..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.
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.
It doesn’t matter even if it were a business. Business transactions are a two way street. Always remember that the seller is a person too. People excuse a lot of bad behavior toward my employer because it’s “just a business,” completely ignoring that their theft and fraud hurts the employees and our other customers. “It’s just business” is a bad mentality to have even when we aren’t talking about bad consequences for real people based on the buyer’s misbehavior.
...and there’s no nuance here about the scenarios you mention AT ALL. If a buyer didn’t think that there might be writing in a manual described as “used” and didn’t realize that it was crucial to his purchase decision until after the fact, it’s still the buyer’s mistake. You shouldn’t claim fraud (“item as undescribed” ) and besmirch an honest seller just because you have buyer’s remorse even if you excuse your unethical behavior with “it’s just business.” If you do that then you’d be the only one committing fraud, and there’s no nuance to who’s in the wrong at all.
So glad this worked out! Despite his comment, it sounds like the OP is at least sympathetic to the how the community feels about this and hopefully won't become one of those toxic jerks who selfishly does this kind fraud while thinking it's OK.
It doesn’t matter even if it were a business. Business transactions are a two way street. Always remember that the seller is a person too. People excuse a lot of bad behavior toward my employer because it’s “just a business,” completely ignoring that their theft and fraud hurts the employees and our other customers. “It’s just business” is a bad mentality to have even when we aren’t talking about bad consequences for real people based on the buyer’s misbehavior.
...and there’s no nuance here about the scenarios you mention AT ALL. If a buyer didn’t think that there might be writing in a manual described as “used” and didn’t realize that it was crucial to his purchase decision until after the fact, it’s still the buyer’s mistake. You shouldn’t claim fraud (“item as undescribed&rdquo and besmirch an honest seller just because you have buyer’s remorse even if you excuse your unethical behavior with “it’s just business.” If you do that then you’d be the only one committing fraud, and there’s no nuance to who’s in the wrong at all.
Lol, so its fraud for a buyer to want to want to return an item that he's not satisfied with (which he's fully allowed to do in that market setting) since there was something about it not shown in the description? But there's nothing at all wrong with how the seller gave such sparse information regarding the condition of the item, then refused to own up to that fact and try to be accommodating in any way. Do you hear how butthurt and triggered you sound saying this? Given your responses on the subject up to this point probably not. I don't care if you feel its "bad behavior." How you feel is not automatically fact, and reeks of seller bias. Its an opinion, yet you continue to arrogantly speak in a matter of fact manner.
I've already made plenty of counter-points and offered alternative viewpoints in defense of the other party to everything you've thrown at me showing the buyer is not necessarily 100% in the wrong here and deserves at least partial sympathy, but your mind is apparently too one-sided for real discussion. You see no nuance because you are so biased and blindly in favor of the seller side of this. I really hope you never have to experience buyer's remorse because of a poor item description. Might end up having an existential crisis.
I've enjoyed my time at NintendoAge but little by little I see the flaws in the community that so many outsiders always talk about. This place is an echochamber policed by a fairly small group of regular members with a strict and one-sided set of beliefs regarding the collecting hobby, and any outlier viewpoints get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion. This place really is the perpetual circle jerk people always claimed it to be. Now I have seen it with my own eyes.
LOL! I'm stopping after the first sentence because you seem to have forgotten what thread you're in even though I quoted it. "Item as undescribed" obviously means "item not as described," which is demonstrably incorrect. eBay does not force a satisfaction guarantee on sellers. There is no "I wasn't satisfied" option that forces the seller to accept it back at his/her expense which means that the buyer would have to LIE. That's what he entire thread is about. It would be fraud to return it under the pretense that it was not as described when it was exactly as described.
...and, again, being “fully allowed” to get away with fraud does not make it OK. We’re really talking in circles with you! What eBay intentionally “allows” is for a buyer to return an item that was not as described. What eBay unintentionally allows is exploitation by scammers and jerks who claim that when it isn’t true. That’s what this has been about since the beginning.
LOL! I'm stopping after the first sentence because you seem to have forgotten what thread you're in even though I quoted it. "Item as undescribed" obviously means "item not as described," which is demonstrably incorrect. eBay does not force a satisfaction guarantee on sellers. There is no "I wasn't satisfied" option that forces the seller to accept it back at his/her expense which means that the buyer would have to LIE. That's what he entire thread is about. It would be fraud to return it under the pretense that it was not as described when it was exactly as described.
...and, again, being “fully allowed” to get away with fraud does not make it OK. We’re really talking in circles with you! What eBay intentionally “allows” is for a buyer to return an item that was not as described. What eBay unintentionally allows is exploitation by scammers and jerks who claim that when it isn’t true. That’s what this has been about since the beginning.
Feel like I'm talking in circles with you too. Maybe you should stop replying to me. Just a thought.
Calling "not as described" a lie is a subjective thing you guys here have for some reason. How can it be assumed every buyer should be in the know of all the condition issues the seller is intending by using the vague "used" condition category? How the hell is that fair to expect of a buyer? You continue to disregard the fact some people believe certain things should be disclosed, regardless of whether people like you (a collecting enthusiast) would think it to be common knowledge in the hobby. Totally short-sighted and unfair.
Lol, so its fraud for a buyer to want to want to return an item that he's not satisfied with (which he's fully allowed to do in that market setting) since there was something about it not shown in the description?
Yes, it's fraud to justify a return under false pretenses. Duh. eBay does not "fully allow" someone to return something for being dissatisfied. Where did you get that idea?! The problem is that eBay inadvertently allows the buyer to LIE and return it anyway. Exploiting this does is not OK just because eBay allows it but you keep falling back to that even though we've already said so. How do you expect that to convince us? If someone buys something from my employer (a retailer) and damages it deliberately in order to make a return, can we tell? Probably not, but it's still fraud. Yes eBay is exploitable in the buyer's favor and the result is that buyers can always make false claims and force sellers to pay, but it's still FRAUD when they exploit it. It isn't OK by default. Don't tell us that eBay allowing it means we have to be OK with it. Bad behavior is still bad behavior. Someone willing to rip off a seller on eBay is someone I'd rather not deal with here either for obvious reasons. I'm glad the OP has reconsidered his claim.
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
But there's nothing at all wrong with how the seller gave such sparse information regarding the condition of the item, then refused to own up to that fact and try to be accommodating in any way.
CORRECT. There's nothing AT ALL wrong with the seller's description and there is NOTHING to "own up to." That argument only works when you aren't assuming that we started from the same false premise as you. We didn't. We assessed what the buyer was claiming and looked at what the seller described. Multiple people have said that it's inarguable. You insist that it is and yet I still don't see an argument from you that isn't about "opinion" and "feeling." Tell us what the seller did wrong that he needs "to own up to." If you tell us "sparse description" then you obvious have no concept of right from wrong. He can describe it as thoroughly or as sparsely as he likes as long as the item is AS described. The seller's description does not contradict the condition the buyer received them in so there is NO basis for an "Not as described" claim at all. The OP failed to consider all the ramifications of that description ("used") which is entirely on the OP. It's shameful for him to expect someone else to pay for his mistake and feel justified in making a fraudulent claim to force that.
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
Do you hear how butthurt and triggered you sound saying this? Given your responses on the subject up to this point probably not.
Look who's talking! Yes, I'm DEEPLY offended that anyone can think it's OK to do what the OP tried to do (fraudulently claim "Not As Described" to get a refund he wasn't entitled to). I'm MORE offended that he would try to do that to any member of this community. I'm also troubled that some people think that kind of behavior is tolerable in the community. I wouldn't want to make trades on NintendoAge if I knew that we tolerated and excused people who might make baseless claims to the mods to get what he/she wants. The claim in the OP was INARGUABLY baseless. If you disagee, tell us how it was "not as described" when it was described as "used" and the writing found fits every possible interpretation of "used." If you can't do that, then the argument is over.
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
I don't care if you feel its "bad behavior." How you feel is not automatically fact, and reeks of seller bias. Its an opinion, yet you continue to arrogantly speak in a matter of fact manner.
It sure seems like you care. It's really annoying when one person keeps hiding behind "opinion" instead of having a productive discussion, especially when they try to represent your positionb as also being opinipon. It's not. Interpretation of the facts, sure, but strict interpretation of the facts TRUMPS opinion. Show us how you interpret the fact differently. Stop hiding behind "opinion" when you can't rationalize your position or counter mine with logic. Even if I had a seller's bias, facts have no bias. Countering facts with opinion demonstrates the real bias: Your core beliefs. You've internalized it and you see anything contrary as a threat. That's actual science.
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
I've already made plenty of counter-points and offered alternative viewpoints in defense of the other party to everything you've thrown at me showing the buyer is not necessarily 100% in the wrong here and deserves at least partial sympathy, but your mind is apparently too one-sided for real discussion.
You've done no such thing. You mischaracterized the opposing position as opinion then talked in circles and then completely mis-stated eBay's policy as one of buyer satisfaction.
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
You see no nuance because you are so biased and blindly in favor of the seller side of this.
Funny, because I've only used strict interpretation of policy and the English language to justify my position and never invoked "nuance" or "opinion" to pre-emptively dismiss a response.
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
I really hope you never have to experience buyer's remorse because of a poor item description. Might end up having an existential crisis.
Hasn't everyone? We all make mistakes. What's so bad about that? Why would my mistake be someone else's responsibility?!
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
I've enjoyed my time at NintendoAge but little by little I see the flaws in the community that so many outsiders always talk about. This place is an echochamber policed by a fairly small group of regular members with a strict and one-sided set of beliefs regarding the collecting hobby, and any outlier viewpoints get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion. This place really is the perpetual circle jerk people always claimed it to be. Now I have seen it with my own eyes.
"Echochamber?" Funny, because I found someone I disagree with and neither of us have backed down. Doesn't seem like an "echochamber" from my perspective. Sounds like you just need thicker skin when someone disagrees, especially if you aren't actually open to having your mind changed. This seems to be going down the exact same way at AtariAge, BTW. "Regulars?" Heck I barely had any presence here since last summer and started posting in this thread specifically because the OP's attitude cannot be tolerated. Does this "just business" excuse excuse the behavior when two enthusiasts make a trade on NintendoAge and one decides to make up claims against the other? No. That behavior is toxic and the callout was necessary.
LOL! I'm stopping after the first sentence because you seem to have forgotten what thread you're in even though I quoted it. "Item as undescribed" obviously means "item not as described," which is demonstrably incorrect. eBay does not force a satisfaction guarantee on sellers. There is no "I wasn't satisfied" option that forces the seller to accept it back at his/her expense which means that the buyer would have to LIE. That's what he entire thread is about. It would be fraud to return it under the pretense that it was not as described when it was exactly as described.
...and, again, being “fully allowed” to get away with fraud does not make it OK. We’re really talking in circles with you! What eBay intentionally “allows” is for a buyer to return an item that was not as described. What eBay unintentionally allows is exploitation by scammers and jerks who claim that when it isn’t true. That’s what this has been about since the beginning.
Feel like I'm talking in circles with you too. Maybe you should stop replying to me. Just a thought.
If my goal is to change your mind, why would I stop replying?
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
Calling "not as described" a lie is a subjective thing you guys here have for some reason.
There is nothing "subjective" about it! When the condition matched the description then the item was as described and claiming otherwise to get what you want is a blatant lie. It's like you're speaking a different language and using all the wrong words... or maybe your concept of the terms is completely opposite from what they mean. The level of detail described is absolutely irrelevant. When the seller says "used" and does not say "no writing" then I can expect that there MIGHT be writing in it... even without buying it! The seller could have just listed them as "games" if he wanted to. "Not as described" does not mean "Not described well enough for me to know what I wanted to know for a risk-free purchase." This was never about the degree of detail in the description. That's not even a part of the argument. The seller is free to describe it as sparsely or as detailed as he wants as long as it is accurate or misleading.
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
How can it be assumed every buyer should be in the know of all the condition issues the seller is intending by using the vague "used" condition category?
The real question is: How can you assume that the buyer is entitled to MORE than described? No, they aren't expected to know everything, but they DO know what the seller describes and shows them. They have the OPTION to buy based on that. eBay makes it very clear that you enter into a contract with the seller based on the description when you commit to buy. The buyer is not compelled to enter the contract so THE BUYER must consider if the description is good enough for him/her or not. You seem to think that "used" does not describe writing in the manual, but it does! The buyer ALSO knows that writing is "use" and that the seller did not say that there was no writing. This should have caused the buyer to consider what kinds of "use" he might not be able to see and whether or not it would be a deal-breaker. This incorrect assumption/expectation about the seller's obligation to describe every "used" considerations a buyer might have perfectly explains why you think it's subjective, but here's why it's not: The buyer knows EXACTLY how vague the term "used" is and the buyer bought it anyway. The vaguness of "used" encompasses a range of used conditions including writing in the manual. Unless you can show that "used" doesn't include the possibility of writing in the manual or that writing in the manual could be construed as something else, like damage beyond that caused by intended use, then there is no gray area here.
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
How the hell is that fair to expect of a buyer?
What's unfair about a buyer getting what he paid for in the condition described?
Originally posted by: Meteor_of_War
You continue to disregard the fact some people believe certain things should be disclosed, regardless of whether people like you (a collecting enthusiast) would think it to be common knowledge in the hobby. Totally short-sighted and unfair.
This isn't about what people "believe" should be disclosed. Anyone who buys based on that description should expect that it might have writing in it and if they were dumb enough to assume otherwise then that is THEIR mistake. If I picked up a used manual from a seller at the flea market and agreed to the price, I can't demand a refund when I later find writing in it. If I didn't consider or check, that's on me. Yes, it's more difficult when you can't handle it yourself and you only know what the seller says/shows, but that's for YOU to consider. eBay is still supposed to be the same way. If the description is accurate then it's up to the buyer to consider if it addresses all of his possible concerns first. When you make an offer, win a bid, or BIN on eBay, you enter into a contract. You agreed to pay for what was described. The buyer CANNOT simply claim higher expectations than what was described... at least not without lying/exploiting eBay's other policies. You want to talk about "fair?" It's not "fair" to make someone else pay for the buyer's impulsiveness when it was a contract that the seller performed flawlessly and to the letter. If you don't think so then you should be able to tell us what part of the description was not as described.
It doesn’t matter even if it were a business. Business transactions are a two way street. Always remember that the seller is a person too. People excuse a lot of bad behavior toward my employer because it’s “just a business,” completely ignoring that their theft and fraud hurts the employees and our other customers. “It’s just business” is a bad mentality to have even when we aren’t talking about bad consequences for real people based on the buyer’s misbehavior.
...and there’s no nuance here about the scenarios you mention AT ALL. If a buyer didn’t think that there might be writing in a manual described as “used” and didn’t realize that it was crucial to his purchase decision until after the fact, it’s still the buyer’s mistake. You shouldn’t claim fraud (“item as undescribed&rdquo and besmirch an honest seller just because you have buyer’s remorse even if you excuse your unethical behavior with “it’s just business.” If you do that then you’d be the only one committing fraud, and there’s no nuance to who’s in the wrong at all.
Lol, so its fraud for a buyer to want to want to return an item that he's not satisfied with (which he's fully allowed to do in that market setting) since there was something about it not shown in the description? But there's nothing at all wrong with how the seller gave such sparse information regarding the condition of the item, then refused to own up to that fact and try to be accommodating in any way. Do you hear how butthurt and triggered you sound saying this? Given your responses on the subject up to this point probably not. I don't care if you feel its "bad behavior." How you feel is not automatically fact, and reeks of seller bias. Its an opinion, yet you continue to arrogantly speak in a matter of fact manner.
I've already made plenty of counter-points and offered alternative viewpoints in defense of the other party to everything you've thrown at me showing the buyer is not necessarily 100% in the wrong here and deserves at least partial sympathy, but your mind is apparently too one-sided for real discussion. You see no nuance because you are so biased and blindly in favor of the seller side of this. I really hope you never have to experience buyer's remorse because of a poor item description. Might end up having an existential crisis.
I've enjoyed my time at NintendoAge but little by little I see the flaws in the community that so many outsiders always talk about. This place is an echochamber policed by a fairly small group of regular members with a strict and one-sided set of beliefs regarding the collecting hobby, and any outlier viewpoints get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion. This place really is the perpetual circle jerk people always claimed it to be. Now I have seen it with my own eyes.
Thats what you got from the entire community, from this back and forth with one member over another member's selling disagreement? Sorry to see that.
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.
Just had to say I loved this analogy, such a great example of this scenario. The manuals were used...as designed...what gives?
It doesn’t matter even if it were a business. Business transactions are a two way street. Always remember that the seller is a person too. People excuse a lot of bad behavior toward my employer because it’s “just a business,” completely ignoring that their theft and fraud hurts the employees and our other customers. “It’s just business” is a bad mentality to have even when we aren’t talking about bad consequences for real people based on the buyer’s misbehavior.
...and there’s no nuance here about the scenarios you mention AT ALL. If a buyer didn’t think that there might be writing in a manual described as “used” and didn’t realize that it was crucial to his purchase decision until after the fact, it’s still the buyer’s mistake. You shouldn’t claim fraud (“item as undescribed&rdquo and besmirch an honest seller just because you have buyer’s remorse even if you excuse your unethical behavior with “it’s just business.” If you do that then you’d be the only one committing fraud, and there’s no nuance to who’s in the wrong at all.
Lol, so its fraud for a buyer to want to want to return an item that he's not satisfied with (which he's fully allowed to do in that market setting) since there was something about it not shown in the description? But there's nothing at all wrong with how the seller gave such sparse information regarding the condition of the item, then refused to own up to that fact and try to be accommodating in any way. Do you hear how butthurt and triggered you sound saying this? Given your responses on the subject up to this point probably not. I don't care if you feel its "bad behavior." How you feel is not automatically fact, and reeks of seller bias. Its an opinion, yet you continue to arrogantly speak in a matter of fact manner.
I've already made plenty of counter-points and offered alternative viewpoints in defense of the other party to everything you've thrown at me showing the buyer is not necessarily 100% in the wrong here and deserves at least partial sympathy, but your mind is apparently too one-sided for real discussion. You see no nuance because you are so biased and blindly in favor of the seller side of this. I really hope you never have to experience buyer's remorse because of a poor item description. Might end up having an existential crisis.
I've enjoyed my time at NintendoAge but little by little I see the flaws in the community that so many outsiders always talk about. This place is an echochamber policed by a fairly small group of regular members with a strict and one-sided set of beliefs regarding the collecting hobby, and any outlier viewpoints get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion. This place really is the perpetual circle jerk people always claimed it to be. Now I have seen it with my own eyes.
Lol. Honestly mate, NintendoAge is great, and this is being said from someone who fits into the category of someone with "outlier viewpoints [that] get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion."
Do all of you guys really neglect to say that there is writing in the manual when you sell at item like that on eBay?
Unless I am showing it in photos to where it is self evident, I would certainly include something like that in my selling description, if for no other purpose but to avoid having a buyer have something they could possibly contest down the line.
I suppose it may be a matter of what condition you try to claim in the process, but it seems like a somewhat significant omission to me.
^ Well selling a Lot of items is different than selling a single item, even eBay categorizes them differently. It also meets the description of used. Apparently it was writing in an area intended to be written in. Completely different than stickers, tears, damage IMO.
Combine that with the likelihood that the seller hasn't dealt with this kind of anal buyer treatment, they probably didn't even think of it (like a high percentage of sellers would do). In a lot sale, I'd provide general information of what is included stating they are used but I can't say I'd flip through every page of every manual and explicitly call out everything. This wasn't a high-dollar sale either, and if so, I think I'd put more effort into the description.
Do you actually think this warrants a refund?
Like CZroes comparison, if you sell your car on Craigslist, are you going to be sure to mention the maintenance history is written in the manual? Highly unlikely.
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.
Just had to say I loved this analogy, such a great example of this scenario. The manuals were used...as designed...what gives?
People usually groan when someone breaks out the car analogies but I couldn’t think of a more fitting one.
Used car with manual equals possible or likely manual use. A used car with manual does not imply an unused manual from any reasonable interpretation. Signs of normal use are not a further imperfection that warrants mandatory inclusion in the description unless the item was listed as new, like new, or possibly new. eBay’s “Used” condition note about seeing the description for imperfections is obviously talking about further imperfections than you get from normal use that were not already covered in that condition section.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Do all of you guys really neglect to say that there is writing in the manual when you sell at item like that on eBay?
Unless I am showing it in photos to where it is self evident, I would certainly include something like that in my selling description, if for no other purpose but to avoid having a buyer have something they could possibly contest down the line.
I suppose it may be a matter of what condition you try to claim in the process, but it seems like a somewhat significant omission to me.
It’s only an omission if the seller knew. Nothing about that description would indicate that the seller cared enough to check. It was a multi-game/manual lot. The buyer had unreasonable expectations that were not supported by the description.
To assume that they were inspected that closely based on a description of “used” and then to assume that it would be mentioned when the description makes no further mention of the condition is, frankly, idiotic.
I always thought its on the buyer to assume the worst. If mint conditions manuals were expected in a 30$ lot, it should be asked ahead of time, unlesa the seller says that the manuals are mint.
Like CZroes comparison, if you sell your car on Craigslist, are you going to be sure to mention the maintenance history is written in the manual? Highly unlikely.
I think I could imagine a scenario where a buyer might want a refund when writing in the manuals was omitted from the description.
Not saying that every single page needs to be noted just a generic "some writing in this manual" with even a basic description of where would suffice.
I'm also not saying that they are automatically justified in getting a refund and returning the item.
But it does present a potential grey area, that can call into question whether a seller might have intentionally omitted those details, or not.
And CZroes car maintenance manual is a pretty ridiculous comparison, in my opinion.
I suppose it may be a matter of what condition you try to claim in the process, but it seems like a somewhat significant omission to me.
It’s only an omission if the seller knew. Nothing about that description would indicate that the seller cared enough to check. It was a multi-game/manual lot. The buyer had unreasonable expectations that were not supported by the description.
To assume that they were inspected that closely based on a description of “used” and then to assume that it would be mentioned when the description makes no further mention of the condition is, frankly, idiotic.
I suppose it may be a matter of what condition you try to claim in the process, but it seems like a somewhat significant omission to me.
It’s only an omission if the seller knew. Nothing about that description would indicate that the seller cared enough to check. It was a multi-game/manual lot. The buyer had unreasonable expectations that were not supported by the description.
To assume that they were inspected that closely based on a description of “used” and then to assume that it would be mentioned when the description makes no further mention of the condition is, frankly, idiotic.
Speaking to Arch's question above, i agree with him. Writing is definitely something that should be mentioned IMO in a listing. I can understand minor blemishes being overlooked and you can't list every imperfection, but writing is kind of an important one. We are talking about a 4 game lot, not dozens of games, it would take 2 seconds to flip through the books and check this sort of thing and it is hardly unreasonable to ask this of a seller.
"used" condition can literally mean anything. If you are seller with high volume it is just easier and common to put a disclaimer that says "items may have writing, creases, greatest hits, etc..." something a long those lines to cover your ass and give the buyer a heads up. Or if you are not going to do that, just accurately describe what is listed to avoid situations like this. Everyones expectations are different when buying items, and what someone considers "used" will vary among buyers. Save both of you the headache and either put a disclaimer or accurately describe your items.
And if you really want to get down to it. The "used" Description taken right from ebay states this.
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I think as a buyer it is also important to ask questions if unsure, so i think there is responsibility and blame on both sides of the fence here.
Speaking to Arch's question above, i agree with him. Writing is definitely something that should be mentioned IMO in a listing. I can understand minor blemishes being overlooked and you can't list every imperfection, but writing is kind of an important one. We are talking about a 4 game lot, not dozens of games, it would take 2 seconds to flip through the books and check this sort of thing and it is hardly unreasonable to ask this of a seller.
"used" condition can literally mean anything. If you are seller with high volume it is just easier and common to put a disclaimer that says "items may have writing, creases, greatest hits, etc..." something a long those lines to cover your ass and give the buyer a heads up. Or if you are not going to do that, just accurately describe what is listed to avoid situations like this. Everyones expectations are different when buying items, and what someone considers "used" will vary among buyers. Save both of you the headache and either put a disclaimer or accurately describe your items.
And if you really want to get down to it. The "used" Description taken right from ebay states this.
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I think as a buyer it is also important to ask questions if unsure, so i think there is responsibility and blame on both sides of the fence here.
Writing where it doesn’t belong and isn’t intended is an important one. Writing in an item described as “like new” is an important one. Writing in a manual where the description definitely included the possibility that the hi-scores may be “used,” definitely different. Important to some, which is why the onus is on them not to assume.
Again, eBay’s description of “used” and the normal signs of intended use do not count as a “imperfection” unless it was implied that the condition was better than used (“like new&rdquo. It is not an imperfection when a used item shows signs of use. When something is already described as “used,” then it is an imperfection when there is something more than you would expect from intended use. Even if it was described as “new” then any condition from the range of normal new conditions (including shelf wear!) are not imperfections. You wouldn’t expect a new item to have a missing box, which makes that an imperfection in the condition described which should be noted in the description. In that case, something like “New but manual was removed to replace another customer’s missing manual.” would suffice. Saying “Used. Please note that the hi-score section may also be used” is extra detail that we might appreciate, but certainly not required. It’s even a bit redundant. Heck, when I see that I consider the chances of finding writing even higher since a seller may know fully well that there’s writing and is obfuscating that.
Are you suggesting that a seller doesn't a look at the items they are selling?
If the seller wants to, they certainly can as long as their description reflects their lack of familiarity. TONS of items are sold “as is”,” “untested,” or “used.” The buyer chooses whether or not the description satisfies their concerns BEFORE agreeing to the purchase.
Are you saying that it’s NOT OK to unless the seller flips through every page of the manual and specifically mentions writing that did not contradict his earlier description? That’s a pretty high standard for a cheap lot with several used games and manuals.
Your post is pretty offensive, in its tone and implication.
Only if you misinterpret it (or you don’t like the truth but let’s assume the former). Case in point...
I am certainly not "frankly, idiotic" for pointing out that WHEN I SELL, I make a point of noting the condition ACCURATELY when I make a listing.
Because I know that plenty of buyers want an accurate description of what they are buying.
You completely misinterpreted. I said: “To assume that they were inspected that closely based on a description of ‘used’ and then to assume that it would be mentioned when the description makes no further mention of the condition is, frankly, idiotic.”
That was clearly about the buyer making an assumption. Who said anything about you as a seller? No would implied that you made a similar assumption/purchase. A fraudster excusing their behavior based on this idiotic and plainly incorrect assumption is idiotic.
Evidently I am being unreasonable in thinking other sellers should be similarly forthcoming with details in their auctions.
You are. It good when a seller does but that does not raise the standard. The sellers don’t have to say anything and, similarly. their potential buyer’s don’t have to buy it. The buyers must decide if the seller’s description satisfies them with full knowledge that their only justifiable recourse for a not as described case is if it is truly not as described. Not being described enough has NEVER been a valid complaint. If the description said “like new” and it had writing in it, then he’d have a valid complaint. Heck, descriptions themselves are optional and eBay will even automatically write descriptions for many items. I firmly believe anything worth selling on eBay is worth writing a description for, but that’s a personal standard and I obviously don’t impose that standard on anyone else. If I see a listing with a sparse or missing description and I’m interested in it, it’s on me to consider all the possibilities before I buy it.
And a vague description isn't accurate if it is sufficiently vague and withholds known information.
Perhaps this auction didn't meet that threshold, but I am speaking in general, here.
You’re right when a vague description is so vague that it risks being wrong and the actual condition contradicts it. That didn’t happen here. A similarly vague description such as “like new” absolutely would have justified a “not as described” case, since “new” manuals would not have had writing in them.
That is, if a seller makes a vague description, then they are potentially opening themselves up to disatisfied customers who didn't have their expectations met.
Yes, because the seller risks incorrectly describing the item in a way that mattered to the buyer. That didn’t happen here. The buyer expecting more than described should not justify this particular claim.
Making a clear description that notes "major flaws" (i.e. a manual is missing pages or is written in) puts expectations in the right place.
"Heavily used" would probably get the same effect, in the generic.
How used it is, is where things start to get subjective. “Used” does not describe a specific level of use and the description incorporates everything which may be considered heavy use and light use. The description made no attempt to describe how used it was and, thus, the buyer had no reasonable expectation that the hi-score pages would not be used. The clear, non-subjective, standard is that any signs of use from normal or intended use can be described as “used condition.” Any imperfections, damage, or flaws beyond that, like missing or torn pages counts as a major flaw or defect that should be separately noted in the description. Being water damaged with all the pages glued together is not a normal sign of intended use. Missing staples is not a sign of intended use. Being covered in tape and rental stickers is not from intended use. If the buyer found anything like those then he would have my full support, but he wouldn’t need it. He’d be entitled to his refund and he would not have to lie to eBay in order to get it. Having writing in a section intended for writing is not a flaw or defect beyond what was described and cannot be called a “major flaw” in an item already described as “used.” Used is used with a clearly defined meaning in the context of the description and eBay’s terms. It only gets subjective when we try to assign some unjustifiable expectations to the word, like “between light and heavy use” (with all the subjectiveness of what constitutes “light” and “heavy” use).
But "used"... could mean almost anything in terms of condition, to the point of basically not being a useful description by itself.
Exactly. The buyer should expect a broad range of possible conditions when it is described that vaguely. The vagueness is part of the description. That is why it’s really stupid to buy something that says “used” and then complain about signs of normal or intended use. It’s as useful as the broad/vague description was intended.
It would always be wrong to extort the seller by demanding a partial refund when something is "not as described". On that, I agree.
Well, wrong when it is genuinely as described. If it’s genuinely not as described then the buyer is entitled to a refund (full or partial).
But I would definitely disagree that RETURNING an item that was poorly described (and withheld flaws) and seeking a refund for the return is likely a legitimate use of the feature, and something a seller should consider when they formulate their description and decide on what level of detail to provide.
Wanting to make a RETURN is not "extorting" anybody, where demanding a partial refund clearly treads into potentially fraudulent territory.
Only if the buyer was entitled to a return. That’s the way it’s set up and that’s why the buyer had to lie to even file the case. Merely “wanting” it does not entitle them to a return. Even then, it’s not the “wanting” that’s wrong, it’s the taking what they want when they aren’t entitled to it that’s wrong. Lying to justify the return is fraud. The disputed “flaw” in this case was not “withheld” and was entirely within the range of conditions anyone could expect from the description given. It is another cut and dry, clear as day, should be obvious, open and shut, case of a buyer twisting and distorting the meaning of “not as described” to suit himself. Lying to submit the case anyway just because he “wants” to is as bad as intentionally damaging it to get a refund/return.
Can’t multi-quote for some reason so I’ll just have to reply in-post.
If you guys wanna get hung up on the word "imperfections", go for it. I am willing to bet that word could be used to argue a return on 90+% of "used" sales. You could literally find a microscopic wrinkle on an index page and demand a refund.
These items were used, as intended, and were described as such. They were not damaged from what I understand, just simply used as designed.
The real issue here is the OP being anal about what he purchased. The OP needs to understand that if they are to be this anal about purchases, they need to put some more diligence and effort into their buying process - ask the seller for more info if they are not confident/comfortable before bidding or hitting BIN. A transaction is a 2-way street. Not just defending the seller here, it also saves the buyer tons of hassle.
Buyers like this are one of the reasons so many people shy away from selling on eBay, it's impossible to satisfy everyone's individual expectations and eBay's buyer-centralized policies support the problem.
Saying “Used. Please note that the hi-score section may also be used” is extra detail that we might appreciate, but certainly not required. It’s even a bit redundant. Heck, when I see that I consider the chances of finding writing even higher since a seller may know fully well that there’s writing and is obfuscating that.
Under what reasonable circumstance, on a very small lot of manuals (4 in this case, right?) would a seller NOT know there is this particular kind of writing in the manual?
If you guys wanna get hung up on the word "imperfections", go for it. I am willing to bet that word could be used to argue a return on 90+% of "used" sales. You could literally find a microscopic wrinkle on an index page and demand a refund.
These items were used, as intended, and were described as such. They were not damaged from what I understand, just simply used as designed.
The real issue here is the OP being anal about what he purchased. The OP needs to understand that if they are to be this anal about purchases, they need to put some more diligence and effort into their buying process - ask the seller for more info if they are not confident/comfortable before bidding or hitting BIN. A transaction is a 2-way street. Not just defending the seller here, it also saves the buyer tons of hassle.
Buyers like this are one of the reasons so many people shy away from selling on eBay, it's impossible to satisfy everyone's individual expectations and eBay's buyer-centralized policies support the problem.
Yes. Could the seller have described it better? Sure. Was the description wrong? No. Was the buyer entitled to a return based on it not being as described? Also, no. Can the buyer get a return anyway by making a false claim? Probably. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not.
These items were used, as intended, and were described as such. They were not damaged from what I understand, just simply used as designed.
...
Buyers like this are one of the reasons so many people shy away from selling on eBay, it's impossible to satisfy everyone's individual expectations and eBay's buyer-centralized policies support the problem.
"Used as designed"... if it was known that they were written in "as designed", I still contend that a seller should clearly disclose that, because it is EASILY knowable to the seller, since "intended use" would be confined to probably one or two pages of the manual.
In terms of satisfying expectations... a seller doesn't do themselves any favors by posting a vague and meaningless description rather than a description that actually sets expectations accurately.
Yes. Could the seller have described it better? Sure. Was the description wrong? No. Was the buyer entitled to a return based on it not being as described? Also, no. Can the buyer get a return anyway by making a false claim? Probably. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not.
The description was incomplete by missing easily known and easily conveyed information.
(i.e. writing in a section of the manual where you guys says writing should potentially be expected)
I doubt it would have required a false claim for him to do a return, either, since he could pretty easily list the defects and the fact that the defects weren't stated in the auction description.
This is no different than when I sold off a bunch of my manuals a few years back.
Of course I had filled in the maps in my Swords and Serpents manual, as a kid.
And I absolutely listed that information in the auction, because I figured some random buyer was likely to care about it.
Saying “Used. Please note that the hi-score section may also be used” is extra detail that we might appreciate, but certainly not required. It’s even a bit redundant. Heck, when I see that I consider the chances of finding writing even higher since a seller may know fully well that there’s writing and is obfuscating that.
Under what reasonable circumstance, on a very small lot of manuals (4 in this case, right?) would a seller NOT know there is this particular kind of writing in the manual?
When the seller never indicated any attempt to check and never implied what signs of use he thought were relevant to specify. This small lot size could be one of 50 lots that the seller is selling. That means nothing. If someone on Craigslist simply lists a used game “with manual,” would you assume that the manual has no writing? Why is eBay any different? The sellers are real people with the same variety of what details they think are important as the people on Craigslist, yard sale, or a flea market. If they simply say “used” and you aren’t willing to accept a certain kind of use then you don’t enter a contract to buy with that person until you check.
Are you suggesting that a seller doesn't a look at the items they are selling?
If the seller wants to, they certainly can as long as their description reflects their lack of familiarity. TONS of items are sold “as is”,” “untested,” or “used.” The buyer chooses whether or not the description satisfies their concerns BEFORE agreeing to the purchase.
Are you saying that it’s NOT OK to unless the seller flips through every page of the manual and specifically mentions writing that did not contradict his earlier description? That’s a pretty high standard for a cheap lot with several used games and manuals.
...
But "used"... could mean almost anything in terms of condition, to the point of basically not being a useful description by itself.
Exactly. The buyer should expect a broad range of possible conditions when it is described that vaguely. The vagueness is part of the description. That is why it’s really stupid to buy something that says “used” and then complain about signs of normal or intended use. It’s as useful as the broad/vague description was intended.
Can’t multi-quote for some reason so I’ll just have to reply in-post.
I had the impression that "untested" and "as is" were not actually defensible arguments and that buyers were essentially always able to win a return on that type of auction.
It is like a seller claiming they don't allow returns -- eBay doesn't really care if you say that in your auction, because they'll force you to accept returns.
(or at least, that seemed to be how it worked a couple years ago when I was still selling)
On the second section -- Should a buyer have low expectations when they order a very sparsely described item? Sure.
But it is generally the seller shouldering the risk of a return by not providing a clear description that discloses potentially major issues.
Yes. Could the seller have described it better? Sure. Was the description wrong? No. Was the buyer entitled to a return based on it not being as described? Also, no. Can the buyer get a return anyway by making a false claim? Probably. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not.
The description was incomplete by missing easily known and easily conveyed information.
(i.e. writing in a section of the manual where you guys says writing should potentially be expected)
I doubt it would have required a false claim for him to do a return, either, since he could pretty easily list the defects and the fact that the defects weren't stated in the auction description.
Key word: Expected. If the possibility of writing in a section intended for writing is expected then it still falls under the description of “used.” The description was not incomplete because the description of used included that as a possible, perhaps even likely, possibility.. It would have been incomplete if he described it as “used but like new.” He didn’t. The claim was already false the moment he said “not as described” when the problem he had did not contradict the description at all. Again, it’s only a “defect” if it were described as new. Signs of intended use are not defects. This would have been a fraudulent claim if he hadn’t retracted it. It WAS a fraudulent claim. He did it even with everyone telling him it was incorrect. He knows that writing in the manual’s section intended for writing is normal use that can be described as “used” and then he deliberately claimed that it was not as described. That is fraud.
Comments
Ha! Genius.
..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.
You done no wrong in my view
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.
It doesn’t matter even if it were a business. Business transactions are a two way street. Always remember that the seller is a person too. People excuse a lot of bad behavior toward my employer because it’s “just a business,” completely ignoring that their theft and fraud hurts the employees and our other customers. “It’s just business” is a bad mentality to have even when we aren’t talking about bad consequences for real people based on the buyer’s misbehavior.
...and there’s no nuance here about the scenarios you mention AT ALL. If a buyer didn’t think that there might be writing in a manual described as “used” and didn’t realize that it was crucial to his purchase decision until after the fact, it’s still the buyer’s mistake. You shouldn’t claim fraud (“item as undescribed” ) and besmirch an honest seller just because you have buyer’s remorse even if you excuse your unethical behavior with “it’s just business.” If you do that then you’d be the only one committing fraud, and there’s no nuance to who’s in the wrong at all.
He learned. That's good.
It doesn’t matter even if it were a business. Business transactions are a two way street. Always remember that the seller is a person too. People excuse a lot of bad behavior toward my employer because it’s “just a business,” completely ignoring that their theft and fraud hurts the employees and our other customers. “It’s just business” is a bad mentality to have even when we aren’t talking about bad consequences for real people based on the buyer’s misbehavior.
...and there’s no nuance here about the scenarios you mention AT ALL. If a buyer didn’t think that there might be writing in a manual described as “used” and didn’t realize that it was crucial to his purchase decision until after the fact, it’s still the buyer’s mistake. You shouldn’t claim fraud (“item as undescribed&rdquo and besmirch an honest seller just because you have buyer’s remorse even if you excuse your unethical behavior with “it’s just business.” If you do that then you’d be the only one committing fraud, and there’s no nuance to who’s in the wrong at all.
Lol, so its fraud for a buyer to want to want to return an item that he's not satisfied with (which he's fully allowed to do in that market setting) since there was something about it not shown in the description? But there's nothing at all wrong with how the seller gave such sparse information regarding the condition of the item, then refused to own up to that fact and try to be accommodating in any way. Do you hear how butthurt and triggered you sound saying this? Given your responses on the subject up to this point probably not. I don't care if you feel its "bad behavior." How you feel is not automatically fact, and reeks of seller bias. Its an opinion, yet you continue to arrogantly speak in a matter of fact manner.
I've already made plenty of counter-points and offered alternative viewpoints in defense of the other party to everything you've thrown at me showing the buyer is not necessarily 100% in the wrong here and deserves at least partial sympathy, but your mind is apparently too one-sided for real discussion. You see no nuance because you are so biased and blindly in favor of the seller side of this. I really hope you never have to experience buyer's remorse because of a poor item description. Might end up having an existential crisis.
I've enjoyed my time at NintendoAge but little by little I see the flaws in the community that so many outsiders always talk about. This place is an echochamber policed by a fairly small group of regular members with a strict and one-sided set of beliefs regarding the collecting hobby, and any outlier viewpoints get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion. This place really is the perpetual circle jerk people always claimed it to be. Now I have seen it with my own eyes.
...and, again, being “fully allowed” to get away with fraud does not make it OK. We’re really talking in circles with you! What eBay intentionally “allows” is for a buyer to return an item that was not as described. What eBay unintentionally allows is exploitation by scammers and jerks who claim that when it isn’t true. That’s what this has been about since the beginning.
LOL! I'm stopping after the first sentence because you seem to have forgotten what thread you're in even though I quoted it. "Item as undescribed" obviously means "item not as described," which is demonstrably incorrect. eBay does not force a satisfaction guarantee on sellers. There is no "I wasn't satisfied" option that forces the seller to accept it back at his/her expense which means that the buyer would have to LIE. That's what he entire thread is about. It would be fraud to return it under the pretense that it was not as described when it was exactly as described.
...and, again, being “fully allowed” to get away with fraud does not make it OK. We’re really talking in circles with you! What eBay intentionally “allows” is for a buyer to return an item that was not as described. What eBay unintentionally allows is exploitation by scammers and jerks who claim that when it isn’t true. That’s what this has been about since the beginning.
Feel like I'm talking in circles with you too. Maybe you should stop replying to me. Just a thought.
Calling "not as described" a lie is a subjective thing you guys here have for some reason. How can it be assumed every buyer should be in the know of all the condition issues the seller is intending by using the vague "used" condition category? How the hell is that fair to expect of a buyer? You continue to disregard the fact some people believe certain things should be disclosed, regardless of whether people like you (a collecting enthusiast) would think it to be common knowledge in the hobby. Totally short-sighted and unfair.
Lol, so its fraud for a buyer to want to want to return an item that he's not satisfied with (which he's fully allowed to do in that market setting) since there was something about it not shown in the description?
Yes, it's fraud to justify a return under false pretenses. Duh. eBay does not "fully allow" someone to return something for being dissatisfied. Where did you get that idea?! The problem is that eBay inadvertently allows the buyer to LIE and return it anyway. Exploiting this does is not OK just because eBay allows it but you keep falling back to that even though we've already said so. How do you expect that to convince us? If someone buys something from my employer (a retailer) and damages it deliberately in order to make a return, can we tell? Probably not, but it's still fraud. Yes eBay is exploitable in the buyer's favor and the result is that buyers can always make false claims and force sellers to pay, but it's still FRAUD when they exploit it. It isn't OK by default. Don't tell us that eBay allowing it means we have to be OK with it. Bad behavior is still bad behavior. Someone willing to rip off a seller on eBay is someone I'd rather not deal with here either for obvious reasons. I'm glad the OP has reconsidered his claim.
But there's nothing at all wrong with how the seller gave such sparse information regarding the condition of the item, then refused to own up to that fact and try to be accommodating in any way.
CORRECT. There's nothing AT ALL wrong with the seller's description and there is NOTHING to "own up to." That argument only works when you aren't assuming that we started from the same false premise as you. We didn't. We assessed what the buyer was claiming and looked at what the seller described. Multiple people have said that it's inarguable. You insist that it is and yet I still don't see an argument from you that isn't about "opinion" and "feeling." Tell us what the seller did wrong that he needs "to own up to." If you tell us "sparse description" then you obvious have no concept of right from wrong. He can describe it as thoroughly or as sparsely as he likes as long as the item is AS described. The seller's description does not contradict the condition the buyer received them in so there is NO basis for an "Not as described" claim at all. The OP failed to consider all the ramifications of that description ("used") which is entirely on the OP. It's shameful for him to expect someone else to pay for his mistake and feel justified in making a fraudulent claim to force that.
Do you hear how butthurt and triggered you sound saying this? Given your responses on the subject up to this point probably not.
Look who's talking! Yes, I'm DEEPLY offended that anyone can think it's OK to do what the OP tried to do (fraudulently claim "Not As Described" to get a refund he wasn't entitled to). I'm MORE offended that he would try to do that to any member of this community. I'm also troubled that some people think that kind of behavior is tolerable in the community. I wouldn't want to make trades on NintendoAge if I knew that we tolerated and excused people who might make baseless claims to the mods to get what he/she wants. The claim in the OP was INARGUABLY baseless. If you disagee, tell us how it was "not as described" when it was described as "used" and the writing found fits every possible interpretation of "used." If you can't do that, then the argument is over.
I don't care if you feel its "bad behavior." How you feel is not automatically fact, and reeks of seller bias. Its an opinion, yet you continue to arrogantly speak in a matter of fact manner.
It sure seems like you care. It's really annoying when one person keeps hiding behind "opinion" instead of having a productive discussion, especially when they try to represent your positionb as also being opinipon. It's not. Interpretation of the facts, sure, but strict interpretation of the facts TRUMPS opinion. Show us how you interpret the fact differently. Stop hiding behind "opinion" when you can't rationalize your position or counter mine with logic. Even if I had a seller's bias, facts have no bias. Countering facts with opinion demonstrates the real bias: Your core beliefs. You've internalized it and you see anything contrary as a threat. That's actual science.
I've already made plenty of counter-points and offered alternative viewpoints in defense of the other party to everything you've thrown at me showing the buyer is not necessarily 100% in the wrong here and deserves at least partial sympathy, but your mind is apparently too one-sided for real discussion.
You've done no such thing. You mischaracterized the opposing position as opinion then talked in circles and then completely mis-stated eBay's policy as one of buyer satisfaction.
You see no nuance because you are so biased and blindly in favor of the seller side of this.
Funny, because I've only used strict interpretation of policy and the English language to justify my position and never invoked "nuance" or "opinion" to pre-emptively dismiss a response.
I really hope you never have to experience buyer's remorse because of a poor item description. Might end up having an existential crisis.
Hasn't everyone? We all make mistakes. What's so bad about that? Why would my mistake be someone else's responsibility?!
I've enjoyed my time at NintendoAge but little by little I see the flaws in the community that so many outsiders always talk about. This place is an echochamber policed by a fairly small group of regular members with a strict and one-sided set of beliefs regarding the collecting hobby, and any outlier viewpoints get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion. This place really is the perpetual circle jerk people always claimed it to be. Now I have seen it with my own eyes.
"Echochamber?" Funny, because I found someone I disagree with and neither of us have backed down. Doesn't seem like an "echochamber" from my perspective. Sounds like you just need thicker skin when someone disagrees, especially if you aren't actually open to having your mind changed. This seems to be going down the exact same way at AtariAge, BTW. "Regulars?" Heck I barely had any presence here since last summer and started posting in this thread specifically because the OP's attitude cannot be tolerated. Does this "just business" excuse excuse the behavior when two enthusiasts make a trade on NintendoAge and one decides to make up claims against the other? No. That behavior is toxic and the callout was necessary.
LOL! I'm stopping after the first sentence because you seem to have forgotten what thread you're in even though I quoted it. "Item as undescribed" obviously means "item not as described," which is demonstrably incorrect. eBay does not force a satisfaction guarantee on sellers. There is no "I wasn't satisfied" option that forces the seller to accept it back at his/her expense which means that the buyer would have to LIE. That's what he entire thread is about. It would be fraud to return it under the pretense that it was not as described when it was exactly as described.
...and, again, being “fully allowed” to get away with fraud does not make it OK. We’re really talking in circles with you! What eBay intentionally “allows” is for a buyer to return an item that was not as described. What eBay unintentionally allows is exploitation by scammers and jerks who claim that when it isn’t true. That’s what this has been about since the beginning.
Feel like I'm talking in circles with you too. Maybe you should stop replying to me. Just a thought.
If my goal is to change your mind, why would I stop replying?
Calling "not as described" a lie is a subjective thing you guys here have for some reason.
There is nothing "subjective" about it! When the condition matched the description then the item was as described and claiming otherwise to get what you want is a blatant lie. It's like you're speaking a different language and using all the wrong words... or maybe your concept of the terms is completely opposite from what they mean. The level of detail described is absolutely irrelevant. When the seller says "used" and does not say "no writing" then I can expect that there MIGHT be writing in it... even without buying it! The seller could have just listed them as "games" if he wanted to. "Not as described" does not mean "Not described well enough for me to know what I wanted to know for a risk-free purchase." This was never about the degree of detail in the description. That's not even a part of the argument. The seller is free to describe it as sparsely or as detailed as he wants as long as it is accurate or misleading.
How can it be assumed every buyer should be in the know of all the condition issues the seller is intending by using the vague "used" condition category?
The real question is: How can you assume that the buyer is entitled to MORE than described? No, they aren't expected to know everything, but they DO know what the seller describes and shows them. They have the OPTION to buy based on that. eBay makes it very clear that you enter into a contract with the seller based on the description when you commit to buy. The buyer is not compelled to enter the contract so THE BUYER must consider if the description is good enough for him/her or not. You seem to think that "used" does not describe writing in the manual, but it does! The buyer ALSO knows that writing is "use" and that the seller did not say that there was no writing. This should have caused the buyer to consider what kinds of "use" he might not be able to see and whether or not it would be a deal-breaker. This incorrect assumption/expectation about the seller's obligation to describe every "used" considerations a buyer might have perfectly explains why you think it's subjective, but here's why it's not: The buyer knows EXACTLY how vague the term "used" is and the buyer bought it anyway. The vaguness of "used" encompasses a range of used conditions including writing in the manual. Unless you can show that "used" doesn't include the possibility of writing in the manual or that writing in the manual could be construed as something else, like damage beyond that caused by intended use, then there is no gray area here.
How the hell is that fair to expect of a buyer?
What's unfair about a buyer getting what he paid for in the condition described?
You continue to disregard the fact some people believe certain things should be disclosed, regardless of whether people like you (a collecting enthusiast) would think it to be common knowledge in the hobby. Totally short-sighted and unfair.
This isn't about what people "believe" should be disclosed. Anyone who buys based on that description should expect that it might have writing in it and if they were dumb enough to assume otherwise then that is THEIR mistake. If I picked up a used manual from a seller at the flea market and agreed to the price, I can't demand a refund when I later find writing in it. If I didn't consider or check, that's on me. Yes, it's more difficult when you can't handle it yourself and you only know what the seller says/shows, but that's for YOU to consider. eBay is still supposed to be the same way. If the description is accurate then it's up to the buyer to consider if it addresses all of his possible concerns first. When you make an offer, win a bid, or BIN on eBay, you enter into a contract. You agreed to pay for what was described. The buyer CANNOT simply claim higher expectations than what was described... at least not without lying/exploiting eBay's other policies. You want to talk about "fair?" It's not "fair" to make someone else pay for the buyer's impulsiveness when it was a contract that the seller performed flawlessly and to the letter. If you don't think so then you should be able to tell us what part of the description was not as described.
It doesn’t matter even if it were a business. Business transactions are a two way street. Always remember that the seller is a person too. People excuse a lot of bad behavior toward my employer because it’s “just a business,” completely ignoring that their theft and fraud hurts the employees and our other customers. “It’s just business” is a bad mentality to have even when we aren’t talking about bad consequences for real people based on the buyer’s misbehavior.
...and there’s no nuance here about the scenarios you mention AT ALL. If a buyer didn’t think that there might be writing in a manual described as “used” and didn’t realize that it was crucial to his purchase decision until after the fact, it’s still the buyer’s mistake. You shouldn’t claim fraud (“item as undescribed&rdquo and besmirch an honest seller just because you have buyer’s remorse even if you excuse your unethical behavior with “it’s just business.” If you do that then you’d be the only one committing fraud, and there’s no nuance to who’s in the wrong at all.
Lol, so its fraud for a buyer to want to want to return an item that he's not satisfied with (which he's fully allowed to do in that market setting) since there was something about it not shown in the description? But there's nothing at all wrong with how the seller gave such sparse information regarding the condition of the item, then refused to own up to that fact and try to be accommodating in any way. Do you hear how butthurt and triggered you sound saying this? Given your responses on the subject up to this point probably not. I don't care if you feel its "bad behavior." How you feel is not automatically fact, and reeks of seller bias. Its an opinion, yet you continue to arrogantly speak in a matter of fact manner.
I've already made plenty of counter-points and offered alternative viewpoints in defense of the other party to everything you've thrown at me showing the buyer is not necessarily 100% in the wrong here and deserves at least partial sympathy, but your mind is apparently too one-sided for real discussion. You see no nuance because you are so biased and blindly in favor of the seller side of this. I really hope you never have to experience buyer's remorse because of a poor item description. Might end up having an existential crisis.
I've enjoyed my time at NintendoAge but little by little I see the flaws in the community that so many outsiders always talk about. This place is an echochamber policed by a fairly small group of regular members with a strict and one-sided set of beliefs regarding the collecting hobby, and any outlier viewpoints get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion. This place really is the perpetual circle jerk people always claimed it to be. Now I have seen it with my own eyes.
Thats what you got from the entire community, from this back and forth with one member over another member's selling disagreement? Sorry to see that.
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.
Just had to say I loved this analogy, such a great example of this scenario. The manuals were used...as designed...what gives?
It doesn’t matter even if it were a business. Business transactions are a two way street. Always remember that the seller is a person too. People excuse a lot of bad behavior toward my employer because it’s “just a business,” completely ignoring that their theft and fraud hurts the employees and our other customers. “It’s just business” is a bad mentality to have even when we aren’t talking about bad consequences for real people based on the buyer’s misbehavior.
...and there’s no nuance here about the scenarios you mention AT ALL. If a buyer didn’t think that there might be writing in a manual described as “used” and didn’t realize that it was crucial to his purchase decision until after the fact, it’s still the buyer’s mistake. You shouldn’t claim fraud (“item as undescribed&rdquo and besmirch an honest seller just because you have buyer’s remorse even if you excuse your unethical behavior with “it’s just business.” If you do that then you’d be the only one committing fraud, and there’s no nuance to who’s in the wrong at all.
Lol, so its fraud for a buyer to want to want to return an item that he's not satisfied with (which he's fully allowed to do in that market setting) since there was something about it not shown in the description? But there's nothing at all wrong with how the seller gave such sparse information regarding the condition of the item, then refused to own up to that fact and try to be accommodating in any way. Do you hear how butthurt and triggered you sound saying this? Given your responses on the subject up to this point probably not. I don't care if you feel its "bad behavior." How you feel is not automatically fact, and reeks of seller bias. Its an opinion, yet you continue to arrogantly speak in a matter of fact manner.
I've already made plenty of counter-points and offered alternative viewpoints in defense of the other party to everything you've thrown at me showing the buyer is not necessarily 100% in the wrong here and deserves at least partial sympathy, but your mind is apparently too one-sided for real discussion. You see no nuance because you are so biased and blindly in favor of the seller side of this. I really hope you never have to experience buyer's remorse because of a poor item description. Might end up having an existential crisis.
I've enjoyed my time at NintendoAge but little by little I see the flaws in the community that so many outsiders always talk about. This place is an echochamber policed by a fairly small group of regular members with a strict and one-sided set of beliefs regarding the collecting hobby, and any outlier viewpoints get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion. This place really is the perpetual circle jerk people always claimed it to be. Now I have seen it with my own eyes.
Lol. Honestly mate, NintendoAge is great, and this is being said from someone who fits into the category of someone with "outlier viewpoints [that] get weeded out and absolutely squashed without any fair and diverse discussion."
Don't take things so seriously mate.
Unless I am showing it in photos to where it is self evident, I would certainly include something like that in my selling description, if for no other purpose but to avoid having a buyer have something they could possibly contest down the line.
I suppose it may be a matter of what condition you try to claim in the process, but it seems like a somewhat significant omission to me.
Combine that with the likelihood that the seller hasn't dealt with this kind of anal buyer treatment, they probably didn't even think of it (like a high percentage of sellers would do). In a lot sale, I'd provide general information of what is included stating they are used but I can't say I'd flip through every page of every manual and explicitly call out everything. This wasn't a high-dollar sale either, and if so, I think I'd put more effort into the description.
Do you actually think this warrants a refund?
Like CZroes comparison, if you sell your car on Craigslist, are you going to be sure to mention the maintenance history is written in the manual? Highly unlikely.
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.
Just had to say I loved this analogy, such a great example of this scenario. The manuals were used...as designed...what gives?
People usually groan when someone breaks out the car analogies but I couldn’t think of a more fitting one.
Used car with manual equals possible or likely manual use. A used car with manual does not imply an unused manual from any reasonable interpretation. Signs of normal use are not a further imperfection that warrants mandatory inclusion in the description unless the item was listed as new, like new, or possibly new. eBay’s “Used” condition note about seeing the description for imperfections is obviously talking about further imperfections than you get from normal use that were not already covered in that condition section.
Do all of you guys really neglect to say that there is writing in the manual when you sell at item like that on eBay?
Unless I am showing it in photos to where it is self evident, I would certainly include something like that in my selling description, if for no other purpose but to avoid having a buyer have something they could possibly contest down the line.
I suppose it may be a matter of what condition you try to claim in the process, but it seems like a somewhat significant omission to me.
It’s only an omission if the seller knew. Nothing about that description would indicate that the seller cared enough to check. It was a multi-game/manual lot. The buyer had unreasonable expectations that were not supported by the description.
To assume that they were inspected that closely based on a description of “used” and then to assume that it would be mentioned when the description makes no further mention of the condition is, frankly, idiotic.
Do you actually think this warrants a refund?
Like CZroes comparison, if you sell your car on Craigslist, are you going to be sure to mention the maintenance history is written in the manual? Highly unlikely.
I think I could imagine a scenario where a buyer might want a refund when writing in the manuals was omitted from the description.
Not saying that every single page needs to be noted just a generic "some writing in this manual" with even a basic description of where would suffice.
I'm also not saying that they are automatically justified in getting a refund and returning the item.
But it does present a potential grey area, that can call into question whether a seller might have intentionally omitted those details, or not.
And CZroes car maintenance manual is a pretty ridiculous comparison, in my opinion.
I suppose it may be a matter of what condition you try to claim in the process, but it seems like a somewhat significant omission to me.
It’s only an omission if the seller knew. Nothing about that description would indicate that the seller cared enough to check. It was a multi-game/manual lot. The buyer had unreasonable expectations that were not supported by the description.
To assume that they were inspected that closely based on a description of “used” and then to assume that it would be mentioned when the description makes no further mention of the condition is, frankly, idiotic.
I suppose it may be a matter of what condition you try to claim in the process, but it seems like a somewhat significant omission to me.
It’s only an omission if the seller knew. Nothing about that description would indicate that the seller cared enough to check. It was a multi-game/manual lot. The buyer had unreasonable expectations that were not supported by the description.
To assume that they were inspected that closely based on a description of “used” and then to assume that it would be mentioned when the description makes no further mention of the condition is, frankly, idiotic.
"used" condition can literally mean anything. If you are seller with high volume it is just easier and common to put a disclaimer that says "items may have writing, creases, greatest hits, etc..." something a long those lines to cover your ass and give the buyer a heads up. Or if you are not going to do that, just accurately describe what is listed to avoid situations like this. Everyones expectations are different when buying items, and what someone considers "used" will vary among buyers. Save both of you the headache and either put a disclaimer or accurately describe your items.
And if you really want to get down to it. The "used" Description taken right from ebay states this.
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I think as a buyer it is also important to ask questions if unsure, so i think there is responsibility and blame on both sides of the fence here.
Speaking to Arch's question above, i agree with him. Writing is definitely something that should be mentioned IMO in a listing. I can understand minor blemishes being overlooked and you can't list every imperfection, but writing is kind of an important one. We are talking about a 4 game lot, not dozens of games, it would take 2 seconds to flip through the books and check this sort of thing and it is hardly unreasonable to ask this of a seller.
"used" condition can literally mean anything. If you are seller with high volume it is just easier and common to put a disclaimer that says "items may have writing, creases, greatest hits, etc..." something a long those lines to cover your ass and give the buyer a heads up. Or if you are not going to do that, just accurately describe what is listed to avoid situations like this. Everyones expectations are different when buying items, and what someone considers "used" will vary among buyers. Save both of you the headache and either put a disclaimer or accurately describe your items.
And if you really want to get down to it. The "used" Description taken right from ebay states this.
Used: An item that has been used previously. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections
I think as a buyer it is also important to ask questions if unsure, so i think there is responsibility and blame on both sides of the fence here.
Writing where it doesn’t belong and isn’t intended is an important one. Writing in an item described as “like new” is an important one. Writing in a manual where the description definitely included the possibility that the hi-scores may be “used,” definitely different. Important to some, which is why the onus is on them not to assume.
Again, eBay’s description of “used” and the normal signs of intended use do not count as a “imperfection” unless it was implied that the condition was better than used (“like new&rdquo . It is not an imperfection when a used item shows signs of use. When something is already described as “used,” then it is an imperfection when there is something more than you would expect from intended use. Even if it was described as “new” then any condition from the range of normal new conditions (including shelf wear!) are not imperfections. You wouldn’t expect a new item to have a missing box, which makes that an imperfection in the condition described which should be noted in the description. In that case, something like “New but manual was removed to replace another customer’s missing manual.” would suffice. Saying “Used. Please note that the hi-score section may also be used” is extra detail that we might appreciate, but certainly not required. It’s even a bit redundant. Heck, when I see that I consider the chances of finding writing even higher since a seller may know fully well that there’s writing and is obfuscating that.
Are you suggesting that a seller doesn't a look at the items they are selling?
If the seller wants to, they certainly can as long as their description reflects their lack of familiarity. TONS of items are sold “as is”,” “untested,” or “used.” The buyer chooses whether or not the description satisfies their concerns BEFORE agreeing to the purchase.
Are you saying that it’s NOT OK to unless the seller flips through every page of the manual and specifically mentions writing that did not contradict his earlier description? That’s a pretty high standard for a cheap lot with several used games and manuals.
Your post is pretty offensive, in its tone and implication.
Only if you misinterpret it (or you don’t like the truth but let’s assume the former). Case in point...
I am certainly not "frankly, idiotic" for pointing out that WHEN I SELL, I make a point of noting the condition ACCURATELY when I make a listing.
Because I know that plenty of buyers want an accurate description of what they are buying.
You completely misinterpreted. I said: “To assume that they were inspected that closely based on a description of ‘used’ and then to assume that it would be mentioned when the description makes no further mention of the condition is, frankly, idiotic.”
That was clearly about the buyer making an assumption. Who said anything about you as a seller? No would implied that you made a similar assumption/purchase. A fraudster excusing their behavior based on this idiotic and plainly incorrect assumption is idiotic.
Evidently I am being unreasonable in thinking other sellers should be similarly forthcoming with details in their auctions.
You are. It good when a seller does but that does not raise the standard. The sellers don’t have to say anything and, similarly. their potential buyer’s don’t have to buy it. The buyers must decide if the seller’s description satisfies them with full knowledge that their only justifiable recourse for a not as described case is if it is truly not as described. Not being described enough has NEVER been a valid complaint. If the description said “like new” and it had writing in it, then he’d have a valid complaint. Heck, descriptions themselves are optional and eBay will even automatically write descriptions for many items. I firmly believe anything worth selling on eBay is worth writing a description for, but that’s a personal standard and I obviously don’t impose that standard on anyone else. If I see a listing with a sparse or missing description and I’m interested in it, it’s on me to consider all the possibilities before I buy it.
And a vague description isn't accurate if it is sufficiently vague and withholds known information.
Perhaps this auction didn't meet that threshold, but I am speaking in general, here.
You’re right when a vague description is so vague that it risks being wrong and the actual condition contradicts it. That didn’t happen here. A similarly vague description such as “like new” absolutely would have justified a “not as described” case, since “new” manuals would not have had writing in them.
That is, if a seller makes a vague description, then they are potentially opening themselves up to disatisfied customers who didn't have their expectations met.
Yes, because the seller risks incorrectly describing the item in a way that mattered to the buyer. That didn’t happen here. The buyer expecting more than described should not justify this particular claim.
Making a clear description that notes "major flaws" (i.e. a manual is missing pages or is written in) puts expectations in the right place.
"Heavily used" would probably get the same effect, in the generic.
How used it is, is where things start to get subjective. “Used” does not describe a specific level of use and the description incorporates everything which may be considered heavy use and light use. The description made no attempt to describe how used it was and, thus, the buyer had no reasonable expectation that the hi-score pages would not be used. The clear, non-subjective, standard is that any signs of use from normal or intended use can be described as “used condition.” Any imperfections, damage, or flaws beyond that, like missing or torn pages counts as a major flaw or defect that should be separately noted in the description. Being water damaged with all the pages glued together is not a normal sign of intended use. Missing staples is not a sign of intended use. Being covered in tape and rental stickers is not from intended use. If the buyer found anything like those then he would have my full support, but he wouldn’t need it. He’d be entitled to his refund and he would not have to lie to eBay in order to get it. Having writing in a section intended for writing is not a flaw or defect beyond what was described and cannot be called a “major flaw” in an item already described as “used.” Used is used with a clearly defined meaning in the context of the description and eBay’s terms. It only gets subjective when we try to assign some unjustifiable expectations to the word, like “between light and heavy use” (with all the subjectiveness of what constitutes “light” and “heavy” use).
But "used"... could mean almost anything in terms of condition, to the point of basically not being a useful description by itself.
Exactly. The buyer should expect a broad range of possible conditions when it is described that vaguely. The vagueness is part of the description. That is why it’s really stupid to buy something that says “used” and then complain about signs of normal or intended use. It’s as useful as the broad/vague description was intended.
It would always be wrong to extort the seller by demanding a partial refund when something is "not as described". On that, I agree.
Well, wrong when it is genuinely as described. If it’s genuinely not as described then the buyer is entitled to a refund (full or partial).
But I would definitely disagree that RETURNING an item that was poorly described (and withheld flaws) and seeking a refund for the return is likely a legitimate use of the feature, and something a seller should consider when they formulate their description and decide on what level of detail to provide.
Wanting to make a RETURN is not "extorting" anybody, where demanding a partial refund clearly treads into potentially fraudulent territory.
Only if the buyer was entitled to a return. That’s the way it’s set up and that’s why the buyer had to lie to even file the case. Merely “wanting” it does not entitle them to a return. Even then, it’s not the “wanting” that’s wrong, it’s the taking what they want when they aren’t entitled to it that’s wrong. Lying to justify the return is fraud. The disputed “flaw” in this case was not “withheld” and was entirely within the range of conditions anyone could expect from the description given. It is another cut and dry, clear as day, should be obvious, open and shut, case of a buyer twisting and distorting the meaning of “not as described” to suit himself. Lying to submit the case anyway just because he “wants” to is as bad as intentionally damaging it to get a refund/return.
Can’t multi-quote for some reason so I’ll just have to reply in-post.
These items were used, as intended, and were described as such. They were not damaged from what I understand, just simply used as designed.
The real issue here is the OP being anal about what he purchased. The OP needs to understand that if they are to be this anal about purchases, they need to put some more diligence and effort into their buying process - ask the seller for more info if they are not confident/comfortable before bidding or hitting BIN. A transaction is a 2-way street. Not just defending the seller here, it also saves the buyer tons of hassle.
Buyers like this are one of the reasons so many people shy away from selling on eBay, it's impossible to satisfy everyone's individual expectations and eBay's buyer-centralized policies support the problem.
Under what reasonable circumstance, on a very small lot of manuals (4 in this case, right?) would a seller NOT know there is this particular kind of writing in the manual?
If you guys wanna get hung up on the word "imperfections", go for it. I am willing to bet that word could be used to argue a return on 90+% of "used" sales. You could literally find a microscopic wrinkle on an index page and demand a refund.
These items were used, as intended, and were described as such. They were not damaged from what I understand, just simply used as designed.
The real issue here is the OP being anal about what he purchased. The OP needs to understand that if they are to be this anal about purchases, they need to put some more diligence and effort into their buying process - ask the seller for more info if they are not confident/comfortable before bidding or hitting BIN. A transaction is a 2-way street. Not just defending the seller here, it also saves the buyer tons of hassle.
Buyers like this are one of the reasons so many people shy away from selling on eBay, it's impossible to satisfy everyone's individual expectations and eBay's buyer-centralized policies support the problem.
Yes. Could the seller have described it better? Sure. Was the description wrong? No. Was the buyer entitled to a return based on it not being as described? Also, no. Can the buyer get a return anyway by making a false claim? Probably. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not.
These items were used, as intended, and were described as such. They were not damaged from what I understand, just simply used as designed.
...
Buyers like this are one of the reasons so many people shy away from selling on eBay, it's impossible to satisfy everyone's individual expectations and eBay's buyer-centralized policies support the problem.
"Used as designed"... if it was known that they were written in "as designed", I still contend that a seller should clearly disclose that, because it is EASILY knowable to the seller, since "intended use" would be confined to probably one or two pages of the manual.
In terms of satisfying expectations... a seller doesn't do themselves any favors by posting a vague and meaningless description rather than a description that actually sets expectations accurately.
Yes. Could the seller have described it better? Sure. Was the description wrong? No. Was the buyer entitled to a return based on it not being as described? Also, no. Can the buyer get a return anyway by making a false claim? Probably. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not.
The description was incomplete by missing easily known and easily conveyed information.
(i.e. writing in a section of the manual where you guys says writing should potentially be expected)
I doubt it would have required a false claim for him to do a return, either, since he could pretty easily list the defects and the fact that the defects weren't stated in the auction description.
This is no different than when I sold off a bunch of my manuals a few years back.
Of course I had filled in the maps in my Swords and Serpents manual, as a kid.
And I absolutely listed that information in the auction, because I figured some random buyer was likely to care about it.
Under what reasonable circumstance, on a very small lot of manuals (4 in this case, right?) would a seller NOT know there is this particular kind of writing in the manual?
When the seller never indicated any attempt to check and never implied what signs of use he thought were relevant to specify. This small lot size could be one of 50 lots that the seller is selling. That means nothing. If someone on Craigslist simply lists a used game “with manual,” would you assume that the manual has no writing? Why is eBay any different? The sellers are real people with the same variety of what details they think are important as the people on Craigslist, yard sale, or a flea market. If they simply say “used” and you aren’t willing to accept a certain kind of use then you don’t enter a contract to buy with that person until you check.
Are you suggesting that a seller doesn't a look at the items they are selling?
If the seller wants to, they certainly can as long as their description reflects their lack of familiarity. TONS of items are sold “as is”,” “untested,” or “used.” The buyer chooses whether or not the description satisfies their concerns BEFORE agreeing to the purchase.
Are you saying that it’s NOT OK to unless the seller flips through every page of the manual and specifically mentions writing that did not contradict his earlier description? That’s a pretty high standard for a cheap lot with several used games and manuals.
...
But "used"... could mean almost anything in terms of condition, to the point of basically not being a useful description by itself.
Exactly. The buyer should expect a broad range of possible conditions when it is described that vaguely. The vagueness is part of the description. That is why it’s really stupid to buy something that says “used” and then complain about signs of normal or intended use. It’s as useful as the broad/vague description was intended.
Can’t multi-quote for some reason so I’ll just have to reply in-post.
I had the impression that "untested" and "as is" were not actually defensible arguments and that buyers were essentially always able to win a return on that type of auction.
It is like a seller claiming they don't allow returns -- eBay doesn't really care if you say that in your auction, because they'll force you to accept returns.
(or at least, that seemed to be how it worked a couple years ago when I was still selling)
On the second section -- Should a buyer have low expectations when they order a very sparsely described item? Sure.
But it is generally the seller shouldering the risk of a return by not providing a clear description that discloses potentially major issues.
Yes. Could the seller have described it better? Sure. Was the description wrong? No. Was the buyer entitled to a return based on it not being as described? Also, no. Can the buyer get a return anyway by making a false claim? Probably. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not.
The description was incomplete by missing easily known and easily conveyed information.
(i.e. writing in a section of the manual where you guys says writing should potentially be expected)
I doubt it would have required a false claim for him to do a return, either, since he could pretty easily list the defects and the fact that the defects weren't stated in the auction description.
Key word: Expected. If the possibility of writing in a section intended for writing is expected then it still falls under the description of “used.” The description was not incomplete because the description of used included that as a possible, perhaps even likely, possibility.. It would have been incomplete if he described it as “used but like new.” He didn’t. The claim was already false the moment he said “not as described” when the problem he had did not contradict the description at all. Again, it’s only a “defect” if it were described as new. Signs of intended use are not defects. This would have been a fraudulent claim if he hadn’t retracted it. It WAS a fraudulent claim. He did it even with everyone telling him it was incorrect. He knows that writing in the manual’s section intended for writing is normal use that can be described as “used” and then he deliberately claimed that it was not as described. That is fraud.