RockMyAmadeus

The fact that he couldn't remember is more evidence of his carelessness. When I receive a book...especially a high value book...but really, any book (and this should come as no shock to anyone reading this who has been around for more than a few months), I forensically examine it, matching up any sort of damage to the bag/board situation, to see if any shipment damage occurred (and it occurs a lot.) It's not reasonable to expect a forensic examination from everyone, but..and here's the kicker...if the buyer sees something...anything...that gives him pause, he should stop what he's doing and conduct a thorough examination immediately. he should certainly not ignore it, unless he is willing to accept responsibility for it later. That's the very meaning of "due diligence."

I've already addressed this. The buyer had (and may still have!) the right to initiate a claim with the USPS, provided he/she did his due diligence. The buyer's negligence wasn't involving damage to the book, but rather, letting the seller know that the transaction was concluded to his satisfaction BEFORE checking the item thoroughly, and WITH misgivings about the item's condition. The buyer did NOT do his due diligence, and a claim with the USPS may not be (probably is not) possible. If it IS possible, the buyer should pursue it, at his cost (in terms of time.) I'm sure the seller would be amenable to helping him with the claim. However...if I were the USPS investigator assigned to the claim, I would disallow it, on the grounds that the buyer sufficiently and substantially expressed satisfaction with the item upon receipt, despite personal misgivings, which concluded the transaction. This isn't relevant. The buyer didn't say he had given it a "cursory glance." He indicated his satisfaction with the item, and then, to seal the deal, left kudos. If the buyer wasn't satisfied...or had misgivings about the book...he should have done neither of those things. As comix4fun pointed out...who IS a lawyer... I don't think anyone here thinks "merely checking the book in the bag" constitutes "due diligence" on the part of a buyer. I doubt ANYONE would allow that as grounds for having confirmed the condition of the item upon receipt.

I agree, for your protection. The buyer shows no signs of a willingness to accept any responsibility for his negligence, so I think this is the best course for you.

I am not related to this case in any way, and negative personal comments about me aren't relevant, other than demonstrating the nature and character of the buyer. The buyer has refused to answer simple, straightforward questions, refused to admit any responsibility, refused to be conciliatory in any way, and instead has been hostile, defensive, and dismissive. That really says what needs to be said. I will point out again: the buyer EXCLUDED material information in his Paypal claim (that is, that he initially told the buyer he was satisfied, despite admitting he had misgivings from the outset, and then changed his mind upon "further review", which shouldn't have been necessary if the transaction was already successfully concluded), which would likely have had an impact on their decision. That rises to the level of fraud in my mind, and makes the buyer eligible for the PL. Along with that, it would behoove anyone...especially with the board's new format...to quote posts made by others, so that after-the-fact edits can't be made without the ability to be checked.

Your example isn't valid. As comix4fun explained earlier, there wasn't any hidden defect that wasn't immediately discoverable. Here, I'll let the man speak for himself: Your example, describing a hidden defect, is not what occurred here. And no, I didn't say it absolves the seller fully...merely that the buyer has a greater degree of responsibility here than in a normal situation, such as the one you describe. Because of the details of this case, I think the buyer should be responsible for the difference in value. We're only taking the buyer at his word; regardless of how "stellar" the buyer's reputation has been, the reality is, the seller represented the item in a certain condition, had other people who can vouch for the condition of the item, and It is my contention...and again, not a lawyer, here, but that doesn't invalidate anyone...is that, specifically because the buyer told the seller he was satisfied, and gave every indication that the transaction was successfully completed...with the extenuating circumstance that the buyer ADMITTED (bet he wishes he didn't) that there was cause for concern that he ACTIVELY IGNORED...then the buyer has responsibility for the change in value. No one is saying "you snooze, you lose." What is being said is "you don't do your due diligence, and instead give every indication that the transaction has been concluded satisfactorily, you lose." I am certain, though no one can prove this, that the book was damaged in shipping, "no damage to the box" notwithstanding. I don't think the buyer damaged the book, and I certainly don't think the seller did, either. However...no USPS investigator worth his/her salt would allow a claim on the USPS when a recipient had the item in their possession...opened...for a week, after indicating that the item had been received in satisfactory condition.

Getting paid to argue =

That's an easy question to answer: lack of due diligence. Again, this might not be too accurate an analogy, but if a tenant discovers damage to the property he has just rented...which he did not do, and for which he is not responsible...and doesn't inform the landlord, the landlord can hold the TENANT responsible for said damage. After all...who caused it...? We don't know who caused the damage, but the fact is, the buyer didn't report it upon receipt, and...most damning...gave every indication to the seller that the transaction was concluded to his satisfaction...THEN notified the seller after a period of time that he had not, in fact, properly inspected the book before claiming his satisfaction. True! A buyer has a reasonable amount of time in which to inspect a purchase. That isn't, and never has been, the issue, nor has anyone made that claim. The issue is that the buyer indicated to the seller that the transaction was successfully concluded, and THEN changed his mind. His failure to report the damage for a week is not at issue. His failure to report said damage, in the face of his own concern, COMBINED with the fact that he told the seller the transaction was satisfactorily concluded, is what is at issue, here.

Smarty pants. Read it; I may have a career as a blood-sucke.. .er, lawyer after all! And yes, this board is a pain to try and do all that. I still haven't figured out the multi-quote function.

In other words, there's nothing in the buyer's words or actions that says "this is just a CURSORY examination; full review to come at a later date." Everything the buyer said and did indicates that the transaction was COMPLETED; he even says so! He said that he had concerns about the book's condition, but actively set those aside, and told the seller the book was wonderful, and left kudos. What part of ANY of that is ANY indication that his initial response was conditioned upon further review...? It's silly to claim that.

Sorry, but you're downplaying the buyer's actions, in the face of long-standard practice, both here and on the internet in general. This isn't an "apple", nor is it actually an "orange"; such a distinction would be quite obvious on even the most cursory inspection. The buyer didn't say "thank you." The buyer...by leaving kudos in the face of his own self-admitted misgivings about the book's condition...said "this item is satisfactory to me." If you aren't sure...you don't say ANYTHING UNTIL you have CAREFULLY inspected the item. Due diligence. As far as the Paypal claim... sorry, but you're wrong there, too. The fact that the buyer initially expressed satisfaction would absolutely have AN effect... hard to say to what extent, but not "none"... on the decision of Paypal. If I was the seller, I'd be on the phone with Paypal, and explain that to them in very great detail.

I thought I was pretty clear, but if not, I'll clarify: those reading this thread can (and, in some cases, will) use it as a cautionary lesson in doing one's due diligence, and not being premature in expressing one's satisfaction with something. True, as I and others have said earlier, with the possible exception of the glaring omission of relevant facts in the Paypal claim opened by the buyer. That, I think, could reasonably rise to the level of the PL. True and undisputed, by anyone except possibly the seller and the buyer. Very true! They most certainly are not, hence the thread, and the discussion. I'm not quite sure how anyone can make contentions about what other people "love" on the internet...not sure how you know my state of mind...but that aside, if you carefully read this thread, you'll see that it's precisely because they AREN'T finely tuned contracts that we are having this discussion. Sorting out who said what, where, when, how, and why, and what it all ultimately means, is part of the problem and process. I promise, however, that I won't make claims about what you do, and do not, "love", or other contentions about your state of mind, since that would be an overreach on my (or anyone's) part. True, but it is WHY this deal worked out poorly that needs to be resolved. Absolutely! There are many people here, and elsewhere, with whom I choose not to do business because of their conduct on message boards, and I know that to be true for others with regard to me. It saves potential headaches when potentially dealing with the unstable and/or immoral. True, but not relevant in this situation, because kudos were, in fact, left. Not leaving kudos isn't indicative of anything, true...but leaving kudos is. You're going to have a verrrry difficult time convincing many other people that "leaving kudos" is a merely an expression of a CURSORY look over an item. Oh, on the contrary! Here's why: first, the buyer admits to having a concern PRIOR TO telling the seller he was satisfied, and leaving kudos, but ignored his own concern. Admittedly, I have watched a lot of court TV, and, while not law school for sure, there is valuable information to be imparted, and one of those is that those who assume are called "litigants", and more often than not, "losing litigants." You have made the very definition of a lack of due diligence: he "probably assumed everything about the book was as it should be." Buyers don't have the right to assume, then make claims after the fact, for all sorts of reasons. Second, no one is denying him ANY sort of recourse...just that he should accept responsibility for the damage, because of his negligence. That doesn't mean he loses $1500! The book, after all, isn't destroyed. All true (except that the seller told the BUYER to return the book, not the SELLER)...and none of which rises to the level of negligence in which the buyer engaged. What is right and ethical isn't determined by emotions. We can dispute what "telling the buyer he would send him money" means. Obviously, the seller didn't say "you get a full and total refund, regardless of the circumstances." What you are doing here...which I don't have a problem with, by the way...is treating the SELLER'S words like a "finely tuned contract", while downplaying the buyer's actions. Can't have it both ways. Very true!

Hi! Still wondering why, in your claim filed with Paypal, you neglected to tell them that you had initially informed the seller that you were satisfied with the transaction, even leaving public notice of such satisfaction, before reversing course a week later? Is it because you believed that it would severely weaken your "item not as described" claim if you told Paypal that? Also, do you plan to rectify that omission with Paypal, and if so, how? @DavidTheDavid Please respond.

I disagree entirely; at a minimum, those reading this thread will make sure they do their due diligence, and know that if they don't, they won't have much recourse here. MUCH good is likely to result, benefitting many.

True....IF the buyer had done his due diligence, and NOT told the seller that everything was satisfactory, only to do a complete 180 6-7 days later. In that light, not ridiculous at all. That is the sticking point to all of this: the buyer said everything was satisfactory, even though he later admitted that he had had a concern open receipt. And, in case the note to the seller wasn't adequate, the buyer left a post in the seller's "kudos", which is, if I'm not mistaken, the generally accepted "transaction certified as complete" method we have on the boards, is it not? That the buyer didn't recognize this, and, instead of being conciliatory about his very serious error, simply answered hostility and accusation with hostility and accusation of his own, which he has yet to rescind or even acknowledge, is where this whole issue hangs. No doubt, the seller should have controlled his reactions...no doubt. But if I were in this situation, and I told the seller I was happy with the transaction, and publicly announced that satisfaction, only to change my mind after the fact, I would reasonably expect a measure of suspicion on the part of the seller. Again: the seller had no reason to think the buyer was anything less than satisfied...and markedly so. I would say "Oh, man, I'm sorry. I thought it was ok, but I didn't notice this problem. Is there anything we can do? I'm sorry for telling you everything was satisfactory; I've been (insert excuse here.)" ...and then, I would accept the seller's judgment, because I hadn't done my due diligence.

Accusing someone of something isn't acting in "bad faith", unless the accuser knows the accused is not guilty of the accusation. Inappropriate, yes, ill-conceived, yes, rushed judgment, yes...but not acting in bad faith. Telling a seller the they are satisfied with the transaction, even though the buyer admits to there being a concern beforehand, , and subsequently notifying the seller 6-7 days after the fact that there is, in fact, a very serious problem can be argued convincingly is an example of acting in bad faith. More importantly, leaving out the details of that interaction in the Paypal claim is, without doubt, acting in bad faith.

Wolfy....

Wait...there's LIQUOR here...?? No one told me that! I'll take a manhattan on the rocks, please.

Continuing to call the seller "hostile, accusatory, and irrational"...when you, yourself, have acted in measurably bad faith....doesn't help your case. Regardless of your excuses, you opened the case before the seller even had the item back in hand. Sometimes, people need time to cool off. Sometimes, when they get that time, they do cool off, and things can be resolved without further escalation. But, because you were offended that someone would dare question you and your integrity, you decided to answer measure for measure, up the ante, and file the claim before giving the seller the chance to receive the item back and refund you. On top of that, you misrepresented the situation in your claim to Paypal. Why? (probably a rhetorical question.) If I were you, I'd stop posting, unless you can manage to swallow your pride and apologize for the parts for which you are responsible, and contact Paypal to let them know that you misrepresented the dispute to them. I said that neither party's actions rose to the level of the PL previously; I have changed my mind: if you win the dispute with Paypal, based on your misrepresentation of the material facts of the situation, that is fraud, and for that, you should go on the PL. Here's your chance to do the right thing....

Good thing I'm not a lawyer.

What does someone's status as a "professional" or "non-professional" have to do with anything? Is a doctor always right because he has a few degrees on the wall? Is a patient always wrong because he doesn't? Common sense is still common sense, and blaming the discussion doesn't render common sense invalid. I have no doubt you're "turned off" about this kind of thing, because this situation casts you in a poor light. Continued responses like this...taking no responsibility for yourself, and blaming everyone else...only makes it worse. Good advice, if you can take it.

And the weird thing about that is, Paypal will almost certainly side with the buyer, as they always do.

If you had shown conciliation...of any kind...rather than answering hostile with hostile...you probably wouldn't be in this situation. Something like: "I'm sorry I didn't check more thoroughly before announcing my satisfaction, Eric. That's my fault. I saw there was an issue, but I didn't think much of it at the time. I shouldn't have responded with satisfaction so quickly. I'm sure I didn't cause any damage, and it's certainly possible it happened in shipping. I'm sorry that my actions have caused you to be angry, and I hope we can work something out." But you refuse to budge, saying here that the seller damaged it, and STILL trying to characterize your statement of satisfaction as "just letting the seller know that you received it." That's not what you said. And, if there was any ambiguity, leaving kudos...the "board precedent for satisfactorily completed transactions"...sealed the deal. Then, a week later, you change your mind, but can't understand why the seller "flipped to hostile and accusatory"...? "I'm sorry you feel that way" isn't an apology of any kind. Pride's a wicked taskmaster.

I don't see it as provoked, either, but the argument can be made (and I believe is where the buyer is coming from) that the seller provoked the buyer into opening the case.

Accepting the return...with or without conditions...is a good faith move. Not only accepting the book, admitting that he knew in his mind that there was an issue, but still proactively telling the seller the book was satisfactory AND leaving kudos publicly, and then changing his mind 6-7 days later when he "had the time" to more thoroughly examine it, is a bad faith move. Opening a Paypal dispute before the seller has even received the book back...provoked or not...is a bad faith move. It assumes bad faith on the part of the seller, who has already demonstrated a measure of good faith. Not telling the whole story to Paypal...that the buyer initially gave written notice of his satisfaction, then rescinded that satisfaction a week after the fact...is a bad faith move. I don't see where the seller has acted in bad faith. I see multiple points where the buyer has acted in bad faith. I am with BB on this: the seller...so far as I can see, and I'm willing to consider correction on this...has acted in good faith throughout this transaction. Unprofessional, yes. Emotional, yes. But I don't see acts of bad faith on the part of the seller. I see multiple instances of bad faith on the part of the buyer, and a complete unwillingness to acknowledge any responsibility whatsoever, including comparing his purchase to buying pants from a store, saying they fit, and then noticing a missing belt loop. It would be more accurate to say "I saw that the area was frayed, but I figured I could sew it back up, and told the merchant the pants were perfect." Plus, in online commerce, part of the ritual of transaction, especially transaction between private individuals, is the buyer letting the seller know that the item they purchased was satisfactory...which the buyer did! It's not just overlooking at this point: it's a deliberate act of negligence, that I don't see is overridden by the seller accepting a return to "see the damage." The seller merely misspoke...if that...but the buyer saw there was a problem, ignored it, told the seller things were satisfactory, and THEN decided, after all of this and a measure of time had passed, that it wasn't.

That's where I lean, too, BB.