A different question on shipping charges.

[DoubleCovaBrotha]

Get a grip folks!! The seller was kind enough to combine shipping. Did he have to? NO! Even though his auctions specifically stated $5 shipping in each auction, he compromised. He did it to promote a good relationship between buyer and seller. Why is it such a problem to return his request as he did yours? At the very least, his request provides no reason to be upset, write a lengthy letter complaining and consider leaving negative feedback. Wow! Hopefully, I don't ever have to deal with a buyer like this.

 

Yes...but then again he did not have to ship it either when he realized that the shipping and packaging costs would be more than $5.

 

That being said, you have no legal responsibility to pay what he asked. However, there is a problem with the gray area of what your gut tells you to do. You really don't have to come to the boards looking for the right thing to do. I would say that you already knew from the beginning if you paid him already.

[shadroch]

The letter I sent him had more to do with his failure to follow thru on what he saidhe would then complaining about the amount. He could have easily shipped them media mail for the amount he agreed to.

I explained to him the problem he was creating for himself by first charging too little,then askingfor more later.

I recieved an answer today,thanking me for my payment and offering to split the postage on the next group of books I order from him.He went on to say that while he didn't agree with some of the points I raised,he would think about them and try to think of what it takes to satisfy the buyer,as well as himself.

One of the things I pointed out was that had he intially reduced the shipping from$15 to $10,I would have been happy from the getgo, or that had he notified me before the fact,it woud have been no problem.

Had he not been an almost complete newbie,I wouldn't have bothered at all,just given him a positive with a note about asking for more shipping.I only neg people who are complete ripoffs,after they fail to fix the situation.

[tilleycs]

It may not be a smart way to do business but he's got $4.00 more than if he hadn't asked. He did a favor by reducing the listed shipping charges and Shadroch returned the favor.

 

Yes, he got $4.00 more...THIS time. But how much future money (of Shadroch's, and people who have seen this topic, and people Shadroch WOULD have referred to him) do you think he cost himself by going back on the shipping price that he gave and then going back on it? I'd say this guy got lucky that Shadroch was as flexible as he was. I would have been irritated, too.

[tilleycs]

Get a grip folks!! The seller was kind enough to combine shipping. Did he have to? NO! Even though his auctions specifically stated $5 shipping in each auction, he compromised. He did it to promote a good relationship between buyer and seller. Why is it such a problem to return his request as he did yours? At the very least, his request provides no reason to be upset, write a lengthy letter complaining and consider leaving negative feedback. Wow! Hopefully, I don't ever have to deal with a buyer like this.

 

Did he have to combine it initially? No. But he DID, and he should have stuck with that. HE set the terms, and then wanted to go back and change them later. How does THAT promote a good relationship between buyer and seller? I'd be wondering, "O.k, if I buy from him again, how much will he be coming back and asking me for NEXT time?" and I wouldn't let there BE a next time.

 

The amount that he asked for isn't the issue. It's him going back on his word and the terms that HE gave for their deal.

 

If you don't go back after the deal is settled and try to get more money out of him/her, the buyer won't have to consider action like that. The seller created the situation, not the buyer.

[TLC55555]

Get a grip folks!! The seller was kind enough to combine shipping. Did he have to? NO! Even though his auctions specifically stated $5 shipping in each auction, he compromised. He did it to promote a good relationship between buyer and seller. Why is it such a problem to return his request as he did yours? At the very least, his request provides no reason to be upset, write a lengthy letter complaining and consider leaving negative feedback. Wow! Hopefully, I don't ever have to deal with a buyer like this.

 

Did he have to combine it initially? No. But he DID, and he should have stuck with that. HE set the terms, and then wanted to go back and change them later. How does THAT promote a good relationship between buyer and seller? I'd be wondering, "O.k, if I buy from him again, how much will he be coming back and asking me for NEXT time?" and I wouldn't let there BE a next time.

 

The amount that he asked for isn't the issue. It's him going back on his word and the terms that HE gave for their deal.

 

If you don't go back after the deal is settled and try to get more money out of him/her, the buyer won't have to consider action like that. The seller created the situation, not the buyer.

 

Great logic...ouch!!

 

So...the seller, who has found out through experice the shipping for one auction lot is $5. When he gets a request from the buyer (who had agreed to the $5 each shipping fee by bidding) to combine shipping (which he does..that was THE ATTEMPT TO PROMOTE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP), he figures that shipping should still be around $5. However, when he arrives at the USPS, he finds out that shipping is almost double what he thought. He thinks to himself "I can just ship these out and request the difference from the seller or I can just keep them until I get the full shipping costs". He does what he thinks is best and just sends out the books. When he makes the request for the additional shipping costs, this thread is the result...

 

Again, the seller originally compromised and agreed to the buyers request. He had his "terms set" and specifically noted in each aution. He broke those specifically stated terms of sale at the buyers request. If seems to me that if someone was willing to break his originial terms (at the buyers request) to save a buyer $10 on shipping, his later request was not out of line at all. Let's be realistic. The buyer bid and won the auctions knowing that there was a $5 shipping cost for each item. The request for combining shipping didn't come until after all three items were won. Even if he paid the additional $4 for shipping, $9 is 40% less than $15. I guess the seller should just have charged the full $15 .

[tilleycs]

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that the main monkey wrench is that the buyer, by bidding, agreed to the shipping charges stated in the auction (if the seller had agreed to combine shipping charges before the auction, it would have been different, but since they didn't...).

 

>>If seems to me that if someone was willing to break his originial terms (at the buyers request) to save a buyer $10 on shipping, his later request was not out of line at all.<<

 

I just think it's tacky to give someone a price and then come back and ask for more money. I don't know if I'd fork over the extra money or not, but I sure wouldn't be buying from him/her again if I did.

 

From a seller's point of view, though, it's probably also tacky for a buyer to ask for a combined shipping charge AFTER the fact of bidding and winning.

 

I guess the moral of the story is that two tacky's don't make a right?