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.
Lol, at what point does any responsibility fall onto the buyer from your perspective?
Easily conveyed information - I get that, but feel it would be most appropriate to debate that with like new items IMO. A buyer needs to expect that an item is used and take that known risk when purchasing if they neglect to seek further info to satisfy their side of the transaction. It goes both ways.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been grand for the seller to add the detail, just don't see this being such an arguable point in this case.
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 seller’s 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.
Craigslist -- you are completing the deal in person, so you can get verification of whatever you want to know before exchanging funds.
(same thing with whatever flea market example you threw out earlier -- if it's at a flea market and you don't like the condition, you just don't buy it in the first place)
eBay -- you are completing the deal with only the information disclosed to you by the seller, remotely.
The former, the buyer's protection is that they don't have to buy anything if they don't like how it looks when they go to pick it up.
The latter, the buyer's protection is that they can return things if the seller didn't adequately describe the item by failing to disclose facts they should have known.
(and that I know from my own selling experience are easy to know and disclose)
Lol, at what point does any responsibility fall onto the buyer from your perspective?
Easily conveyed information - I get that, but feel it would be most appropriate to debate that with like new items IMO. A buyer needs to expect that an item is used and take that known risk when purchasing if they neglect to seek further info to satisfy their side of the transaction. It goes both ways.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been grand for the seller to add the detail, just don't see this being such an arguable point in this case.
Presumably the buyer is on the hook for return shipping charges, if they were so disatisfied as to want to make a return.
But buyers and sellers generally don't face equal risk in online marketplaces.
That's part of the tradeoff of fairly strong consumer protections.
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.
Nope. If you sell something as-is, untested, possibly broken, and someone claims “not as described” due to it being broken, it’s still fraudulent exploitation of eBay’s buyer bias. You have to literally ignore the justification of that “not as described” option to submit that case.
The seller is shouldering the risk primarily because fraudulent buyers rampantly exploit eBay’s buyer bias. They default to the buyer unless the seller fights it and, even then, it’s risky and often hard to prove when a buyer can just damage the item. The sellers sometimes, but rarely, win when they chose to fight this. The difficulty for sellers does not justify the fraud. We only make the problem worse if we act like people should behave this way just because they can and eBay often lets them get away with it. Speaking up seems to have worked here since the buyer withdrew his claim. It’s important that we don’t encourage the people who aren’t actively scamming to blur the lines with the ones who are by telling them “it’s OK because eBay allows it.”
The fact that there is even a discussion about the seller being in the wrong in this instance is the reason why I don't sell video games on eBay or Amazon.
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 seller’s 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.
Craigslist -- you are completing the deal in person, so you can get verification of whatever you want to know before exchanging funds.
(same thing with whatever flea market example you threw out earlier -- if it's at a flea market and you don't like the condition, you just don't buy it in the first place)
eBay -- you are completing the deal with only the information disclosed to you by the seller, remotely.
The former, the buyer's protection is that they don't have to buy anything if they don't like how it looks when they go to pick it up.
The latter, the buyer's protection is that they can return things if the seller didn't adequately describe the item by failing to disclose facts they should have known.
(and that I know from my own selling experience are easy to know and disclose)
Close, but not quite. The terms clearly say “Item not as described.” There is no “Item not described to my satisfaction.” eBay never told the buyers that they could return any item for any thing that they find disagreeable and the fact that there is no more appropriate option to file the claim under demonstrates this. There is no standard for what the seller “should have known” when no promises were made about the condition beyond “used.”
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)
...
Nope. If you sell something as-is, untested, possibly broken, and someone claims “not as described” due to it being broken, it’s still fraudulent exploitation of eBay’s buyer bias. You have to literally ignore the justification of that “not as described” option to submit that case.
The seller is shouldering the risk primarily because fraudulent buyers rampantly exploit eBay’s buyer bias. They default to the buyer unless the seller fights it and, even then, it’s risky and often hard to prove when a buyer can just damage the item. The sellers sometimes, but rarely, win when they chose to fight this. The difficulty for sellers does not justify the fraud. We only make the problem worse if we act like people should behave this way just because they can and eBay often lets them get away with it. Speaking up seems to have worked here since the buyer withdrew his claim. It’s important that we don’t encourage the people who aren’t actively scamming to blur the lines with the ones who are by telling them “it’s OK because eBay allows it.”
Regarding "as-is" -- searches on how eBay handles this are all over the place, and it doesn't sound like there is a universal answer.
That is, if something is "as is", and it turns out to be broken, it is "not as described" unless it was actually listed as "broken" in the first place.
(presumably the same for the "untested" label -- unless you declare it also as "broken", you don't have any kind of clear defense against a return)
I don't encourage anyone to commit a scam with regards to auction returns.
I also don't encourage a seller to have an item description that includes no information at all, when the pertinent information (in the case) was easily known and provided up front.
What is your personal threshold for use or wear-and-tear to where "used" is no longer an adequate description and an item might be "not as described" due to withheld facts?
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)
...
Nope. If you sell something as-is, untested, possibly broken, and someone claims “not as described” due to it being broken, it’s still fraudulent exploitation of eBay’s buyer bias. You have to literally ignore the justification of that “not as described” option to submit that case.
The seller is shouldering the risk primarily because fraudulent buyers rampantly exploit eBay’s buyer bias. They default to the buyer unless the seller fights it and, even then, it’s risky and often hard to prove when a buyer can just damage the item. The sellers sometimes, but rarely, win when they chose to fight this. The difficulty for sellers does not justify the fraud. We only make the problem worse if we act like people should behave this way just because they can and eBay often lets them get away with it. Speaking up seems to have worked here since the buyer withdrew his claim. It’s important that we don’t encourage the people who aren’t actively scamming to blur the lines with the ones who are by telling them “it’s OK because eBay allows it.”
Regarding "as-is" -- searches on how eBay handles this are all over the place, and it doesn't sound like there is a universal answer.
That is, if something is "as is", and it turns out to be broken, it is "not as described" unless it was actually listed as "broken" in the first place.
(presumably the same for the "untested" label -- unless you declare it also as "broken", you don't have any kind of clear defense against a return)
I don't encourage anyone to commit a scam with regards to auction returns.
I also don't encourage a seller to have an item description that includes no information at all, when the pertinent information (in the case) was easily known and provided up front.
What is your personal threshold for use or wear-and-tear to where "used" is no longer an adequate description and an item might be "not as described" due to withheld facts?
The threshold is when the damage exceeds what normal, intended, use would eventually produce before and item could be deemed broken or no longer unusable. Only thing subjective there is “normal” and if you consider writing in a section intended for writing abnormal just because it usually isn’t used, well, then there’s that pesky “intended use” part to deal with. If “used” meant “between light and heavy use,” you’d get the answer you were likely looking for, but it doesn’t mean that.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: Boosted52405
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.
...except that not all manuals even have a scores/notes section and there was no obligation for him to check as long as he was willing to accept the consequences for anything ELSE that could be wrong there (beyond signs of intended use). If the buyer had found missing pages as random scribbling on instructional pages then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
The latter, the buyer's protection is that they can return things if the seller didn't adequately describe the item by failing to disclose facts they should have known.
(and that I know from my own selling experience are easy to know and disclose)
Close, but not quite. The terms clearly say “Item not as described.” There is no “Item not described to my satisfaction.” eBay never told the buyers that they could return any item for any thing that they find disagreeable and the fact that there is no more appropriate option to file the claim under demonstrates this. There is no standard for what the seller “should have known” when no promises were made about the condition beyond “used.”
If there are unstated defects, it wouldn't surprise me if that fit the bill.
That said, the seller almost certainly runs the risk of getting bad feedback for their description category, so even if the buyer didn't attempt a return, a seller is taking a needless risk with a say-nothing description like "used", when they know there is more they should have said.
The latter, the buyer's protection is that they can return things if the seller didn't adequately describe the item by failing to disclose facts they should have known.
(and that I know from my own selling experience are easy to know and disclose)
Close, but not quite. The terms clearly say “Item not as described.” There is no “Item not described to my satisfaction.” eBay never told the buyers that they could return any item for any thing that they find disagreeable and the fact that there is no more appropriate option to file the claim under demonstrates this. There is no standard for what the seller “should have known” when no promises were made about the condition beyond “used.”
If there are unstated defects, it wouldn't surprise me if that fit the bill.
That said, the seller almost certainly runs the risk of getting bad feedback for their description category, so even if the buyer didn't attempt a return, a seller is taking a needless risk with a say-nothing description like "used", when they know there is more they should have said.
Agreed. You can rate a description as “poor” but a poor description is not the same as an incorrect description that justifies a return.
...except that not all manuals even have a scores/notes section and there was no obligation for him to check as long as he was willing to accept the consequences for anything ELSE that could be wrong there (beyond signs of intended use). If the buyer had found missing pages as random scribbling on instructional pages then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I'll certainly agree that the buyer would have had less headache if they'd asked for a more detailed description.
But it's not like we're talking about a seller who doesn't know anything about what they're selling.
The guy has some knowledge of the hobby and who his customers are likely to be.
Seems silly to skip a meaningful condition description when he could have just as easily said "writing present on the high scores page" and then this topic would have never showed up.
Agreed. You can rate a description as “poor” but a poor description is not the same as an incorrect description that justifies a return.
In terms of incorrect descriptions vs "poor descriptions" vs inaccurate description (by omission) -- I went and looked at the auction link.
From the picture, they all look pretty pristine.
Unless it is a wellknown thing in Vectrex collecting that people write in their manuals, I don't think I would have expected them to have been written in, if the seller didn't choose to point it out.
They actually have a wordy enough description about what is included in the auction to where I don't find it particularly unreasonable to be disappointed that they didn't point out a fairly obvious issue like writing.
Anyway, as a seller, I'd never have a description that lacks that kind of information.
But based on your earlier post, you think my standards for other sellers are too high
Agreed. You can rate a description as “poor” but a poor description is not the same as an incorrect description that justifies a return.
In terms of incorrect descriptions vs "poor descriptions" vs inaccurate description (by omission) -- I went and looked at the auction link.
From the picture, they all look pretty pristine.
Unless it is a wellknown thing in Vectrex collecting that people write in their manuals, I don't think I would have expected them to have been written in, if the seller didn't choose to point it out.
They actually have a wordy enough description about what is included in the auction to where I don't find it particularly unreasonable to be disappointed that they didn't point out a fairly obvious issue like writing.
Anyway, as a seller, I'd never have a description that lacks that kind of information.
But based on your earlier post, you think my standards for other sellers are too high
You and I both have personal standards that would include that but I have to consider strict interpretation of any other seller’s description since that is the only standard I can morally claim when something is not as described. I can’t assume that another seller has met my personal standard and then base my claim on that. Many times I’ve been disappointed but refrained from making such a claim because I knew it was wrong to say that it wasn’t as described. I’d do it in a heartbeat if the description contradicts reality for something I cared about.
Regarding the likelihood of and expectations for finding writing in the manuals:
I make a distinction between expecting that they did and expecting that they could. I’d expect that this would be intended use correctly described as “used” if it was written in regardless of how many users use it.
If it’s half the users then I expect to find writing in a lot of manuals described as “used” and I can’t say that the description was wrong. If it was 1/3rd, same deal. A quarter? Same deal. A fraction of a percent? Well, at some point my expectation goes from “a lot of” to some with increasingly few. I still expect “some” to have writing there unless the seller specifically described it otherwise (“like new,” “new,” “mint,” “no writing,” etc). At no point would I be justified in claiming that “used” doesn’t describe potential writing in the manual unless the chance of that was demonstrably zero.
How many people update the service history manual in their car? Most people just shove their receipts in with it. Would it be a flaw if someone did use the manual? If the car and everything associated with it happens to be a collectible, wouldn’t that be seen as provenance and perhaps even a good thing (shows that the vehicle was properly cared for)? I would only consider it defect under different context, like if it were described as “like new.”
The equivalent car analogy would be one of those cars that was bought to collect and stayed in a garage with 5 miles on the odometer and, thus, no service record expected. “Like new, mint-condition, 1995 Dodge Viper with 5 dealer-fresh miles on the ODO (2 from the factory!); original tires with original air!” I might be able to dispute writing then based on the “like new” and “mint” descriptions. If the original tires were dry rotted (as they very likely would be) I might also be able dispute that even though better condition is almost mutually exclusive of “original tires.”
Regarding the likelihood of and expectations for finding writing in the manuals:
I make a distinction between expecting that they did and expecting that they could. I’d expect that this would be intended use correctly described as “used” if it was written in regardless of how many users use it.
If it’s half the users then I expect to find writing in a lot of manuals described as “used” and I can’t say that the description was wrong. If it was 1/3rd, same deal. A quarter? Same deal. A fraction of a percent? Well, at some point my expectation goes from “a lot of” to some with increasingly few. I still expect “some” to have writing there unless the seller specifically described it otherwise (“like new,” “new,” “mint,” “no writing,” etc). At no point would I be justified in claiming that “used” doesn’t describe potential writing in the manual unless the chance of that was demonstrably zero.
How many people update the service history manual in their car? Most people just shove their receipts in with it. Would it be a flaw if someone did use the manual? If the car and everything associated with it happens to be a collectible, wouldn’t that be seen as provenance and perhaps even a good thing (shows that the vehicle was properly cared for)? I would only consider it defect under different context, like if it were described as “like new.”
The equivalent car analogy would be one of those cars that was bought to collect and stayed in a garage with 5 miles on the odometer and, thus, no service record expected. “Like new, mint-condition, 1995 Dodge Viper with 5 dealer-fresh miles on the ODO (2 from the factory!); original tires with original air!” If the original tires were dry rotted (as they very likely would be) I might be able dispute the “like new” part but better condition is almost mutually exclusive of “original tires.”
You need to just forget this car analogy. It isn't a good analogy, and the service history portion is an even worse analogy, since I doubt anybody haggles the price of a car based on the condition of the service manual.
If they did, it probably represents 0.01% or less of the total price of the deal to just get a new condition NOS manual thrown in as a freebie.
And while the "provenance' in the case of car service matters, the "provenance" of writing high scores in a video game manual is only of any possible benefit if it happens to have come from some well known high score champion or some other person of celebrity status. Even then it is subjective as to whether that is of value or "damage" to the manual, in the case of video games.
I don't collect Vectrex so I don't know how commonly the manuals are written in.
Maybe for Vectrex collectors it is just understood that everybody wrote in the manuals.
But it would never have been my expectation that an auction that omits something obvious like writing in the manual would be considered "OK" or "up to standard" for a listing, versus considering that omission an error on the part of the seller.
From my own selling experience, I know that sort of thing is very easy to know (as the seller) and very easy to disclose accurately.
Back when I was actively collecting NES and SNES, I certainly would have expected that to have been disclosed to me, and the times that I found writing in the manuals I bought, the seller had been honest and accurate in their descriptions about what to expect.
But if I actively collected manuals, nowadays, maybe my expectations of seller disclosure would be commensurately lowered.
The fact that there is even a discussion about the seller being in the wrong in this instance is the reason why I don't sell video games on eBay or Amazon.
Lol me too.
All I can think of is the massive amount of manuals Ive sold that I didnt look through a single page.
I recently just sold about 3k worth of items on eBay after not selling for years, and only had one person try a claim that a 2600 arrived damaged, i didnt even question it just gave the 50$ back and said F it
When games did not save their own progress/hi-scores and when hi-scores were the common goal I am sure that they were used a lot more, but until you could reasonably expect zero users to use that then you must expect that a "used" manual might be used in that way. Doesn't matter if it's 15% or 10% or 7% of users who use it.
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.
When games did not save their own progress/hi-scores and when hi-scores were the common goal I am sure that they were used a lot more, but until you could reasonably expect zero users to use that then you must expect that a "used" manual might be used in that way. Doesn't matter if it's 15% or 10% or 7% of users who use it.
The issue what what you're saying is that you are conflating "might" (which could be very very low chance) with "should expect" (which should imply "likely" or > 50%).
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)
...
When listing an item, eBay presents sellers with an option to specify whether-or-not returns are accepted. A message right there clearly says buyers can still return the item if it's not as described.
If the buyer wants more details about the nature of the use on a "used" item, then the buyer should ask before agreeing to the sale (a contract).
When listing an item, eBay presents sellers with an option to specify whether-or-not returns are accepted. A message right there clearly says Byers can still return the item if it's not as described.
If the buyer wants more details about the nature of the use on a "used" item, then the buyer should ask before agreeing to the sale (a contract).
I'd point out that if a seller wants to protect themselves from the risks of buyers using "not as described" as a defense, they shouldn't omit (seemingly obvious) things like writing in manuals.
I would be surprised if that could easily be characterized as an omitted flaw/imperfection that should have been disclosed should a buyer choose to raise the issue with eBay.
I'm sure somebody here has practical experience as to who eBay sides with in that case, and could clear it up.
Anyway, I'm surprised that the general agreement is that sellers don't need to be bothered to disclose something like this.
It's not how I'd choose to act as a seller, and I wouldn't have expected it as the norm.
When listing an item, eBay presents sellers with an option to specify whether-or-not returns are accepted. A message right there clearly says Byers can still return the item if it's not as described.
If the buyer wants more details about the nature of the use on a "used" item, then the buyer should ask before agreeing to the sale (a contract).
I'd point out that if a seller wants to protect themselves from the risks of buyers using "not as described" as a defense, they shouldn't omit (seemingly obvious) things like writing in manuals.
I would be surprised if that could easily be characterized as an omitted flaw/imperfection that should have been disclosed should a buyer choose to raise the issue with eBay.
I'm sure somebody here has practical experience as to who eBay sides with in that case, and could clear it up.
That depends entirely on which ebay "agent" that gets escalated to, and what the Magic 8-Ball happens to tell them when they turn it over.
When games did not save their own progress/hi-scores and when hi-scores were the common goal I am sure that they were used a lot more, but until you could reasonably expect zero users to use that then you must expect that a "used" manual might be used in that way. Doesn't matter if it's 15% or 10% or 7% of users who use it.
The issue what what you're saying is that you are conflating "might" (which could be very very low chance) with "should expect" (which should imply "likely" or > 50%).
”Might” implies any chance between 100% and 0% and a user should expect any single unit “might” be used in that way (writing in the section intended for that). The exact rate is irrelevant. Whether or not it’s likely or unlikely is irrelevant. As long as there is a reasonable, non-zero chance then they “should expect [that it might].” Expecting a single used manual to have no writing just because 51% of them don’t is backwards. I can’t book a year-long time machine trip to some random year in the past decade and then claim that I deserve a refund because they didn’t tell me I might get a leap year which I can expect to get only 25% of the time. How’s that for a bad analogy?
The standard here is set by strict interpretation of “used” and what constitues “intended use” whether or not most get used that way.
”Might” implies any chance between 100% and 0% and a user should expect any single unit “might” be used in that way (writing in the section intended for that). The exact rate is irrelevant. Whether or not it’s likely or unlikely is irrelevant. As long as there is a reasonable, non-zero chance then they “should expect [that it might].” Expecting a single used manual to have no writing just because 51% of them don’t is backwards. I can’t book a year-long time machine trip to some random year in the past decade and then claim that I deserve a refund because they didn’t tell me I might get a leap year which I can expect to get only 25% of the time. How’s that for a bad analogy?
The standard here is set by strict interpretation of “used” and what constitues “intended use” whether or not most get used that way.
Let's imagine some arbitrary example where there is only a 1:100 chance that the high score pages would actually have been used.
Even if that was "intended use", it would be uncommon enough as to be note-worthy, since you have a very high probability of expecting it to NOT have been used in that way.
But if a significant percentage of people actually wrote in these manuals (while keeping them as nice looking as in the pictures!), then a buyer should probably know what to expect.
Though likelihood absolutely factors into that expectation, and it seems a bit absurd to suggest otherwise.
But then again, with a seller who sells known collectibles and knows what they're selling, should probably also know something like writing in a manual MIGHT ( ) matter to a bunch of prospective buyers, to where it is worth their while to point it out in the description to avoid issues down the line.
Just a thought.. Should a large volume seller that sells thousands of items per month and manuals by the hundreds be expected to look at every page of every manual. Or would it be more reasonable for a meticulous buyer to ask about the particular item they interested in?
If there's not pics of something like inside of a manual then expect the worse if it's listed as used. I've really gotten screwed twice on ebay recently one by a U.S. seller selling me a famicom (turned out to be famiclone but I expected that) & seller stated it was tested and working great. Received it and it was missing screws in bottom & upon opening the CPU and PPU was gone and power / av board ribbon torn from solder points. I paid $60 plus shipping and seller refused partial refund of $30 and insisted on return but did not trust him to return it since I had opened it. Seller really pissed me off when he finally stated that he personally tested it to be working so he was calling me a liar at that point.
Other thing was Japanese famicom in box with original paperwork, early style power supply, rare flyers, & good pics of everything in detail. Console I got was totally different later version later serial number, newer power supply, no flyers. It was $92.55 shipped & I told seller reason I bought was for the early matching unit and stuff the set I got was pieced together. Seller was nicer in this case and I told him to send me the 3 flyers or refund $20 and I'd be ok with that so he said he sent flyers out but I'll believe it when I see it. He did go ahead and begin return for refund process so who knows. No way in hell I'd return it returning stuff more trouble than it's worth anyways & never know what lies they might use once item gets back.
Comments
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.
Lol, at what point does any responsibility fall onto the buyer from your perspective?
Easily conveyed information - I get that, but feel it would be most appropriate to debate that with like new items IMO. A buyer needs to expect that an item is used and take that known risk when purchasing if they neglect to seek further info to satisfy their side of the transaction. It goes both ways.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been grand for the seller to add the detail, just don't see this being such an arguable point in this case.
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 seller’s 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.
Craigslist -- you are completing the deal in person, so you can get verification of whatever you want to know before exchanging funds.
(same thing with whatever flea market example you threw out earlier -- if it's at a flea market and you don't like the condition, you just don't buy it in the first place)
eBay -- you are completing the deal with only the information disclosed to you by the seller, remotely.
The former, the buyer's protection is that they don't have to buy anything if they don't like how it looks when they go to pick it up.
The latter, the buyer's protection is that they can return things if the seller didn't adequately describe the item by failing to disclose facts they should have known.
(and that I know from my own selling experience are easy to know and disclose)
Lol, at what point does any responsibility fall onto the buyer from your perspective?
Easily conveyed information - I get that, but feel it would be most appropriate to debate that with like new items IMO. A buyer needs to expect that an item is used and take that known risk when purchasing if they neglect to seek further info to satisfy their side of the transaction. It goes both ways.
I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been grand for the seller to add the detail, just don't see this being such an arguable point in this case.
Presumably the buyer is on the hook for return shipping charges, if they were so disatisfied as to want to make a return.
But buyers and sellers generally don't face equal risk in online marketplaces.
That's part of the tradeoff of fairly strong consumer protections.
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.
Nope. If you sell something as-is, untested, possibly broken, and someone claims “not as described” due to it being broken, it’s still fraudulent exploitation of eBay’s buyer bias. You have to literally ignore the justification of that “not as described” option to submit that case.
The seller is shouldering the risk primarily because fraudulent buyers rampantly exploit eBay’s buyer bias. They default to the buyer unless the seller fights it and, even then, it’s risky and often hard to prove when a buyer can just damage the item. The sellers sometimes, but rarely, win when they chose to fight this. The difficulty for sellers does not justify the fraud. We only make the problem worse if we act like people should behave this way just because they can and eBay often lets them get away with it. Speaking up seems to have worked here since the buyer withdrew his claim. It’s important that we don’t encourage the people who aren’t actively scamming to blur the lines with the ones who are by telling them “it’s OK because eBay allows 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 seller’s 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.
Craigslist -- you are completing the deal in person, so you can get verification of whatever you want to know before exchanging funds.
(same thing with whatever flea market example you threw out earlier -- if it's at a flea market and you don't like the condition, you just don't buy it in the first place)
eBay -- you are completing the deal with only the information disclosed to you by the seller, remotely.
The former, the buyer's protection is that they don't have to buy anything if they don't like how it looks when they go to pick it up.
The latter, the buyer's protection is that they can return things if the seller didn't adequately describe the item by failing to disclose facts they should have known.
(and that I know from my own selling experience are easy to know and disclose)
Close, but not quite. The terms clearly say “Item not as described.” There is no “Item not described to my satisfaction.” eBay never told the buyers that they could return any item for any thing that they find disagreeable and the fact that there is no more appropriate option to file the claim under demonstrates this. There is no standard for what the seller “should have known” when no promises were made about the condition beyond “used.”
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)
...
Nope. If you sell something as-is, untested, possibly broken, and someone claims “not as described” due to it being broken, it’s still fraudulent exploitation of eBay’s buyer bias. You have to literally ignore the justification of that “not as described” option to submit that case.
The seller is shouldering the risk primarily because fraudulent buyers rampantly exploit eBay’s buyer bias. They default to the buyer unless the seller fights it and, even then, it’s risky and often hard to prove when a buyer can just damage the item. The sellers sometimes, but rarely, win when they chose to fight this. The difficulty for sellers does not justify the fraud. We only make the problem worse if we act like people should behave this way just because they can and eBay often lets them get away with it. Speaking up seems to have worked here since the buyer withdrew his claim. It’s important that we don’t encourage the people who aren’t actively scamming to blur the lines with the ones who are by telling them “it’s OK because eBay allows it.”
Regarding "as-is" -- searches on how eBay handles this are all over the place, and it doesn't sound like there is a universal answer.
That is, if something is "as is", and it turns out to be broken, it is "not as described" unless it was actually listed as "broken" in the first place.
(presumably the same for the "untested" label -- unless you declare it also as "broken", you don't have any kind of clear defense against a return)
I don't encourage anyone to commit a scam with regards to auction returns.
I also don't encourage a seller to have an item description that includes no information at all, when the pertinent information (in the case) was easily known and provided up front.
What is your personal threshold for use or wear-and-tear to where "used" is no longer an adequate description and an item might be "not as described" due to withheld facts?
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)
...
Nope. If you sell something as-is, untested, possibly broken, and someone claims “not as described” due to it being broken, it’s still fraudulent exploitation of eBay’s buyer bias. You have to literally ignore the justification of that “not as described” option to submit that case.
The seller is shouldering the risk primarily because fraudulent buyers rampantly exploit eBay’s buyer bias. They default to the buyer unless the seller fights it and, even then, it’s risky and often hard to prove when a buyer can just damage the item. The sellers sometimes, but rarely, win when they chose to fight this. The difficulty for sellers does not justify the fraud. We only make the problem worse if we act like people should behave this way just because they can and eBay often lets them get away with it. Speaking up seems to have worked here since the buyer withdrew his claim. It’s important that we don’t encourage the people who aren’t actively scamming to blur the lines with the ones who are by telling them “it’s OK because eBay allows it.”
Regarding "as-is" -- searches on how eBay handles this are all over the place, and it doesn't sound like there is a universal answer.
That is, if something is "as is", and it turns out to be broken, it is "not as described" unless it was actually listed as "broken" in the first place.
(presumably the same for the "untested" label -- unless you declare it also as "broken", you don't have any kind of clear defense against a return)
I don't encourage anyone to commit a scam with regards to auction returns.
I also don't encourage a seller to have an item description that includes no information at all, when the pertinent information (in the case) was easily known and provided up front.
What is your personal threshold for use or wear-and-tear to where "used" is no longer an adequate description and an item might be "not as described" due to withheld facts?
The threshold is when the damage exceeds what normal, intended, use would eventually produce before and item could be deemed broken or no longer unusable. Only thing subjective there is “normal” and if you consider writing in a section intended for writing abnormal just because it usually isn’t used, well, then there’s that pesky “intended use” part to deal with. If “used” meant “between light and heavy use,” you’d get the answer you were likely looking for, but it doesn’t mean that.
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.
...except that not all manuals even have a scores/notes section and there was no obligation for him to check as long as he was willing to accept the consequences for anything ELSE that could be wrong there (beyond signs of intended use). If the buyer had found missing pages as random scribbling on instructional pages then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
The latter, the buyer's protection is that they can return things if the seller didn't adequately describe the item by failing to disclose facts they should have known.
(and that I know from my own selling experience are easy to know and disclose)
Close, but not quite. The terms clearly say “Item not as described.” There is no “Item not described to my satisfaction.” eBay never told the buyers that they could return any item for any thing that they find disagreeable and the fact that there is no more appropriate option to file the claim under demonstrates this. There is no standard for what the seller “should have known” when no promises were made about the condition beyond “used.”
If there are unstated defects, it wouldn't surprise me if that fit the bill.
That said, the seller almost certainly runs the risk of getting bad feedback for their description category, so even if the buyer didn't attempt a return, a seller is taking a needless risk with a say-nothing description like "used", when they know there is more they should have said.
The latter, the buyer's protection is that they can return things if the seller didn't adequately describe the item by failing to disclose facts they should have known.
(and that I know from my own selling experience are easy to know and disclose)
Close, but not quite. The terms clearly say “Item not as described.” There is no “Item not described to my satisfaction.” eBay never told the buyers that they could return any item for any thing that they find disagreeable and the fact that there is no more appropriate option to file the claim under demonstrates this. There is no standard for what the seller “should have known” when no promises were made about the condition beyond “used.”
If there are unstated defects, it wouldn't surprise me if that fit the bill.
That said, the seller almost certainly runs the risk of getting bad feedback for their description category, so even if the buyer didn't attempt a return, a seller is taking a needless risk with a say-nothing description like "used", when they know there is more they should have said.
Agreed. You can rate a description as “poor” but a poor description is not the same as an incorrect description that justifies a return.
...except that not all manuals even have a scores/notes section and there was no obligation for him to check as long as he was willing to accept the consequences for anything ELSE that could be wrong there (beyond signs of intended use). If the buyer had found missing pages as random scribbling on instructional pages then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I'll certainly agree that the buyer would have had less headache if they'd asked for a more detailed description.
But it's not like we're talking about a seller who doesn't know anything about what they're selling.
The guy has some knowledge of the hobby and who his customers are likely to be.
Seems silly to skip a meaningful condition description when he could have just as easily said "writing present on the high scores page" and then this topic would have never showed up.
Agreed. You can rate a description as “poor” but a poor description is not the same as an incorrect description that justifies a return.
In terms of incorrect descriptions vs "poor descriptions" vs inaccurate description (by omission) -- I went and looked at the auction link.
From the picture, they all look pretty pristine.
Unless it is a wellknown thing in Vectrex collecting that people write in their manuals, I don't think I would have expected them to have been written in, if the seller didn't choose to point it out.
They actually have a wordy enough description about what is included in the auction to where I don't find it particularly unreasonable to be disappointed that they didn't point out a fairly obvious issue like writing.
Anyway, as a seller, I'd never have a description that lacks that kind of information.
But based on your earlier post, you think my standards for other sellers are too high
Agreed. You can rate a description as “poor” but a poor description is not the same as an incorrect description that justifies a return.
In terms of incorrect descriptions vs "poor descriptions" vs inaccurate description (by omission) -- I went and looked at the auction link.
From the picture, they all look pretty pristine.
Unless it is a wellknown thing in Vectrex collecting that people write in their manuals, I don't think I would have expected them to have been written in, if the seller didn't choose to point it out.
They actually have a wordy enough description about what is included in the auction to where I don't find it particularly unreasonable to be disappointed that they didn't point out a fairly obvious issue like writing.
Anyway, as a seller, I'd never have a description that lacks that kind of information.
But based on your earlier post, you think my standards for other sellers are too high
You and I both have personal standards that would include that but I have to consider strict interpretation of any other seller’s description since that is the only standard I can morally claim when something is not as described. I can’t assume that another seller has met my personal standard and then base my claim on that. Many times I’ve been disappointed but refrained from making such a claim because I knew it was wrong to say that it wasn’t as described. I’d do it in a heartbeat if the description contradicts reality for something I cared about.
Regarding the likelihood of and expectations for finding writing in the manuals:
I make a distinction between expecting that they did and expecting that they could. I’d expect that this would be intended use correctly described as “used” if it was written in regardless of how many users use it.
If it’s half the users then I expect to find writing in a lot of manuals described as “used” and I can’t say that the description was wrong. If it was 1/3rd, same deal. A quarter? Same deal. A fraction of a percent? Well, at some point my expectation goes from “a lot of” to some with increasingly few. I still expect “some” to have writing there unless the seller specifically described it otherwise (“like new,” “new,” “mint,” “no writing,” etc). At no point would I be justified in claiming that “used” doesn’t describe potential writing in the manual unless the chance of that was demonstrably zero.
How many people update the service history manual in their car? Most people just shove their receipts in with it. Would it be a flaw if someone did use the manual? If the car and everything associated with it happens to be a collectible, wouldn’t that be seen as provenance and perhaps even a good thing (shows that the vehicle was properly cared for)? I would only consider it defect under different context, like if it were described as “like new.”
The equivalent car analogy would be one of those cars that was bought to collect and stayed in a garage with 5 miles on the odometer and, thus, no service record expected. “Like new, mint-condition, 1995 Dodge Viper with 5 dealer-fresh miles on the ODO (2 from the factory!); original tires with original air!” I might be able to dispute writing then based on the “like new” and “mint” descriptions. If the original tires were dry rotted (as they very likely would be) I might also be able dispute that even though better condition is almost mutually exclusive of “original tires.”
Regarding the likelihood of and expectations for finding writing in the manuals:
I make a distinction between expecting that they did and expecting that they could. I’d expect that this would be intended use correctly described as “used” if it was written in regardless of how many users use it.
If it’s half the users then I expect to find writing in a lot of manuals described as “used” and I can’t say that the description was wrong. If it was 1/3rd, same deal. A quarter? Same deal. A fraction of a percent? Well, at some point my expectation goes from “a lot of” to some with increasingly few. I still expect “some” to have writing there unless the seller specifically described it otherwise (“like new,” “new,” “mint,” “no writing,” etc). At no point would I be justified in claiming that “used” doesn’t describe potential writing in the manual unless the chance of that was demonstrably zero.
How many people update the service history manual in their car? Most people just shove their receipts in with it. Would it be a flaw if someone did use the manual? If the car and everything associated with it happens to be a collectible, wouldn’t that be seen as provenance and perhaps even a good thing (shows that the vehicle was properly cared for)? I would only consider it defect under different context, like if it were described as “like new.”
The equivalent car analogy would be one of those cars that was bought to collect and stayed in a garage with 5 miles on the odometer and, thus, no service record expected. “Like new, mint-condition, 1995 Dodge Viper with 5 dealer-fresh miles on the ODO (2 from the factory!); original tires with original air!” If the original tires were dry rotted (as they very likely would be) I might be able dispute the “like new” part but better condition is almost mutually exclusive of “original tires.”
You need to just forget this car analogy. It isn't a good analogy, and the service history portion is an even worse analogy, since I doubt anybody haggles the price of a car based on the condition of the service manual.
If they did, it probably represents 0.01% or less of the total price of the deal to just get a new condition NOS manual thrown in as a freebie.
And while the "provenance' in the case of car service matters, the "provenance" of writing high scores in a video game manual is only of any possible benefit if it happens to have come from some well known high score champion or some other person of celebrity status. Even then it is subjective as to whether that is of value or "damage" to the manual, in the case of video games.
I don't collect Vectrex so I don't know how commonly the manuals are written in.
Maybe for Vectrex collectors it is just understood that everybody wrote in the manuals.
But it would never have been my expectation that an auction that omits something obvious like writing in the manual would be considered "OK" or "up to standard" for a listing, versus considering that omission an error on the part of the seller.
From my own selling experience, I know that sort of thing is very easy to know (as the seller) and very easy to disclose accurately.
Back when I was actively collecting NES and SNES, I certainly would have expected that to have been disclosed to me, and the times that I found writing in the manuals I bought, the seller had been honest and accurate in their descriptions about what to expect.
But if I actively collected manuals, nowadays, maybe my expectations of seller disclosure would be commensurately lowered.
I tend to expect better out of people, though.
The fact that there is even a discussion about the seller being in the wrong in this instance is the reason why I don't sell video games on eBay or Amazon.
Lol me too.
All I can think of is the massive amount of manuals Ive sold that I didnt look through a single page.
I recently just sold about 3k worth of items on eBay after not selling for years, and only had one person try a claim that a 2600 arrived damaged, i didnt even question it just gave the 50$ back and said F it
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.
This x1,000
When games did not save their own progress/hi-scores and when hi-scores were the common goal I am sure that they were used a lot more, but until you could reasonably expect zero users to use that then you must expect that a "used" manual might be used in that way. Doesn't matter if it's 15% or 10% or 7% of users who use it.
The issue what what you're saying is that you are conflating "might" (which could be very very low chance) with "should expect" (which should imply "likely" or > 50%).
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)
...
When listing an item, eBay presents sellers with an option to specify whether-or-not returns are accepted. A message right there clearly says buyers can still return the item if it's not as described.
If the buyer wants more details about the nature of the use on a "used" item, then the buyer should ask before agreeing to the sale (a contract).
When listing an item, eBay presents sellers with an option to specify whether-or-not returns are accepted. A message right there clearly says Byers can still return the item if it's not as described.
If the buyer wants more details about the nature of the use on a "used" item, then the buyer should ask before agreeing to the sale (a contract).
I'd point out that if a seller wants to protect themselves from the risks of buyers using "not as described" as a defense, they shouldn't omit (seemingly obvious) things like writing in manuals.
I would be surprised if that could easily be characterized as an omitted flaw/imperfection that should have been disclosed should a buyer choose to raise the issue with eBay.
I'm sure somebody here has practical experience as to who eBay sides with in that case, and could clear it up.
Anyway, I'm surprised that the general agreement is that sellers don't need to be bothered to disclose something like this.
It's not how I'd choose to act as a seller, and I wouldn't have expected it as the norm.
When listing an item, eBay presents sellers with an option to specify whether-or-not returns are accepted. A message right there clearly says Byers can still return the item if it's not as described.
If the buyer wants more details about the nature of the use on a "used" item, then the buyer should ask before agreeing to the sale (a contract).
I'd point out that if a seller wants to protect themselves from the risks of buyers using "not as described" as a defense, they shouldn't omit (seemingly obvious) things like writing in manuals.
I would be surprised if that could easily be characterized as an omitted flaw/imperfection that should have been disclosed should a buyer choose to raise the issue with eBay.
I'm sure somebody here has practical experience as to who eBay sides with in that case, and could clear it up.
That depends entirely on which ebay "agent" that gets escalated to, and what the Magic 8-Ball happens to tell them when they turn it over.
When games did not save their own progress/hi-scores and when hi-scores were the common goal I am sure that they were used a lot more, but until you could reasonably expect zero users to use that then you must expect that a "used" manual might be used in that way. Doesn't matter if it's 15% or 10% or 7% of users who use it.
The issue what what you're saying is that you are conflating "might" (which could be very very low chance) with "should expect" (which should imply "likely" or > 50%).
”Might” implies any chance between 100% and 0% and a user should expect any single unit “might” be used in that way (writing in the section intended for that). The exact rate is irrelevant. Whether or not it’s likely or unlikely is irrelevant. As long as there is a reasonable, non-zero chance then they “should expect [that it might].” Expecting a single used manual to have no writing just because 51% of them don’t is backwards. I can’t book a year-long time machine trip to some random year in the past decade and then claim that I deserve a refund because they didn’t tell me I might get a leap year which I can expect to get only 25% of the time. How’s that for a bad analogy?
The standard here is set by strict interpretation of “used” and what constitues “intended use” whether or not most get used that way.
”Might” implies any chance between 100% and 0% and a user should expect any single unit “might” be used in that way (writing in the section intended for that). The exact rate is irrelevant. Whether or not it’s likely or unlikely is irrelevant. As long as there is a reasonable, non-zero chance then they “should expect [that it might].” Expecting a single used manual to have no writing just because 51% of them don’t is backwards. I can’t book a year-long time machine trip to some random year in the past decade and then claim that I deserve a refund because they didn’t tell me I might get a leap year which I can expect to get only 25% of the time. How’s that for a bad analogy?
The standard here is set by strict interpretation of “used” and what constitues “intended use” whether or not most get used that way.
Let's imagine some arbitrary example where there is only a 1:100 chance that the high score pages would actually have been used.
Even if that was "intended use", it would be uncommon enough as to be note-worthy, since you have a very high probability of expecting it to NOT have been used in that way.
But if a significant percentage of people actually wrote in these manuals (while keeping them as nice looking as in the pictures!), then a buyer should probably know what to expect.
Though likelihood absolutely factors into that expectation, and it seems a bit absurd to suggest otherwise.
But then again, with a seller who sells known collectibles and knows what they're selling, should probably also know something like writing in a manual MIGHT ( ) matter to a bunch of prospective buyers, to where it is worth their while to point it out in the description to avoid issues down the line.
Other thing was Japanese famicom in box with original paperwork, early style power supply, rare flyers, & good pics of everything in detail. Console I got was totally different later version later serial number, newer power supply, no flyers. It was $92.55 shipped & I told seller reason I bought was for the early matching unit and stuff the set I got was pieced together. Seller was nicer in this case and I told him to send me the 3 flyers or refund $20 and I'd be ok with that so he said he sent flyers out but I'll believe it when I see it. He did go ahead and begin return for refund process so who knows. No way in hell I'd return it returning stuff more trouble than it's worth anyways & never know what lies they might use once item gets back.