses for that buyer.
The buyer made a completely unfounded assumption about interiors , based on nothing whatsoever, then found himself unhappy that the product didn't meet his fairy-tale definition of the vague condition description. It's ridiculous.
I wouldn't say that. It's not debatable that a part of the manual that is intended to be written in would be anything other than normal, intended, use when written in. Obviously, we’re debating it anyway, but that’s because one of us is just plain wrong.
To channel the bureaucrats from Futurama, it's technically correct, which is the best kind of correct particularly because it's not debatable.
It's being used as intended. If we were talking about random pages with crayon scribbles, sure, but we are talking about pages intended for notes and high scores being used (there goes that word again) for notes and high scores.
If my used car's service history has writing in it, it's not an imperfection just because the car and everything related to it is now a collectible, even if people usually don't use that part of the manual. If the buyer cared about HOW used something was beyond knowing that it was simply used and the buyer's purchase decision hinged on that then the buyer cannot simply distort the meaning to suit his interpretation at someone else's expense. The seller has fulfilled his end of the bargain. The buyer is the one who bought it blindly without ensuring that it met the level of use he desired/required.
One thing is for sure: it is definitely within the definition of reasonable use to be called "used." He took the chance and blindly purchased it despite having different expectations than what was described and then he expected someone else to pay the price for his mistake. That is WRONG. No excuses for that buyer.
It is debatable. I've stated my reasons for why it could be seen the other way. "Used" as a description has different levels of severity, wouldn't you agree? Its really quite subjective, as this thread indicates. Better yet, do you feel two of the same manual that appear to be the same condition yet one has the writing would have differing values? The seller should have been aware of this, and more accurate with his description. Is it really that taxing for a seller to have to do? I don't think so.
Further, if you could collect all the video game instruction manuals of the world with "notes" sections I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of them do not have writing. A very small portion of gamers made use of that, which is why its something that should be disclosed if its there in something you are selling. Most people are not assuming there would be writing, especially when its not disclosed. But regardless of that, it all comes down to who Ebay sides with in a dispute case.
Also, not sure I think you're being fair saying "different expectations than what was described." My opinion, and the OP's point of view which is the one and only that matters, is that what he received WAS different than what was described, because it was not described anywhere that there was writing in the manuals!
Sorry but you'll have to accept that some people feel differently on the matter, and Ebay feels the buyer reserves the right to a refund if there's anything unexpected about the item they receive. There are many sellers who disclose when there is writing in the manuals, and that's the right thing to do as an Ebay seller. On other selling platforms it might be a different story but on there they will get their refund, and the seller should have been more aware of the policy.
If HOW used it was mattered to him then he had no business buying it blindly without asking how used it was. No one ever implied that "used" described/implied a specific level of how used something was and, therefore it is not a subjective description.
This man deliberately bought a used item described as used without asking how used even though how used it was obviously mattered to him. Sounds like he was hoping it was in better shape than it was but wasn't willing to do his due diligence, so it was a gamble. When you lose that gamble it's dispicable to make someone else pay for your mistake and it's even worse to distort reality to make it look like someone else's mistake. He needs to learn from his mistake and move on. The fact that he even bothered complaining publicly over something so minor means he has seriously deluded himself about acceptable behavior and he needs to be called out on it lest this distorted mindset spreads.
...and you need to stop saying that it wasn’t described anywhere. That’s the MOST unarguable point. It was described with one word: “used.” That word was there. What matters is intended use, not typical or majority use.
Again, how many people typically use it is irrelevant. How many people typically use the service record in their car’s manual? Doesn’t matter, even if the used car is a collectible.
This is not even about “policy.” This is about the OP’s claim that the item is not as described. That is definitely what the buyer would be claiming through eBay. eBay’s stated policy was never one that allows people to claim that the item was not as described for a refund even when the claim is not true. You are mixing up their usual actions with their stated policy. Just because eBay usually lets scamming buyers get away with it doesn’t make it right for buyers to scam sellers. That is a TERRIBLE argument.
It’s also pretty odd to say that opinions trump strict interpretation. They almost never do in any dispute. Your opinion does not change the FACT that this was as-described and that using the scores section of a manual for scores counts as intended use. The intention of the creator matters here, not the expectations of a modern collector. This was obviously a lot more common in the days before hi-scores were saved electronically, and the sections kept appearing in manuals long after they fell out of popularity (now usually as “Notes&rdquo . It’s an apples to oranges comparison anyway when we try to compare how often they are used across all game manuals.
The OP doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. How used it was mattered and he bought it anyway without considering/determining how used it was. It was used. It was described as used. Both parties knew it was used. The use did not exceed the bounds of accepted normal use as indicated by the heading at the top of the page. One participant blatantly ignored his own extra considerations that were crucial to his purchase decision and then tried to pin it on the other after wasting everyone’s time and money.
Yes, there are many levels of "used." Again, if the specific level of use mattered to the buyer then there is no subjectiveness to it when the buyer deliberately bought it blindly knowing full well the range of conditions that "used" encompasses. The only way he would be justified is if writing in a part of the manual that was intended for writing could not be interpreted as normal use. That is why he is inarguably, categorically, WRONG.
If HOW used it was mattered to him then he had no business buying it blindly without asking how used it was. No one ever implied tha "used" described/implied a specific level of how used something was and, therefore it is not a subjective description.
This man deliberately bought a used item described as used without asking how use even though how used it was obviously mattered to him. Sounds like he was hoping it was in better shape than it was but wasn't willing to do his due diligence, so it was a gamble. When you lose that gamble it's dispucable to make someone else pay for your mistake and it's even worse to distort reality to make it look like someone else's mistake. He needs to learn from his mistake and move on. The fact that he even bothered complaining publicly over something so minor means he has seriously deluded himself and he needs to be called out on it lest this distorted mindset spreads.
...and you need to stop saying that it wasn’t described anywhere. That’s the MOST unarguable point. It was described with one word: “used.” Again, what matters is intended use, not typical or majority use.
Again, how many people typically use it is irrelevant. How many people typically use the service record in their car’s manual? Doesn’t matter, even if the used car is a collectible.
This is not even about “policy.” This is about the OP’s claim that the item is not as described. That is definitely what the buyer would be claiming through eBay. eBay’s stated policy was never one that allows people to claim that the item was not as described for a refund even when the claim is not true. You are mixing up their usual actions with their stated policy. Just because eBay usually lets scamming buyers get away with it doesn’t make it right for buyers to scam sellers. That is a TERRIBLE argument.
It’s also pretty odd to say that opinions trump strict interpretation. They almost never do in any dispute. Your opinion does not change the FACT that this was as-described and that using the scores section of a manual for scores counts as intended use. The intention of the creator matters here, not the modern collector. This was obviously a lot more common in the days before hi-scores were saved electronically, and the sections kept appearing in manuals long after they fell out of popularity (now usually as “Notes&rdquo , so it’s an apples to oranges comparison anyway when you try to compare how often they are used across all game manuals.
The OP doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. How used it was mattered and he bought it anyway without considering/determining how used it was. It was used. It was described as used. Both parties knew it was used. The use did not exceed the bounds of accepted normal use as indicated by the heading at the top of the page. One participant blatantly ignored his own extra considerations that were crucial to his purchase decision and then tried to pin it on the other after wasting everyone’s time and money.
Eh, I said my piece and gave my opinion well enough. At the end of the day regardless of how you interpret Ebay's actual policy on the matter everyone knows how they handle these kind of situations. The buyer is always favored and its never a gamble for them. If their item arrives with some kind of surprise and they're not satisifed they can return it. It sucks that sellers don't get more leverage but the fact that everyone who has used Ebay more than once or twice knows this, should be the end of the story. Its not like sellers don't have ways of making their listings better to avoid this. The seller should have better described his item if he knew he would be so opposed to a "not as described" refund request.
Yes, there are many levels of "used." Again, if the specific level of use mattered to the buyer then there is no subjectiveness to it when the buyer deliberately bought it blindly knowing full well the range of conditions that "used" encompasses. The only way he would be justified is if writing in a part of the manual that was intended for writing could not be interpreted as normal use. That is why he is inarguably, categorically, WRONG.
If HOW used it was mattered to him then he had no business buying it blindly without asking how used it was. No one ever implied tha "used" described/implied a specific level of how used something was and, therefore it is not a subjective description.
This man deliberately bought a used item described as used without asking how use even though how used it was obviously mattered to him. Sounds like he was hoping it was in better shape than it was but wasn't willing to do his due diligence, so it was a gamble. When you lose that gamble it's dispucable to make someone else pay for your mistake and it's even worse to distort reality to make it look like someone else's mistake. He needs to learn from his mistake and move on. The fact that he even bothered complaining publicly over something so minor means he has seriously deluded himself and he needs to be called out on it lest this distorted mindset spreads.
...and you need to stop saying that it wasn’t described anywhere. That’s the MOST unarguable point. It was described with one word: “used.” Again, what matters is intended use, not typical or majority use.
Again, how many people typically use it is irrelevant. How many people typically use the service record in their car’s manual? Doesn’t matter, even if the used car is a collectible.
This is not even about “policy.” This is about the OP’s claim that the item is not as described. That is definitely what the buyer would be claiming through eBay. eBay’s stated policy was never one that allows people to claim that the item was not as described for a refund even when the claim is not true. You are mixing up their usual actions with their stated policy. Just because eBay usually lets scamming buyers get away with it doesn’t make it right for buyers to scam sellers. That is a TERRIBLE argument.
It’s also pretty odd to say that opinions trump strict interpretation. They almost never do in any dispute. Your opinion does not change the FACT that this was as-described and that using the scores section of a manual for scores counts as intended use. The intention of the creator matters here, not the modern collector. This was obviously a lot more common in the days before hi-scores were saved electronically, and the sections kept appearing in manuals long after they fell out of popularity (now usually as “Notes&rdquo , so it’s an apples to oranges comparison anyway when you try to compare how often they are used across all game manuals.
The OP doesn’t have a leg to stand on here. How used it was mattered and he bought it anyway without considering/determining how used it was. It was used. It was described as used. Both parties knew it was used. The use did not exceed the bounds of accepted normal use as indicated by the heading at the top of the page. One participant blatantly ignored his own extra considerations that were crucial to his purchase decision and then tried to pin it on the other after wasting everyone’s time and money.
Eh, I said my piece and gave my opinion well enough. At the end of the day regardless of how you interpret Ebay's actual policy on the matter everyone knows how they handle these kind of situations. The buyer is always favored and its never a gamble for them. If their item arrives with some kind of surprise and they're not satisifed they can return it. It sucks that sellers don't get more leverage but the fact that everyone who has used Ebay more than once or twice knows this, should be the end of the story. Its not like sellers don't have ways of making their listings better to avoid this. The seller should have better described his item if he knew he would be so opposed to a "not as described" refund request.
Sure, but just because we all know that that doesn't mean that someone is right for abusing it like the OP wants to do (and oh so many others). Being able to get away with something doesn't make it right. Knowing that this stuff happens doesn't make the seller wrong. It's down-right fraudulent to say that condition was "not as described" in this incident where the condition being disputed is EXACTLY as described. The buyer's expectations regarding how used it was should be irrelevant, even if they aren't in practice thanks to eBay allowing abuse of their policy. Being able to get away with it doesn't make the OP right, it doesn't make us wrong, it doesn't mean we should not voice that it's wrong, and it makes a very poor argument for us being wrong... so how could it possibly be a counterpoint? We all know that. It's the very basis of our complaint about what the OP is doing. Exploiting eBay's preference toward buyers to cheat sellers is not OK even if eBay allows it.
Our Hall of Shame was full of deadbeats who exploited eBay's buyer preference to pull crap like this, some more maliciously than others. I don't think the OP was as malicious as some, but being bone-headed and stubborn about stuff like this can be almost as bad. Were we wrong to consider specific deadbeat buyer behavior when eBay allowed them to get away with it? Nope. We can complain and we can block and we can spread the warnings... not just warnings about specific buyers, but warnings about what can happen if you sell on eBay.
Even if we are complaining about an eBay problem we can't fix, it's still constructive. We are peers setting behavioral expectations amongst each other. When people see how poorly this blew over with us then hopefully they will think twice about behaving like a jerk when they make a similar mistake. If we all just throw our hands up and say "it's totally OK because eBay allows it and our moral compasses are dictated by what eBay allows," then buyers who aren't malicious will begin doing it too. We have to let them know that we aren't OK with it. There is no excuse for the exploitative behavior even if eBay allows it and they know they're going to catch heat for admitting to it. Some people will think twice before burning their bridges. Some people don't want to be the jerk so the least we can do is let them know when they have crossed that line.
If the OP actually listens to his peers and re-evaluates his own position to avoid being a jerk, then I respect him. This "we'll see what eBay says" attitude is NOT helping his case when we all know that eBay allows people to be jerks and exploit sellers. What eBay allows a jerk to get away with doesn't make them less of a jerk... it ENABLES their jerkitude. Can't hide behind that to claim the higher ground.
You can live in your fantasy world of thinking you're making a dent in the problem. I'll go ahead and continue to structure my listings in a way that makes it harder for buyers to make claims of "item not as described" and continue my 10+ years of selling without a single return.
Didn't i preface my argument by saying in principle i agree with you? I'm not talking about right or wrong here, only what kind of expectations you should have when doing business on eBay. You are making it seem like the buyer here is intentionally looking to scam sellers. I see no reason to believe that's their intention. I'm a realist. Ebay is a huge marketplace, and it makes far more sense to protect myself as a seller with more accurately described listings rather than expect all buyers will have perfect etiquette and moral fairness should something go wrong.
...but we ARE discussing what’s right and wrong, regardless. You started out by saying that you, personally, sided with the buyer here based on what eBay allows... now admittedly with no consideration for what was right or wrong. That, right there, is exactly what we are responding to. Let’s look at how your previous posts looks in this light...
Eh, I said my piece and gave my opinion well enough. At the end of the day regardless of [what is right or wrong or] how you interpret Ebay's actual policy on the matter everyone knows how they handle these kind of situations. The buyer is always favored and its never a gamble for them [as long as they have no scruples about being a jerk]. If their item arrives with some kind of surprise and they're not satisifed they can return it [as long as they have no scruples about being a jerk]. It sucks that [jerks can exploit innocent and] sellers don't get more leverage but the fact that everyone who has used Ebay more than once or twice knows this, should be the end of the story. [If eBay allows it, we have no right to expect better behavior.] Its not like sellers don't have ways of making their listings better to avoid this. The seller should have better described his item if he knew he would be so opposed to a [fraudulent] "not as described" refund request.
Our comments from the start have been about what is right with full knowledge of what eBay does to enable what is wrong. Again, eBay does not dictate right and wrong. If they did, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. We are showing you what siding with the buyer is actually saying when it comes to right and wrong so that the OP or others will not hide behind it as some justification for claiming that they are NOT being a jerk. eBay letting them get away with it will not let them excuse the behavior with their peers. You got dangerously close to saying that it does, which deserves a response/clarification, like my additions above.
And no, I wouldn't encourage that kind of behavior. But only in a perfect world would everyone always think to ask questions about any concerns before buying, and be as considerate as one can be. But its not always going to happen that way. Maybe some people don't realize their concerns until its too late and receive the item. There is nuance here. I also wouldn't encourage someone to not inspect their items for sale thoroughly before listing, and make a mention of something like writing which permanently alters the items beyond what I and many believe is normal use. But I can also understand how some people wouldn't think it a big deal. BUT, as the seller you have more responsibility in that regard when dealing on Ebay.
I can have some sympathy for BOTH sides here, something you are apparently incapable of and that's unfortunate. That's all I'm going to say on this. I've heard your stance on it and duly noted, moving on now.
I do not feel like I was misleading and the circumstances did not compel me to be helpful, but I am grateful for the outcome. I will certainly be reevaluating how I sell on eBay, but I think it is regrettable that that is the case. I really can't be selling four Vectrex games shipped for $30 if there is a chance of them being returned at my expense.
Had this dispute been over a less specialized consumer item, or really any item other than one that both the buyer and seller were devoted enthusiasts of, there would have been no chance of a peer review like this because we would not have crossed paths in an alternate community like this, (where participants actually put stock in peer reviews). I think the outcome is a lot different than it would have been if we only used eBay to sort it out.