general question about a dealer and return policy...

[Speedy-D]

Did the OP contact the seller before posting on here?

Not only has he said that he did not, but knowing who he is, would you expect him to?

[8milemax]

The OP is full of it! He made this up! WOW people are gullible!

[mschmidt]

I have a real problem with this thread on so many levels...

 

(1) Your vague insinuations - particularly regarding location - have every boarder jumping to conclusions and I'm now getting PMed even though it is not me.

 

(2) You've started a thread in General to crucify a dealer, even though you have refused to address the matter with the offending party.

 

(3) You returned the item because you decided you 'didn't want it', not that it had been misrepresented, and even though the seller took it back without qualms - something that can't be said about too many dealers - you want to publicly castigate him because you lost 3.9% of what you paid. Instead of praising a superb returns policy that allows you to send stuff back that you no longer like, you want to instead person_without_enough_empathy and moan?

 

I don't really see the issue with the OP's initial post. It reads as a hypothetical. Whether or not anyone else thinks his concerns are valid or if he's splitting hairs over 3.9 percent is inconsequential. Neither you nor I get to decide how somebody else should feel about a situation.

 

I don't follow the bolded part of your response. That's like saying instead of complaining that the air conditioning in my car isn't cold enough I should praise the fact that my car has air conditioning at all....even if it isn't working properly. Don't people expect sellers to have a return policy? Doesn't every seller worth his salt have a return policy? Does it matter what the reason is for my wanting to return something? Having a return policy ought to be a given (according to the masses) and not some extra, super-duper, special gift to buyers from benevolent sellers.

 

Should the OP have contacted the seller originally? Sure, I would. So that's a bit dopey. But there's still nothing wrong with his original question. Perhaps if other people would simply answer the question as it is posed (if you get a refund less than what you paid is that cool?) instead of prying for more details and begging for names to be outed, maybe it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

There are lots of return policies that only allow returns for a particular set of reasons. And lots of companies will only offer an exchange, or a return for store credit. So no, a full, no questions asked return policy is not a given.

 

Now, if a 3rd party payment system, which the buyer used in making his purchase, is taking a cut from the refund, it's certainly not a given that the seller needs to pony up the difference. If the buyer didn't pay for the seller's paypal fees, why would it be assumed that the seller should pay for the buyer's paypal fees?

 

Because that's the cost of doing business.

 

If you made a purchase at a store with a credit card, went back to return the item and was told that you'd be given a refund minus the fees incurred by the store in processing your credit card payment, would you be satisfied & praising this as a "superb return policy"? Of course, you wouldn't.

DISCLAIMER: I'm talking out of my here, but that's what CG is for right?

 

I didn't think it was a case of the seller purposefully taking a cut out of the refund. It was Paypal that took the cut automatically. So, your analogy doesn't apply. If, in your case, the CC company took a percentage of the return amount, I would not hold that against the seller. Nor would I expect the seller to give a bit extra in the refund, to offset what the CC was charging me. This of course is completely unrelated to my opinion of Paypal or a CC company charging fees, the amount of those fees, or whatever.

 

It doesn't matter whether the seller did this purposefully or not.

 

If the seller has a return policy that states he will do a refund, it's his responsibility to ensure that the buyer gets said refund. If the seller wants to charge a restocking fee, a credit card processing fee, or any other number of fees, that's something which needs to be spelled out in his return policy - if it's not, there's no excuse for not giving the buyer 100% of what he paid.

 

If you do a return on a Paypal payment, the paypal fees are reimbursed to the seller - the fact that this seller decided to a second Paypal payment and thereby incurred another round of fees in order to do the return is his fault, not the buyers.

 

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

[seanfingh]

 

CG taking Trippy McSkippy seriously . . .

 

When the protagonist from the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman is feeling not so fresh, she reaches for Trippy McSkippy. (thumbs u

[Comicopolis]

CG taking Trippy McSkippy seriously . . .

 

When the protagonist from the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman is feeling not so fresh, she reaches for Trippy McSkippy. (thumbs u

 

[hockey&comicsguy]

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

 

 

Kind of what I was thinking.

[Comicopolis]

A couple of questions for the OP.

 

How long ago did this transaction take place?

 

Did you contact the seller once you realized what kind of refund they made?

[seanfingh]

 

Trippy McSkippy could write that someone came into his house and started gobbling up his comics and shooting comic confetti out of his nethers like a human woodchipper, and I would still assume that there either was a good explanation for it, or he deserved it on principle.

[8milemax]

Trippy McSkippy could write that someone came into his house and started gobbling up his comics and shooting comic confetti out of his nethers like a human woodchipper, and I would still assume that there either was a good explanation for it, or he deserved it on principle.

 

 

+10000000000000

[namisgr]

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

 

Because sometimes the apparent victim is, in fact, the victimizer.

 

1. There are many sellers who consider the sale of CGC-slabbed comics to be final. Have I missed the post where the 'aggrieved' buyer specified that the return in question was unslabbed?

 

2. There are a few buyers who take advantage of return policies on unslabbed books, and scoop up many more books than they intend to actually buy, using a generous seller return policy as a kind of 'approvals' process. To deal with such buyers on a regular basis is to accrue unnecessary expenses and significant wasted time, and can be damaging to sellers with high integrity and a liberal return policy.

[Mutie Fan]

Trippy McSkippy could write that someone came into his house and started gobbling up his comics and shooting comic confetti out of his nethers like a human woodchipper, and I would still assume that there either was a good explanation for it, or he deserved it on principle.

 

 

 

[DrWatson]

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

 

Because sometimes the apparent victim is, in fact, the victimizer.

 

1. There are many sellers who consider the sale of CGC-slabbed comics to be final. Have I missed the post where the 'aggrieved' buyer specified that the return in question was unslabbed?

 

2. There are a few buyers who take advantage of return policies on unslabbed books, and scoop up many more books than they intend to actually buy, using a generous seller return policy as a kind of 'approvals' process. To deal with such buyers on a regular basis is to accrue fee after fee, and can be damaging to sellers with high integrity and a liberal return policy.

Good Lord, we agree. I'm struck dumb.

[namisgr]

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

 

Because sometimes the apparent victim is, in fact, the victimizer.

 

1. There are many sellers who consider the sale of CGC-slabbed comics to be final. Have I missed the post where the 'aggrieved' buyer specified that the return in question was unslabbed?

 

2. There are a few buyers who take advantage of return policies on unslabbed books, and scoop up many more books than they intend to actually buy, using a generous seller return policy as a kind of 'approvals' process. To deal with such buyers on a regular basis is to accrue fee after fee, and can be damaging to sellers with high integrity and a liberal return policy.

Good Lord, we agree. I'm struck dumb.

 

 

You've set yourself up for a slam-dunk retort on that one.

[mschmidt]

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

 

Because sometimes the apparent victim is, in fact, the victimizer.

 

1. There are many sellers who consider the sale of CGC-slabbed comics to be final. Have I missed the post where the 'aggrieved' buyer specified that the return in question was unslabbed?

 

2. There are a few buyers who take advantage of return policies on unslabbed books, and scoop up many more books than they intend to actually buy, using a generous seller return policy as a kind of 'approvals' process. To deal with such buyers on a regular basis is to accrue unnecessary expenses and significant wasted time, and can be damaging to sellers with high integrity and a liberal return policy.

 

1) As the dealer's return policy allowed for the buyer to send the book back, whether it was raw or slabbed doesn't really seem relevant here.

 

2) Then either ban those buyers from buying from you or change your general returns policy. Again - unless your returns policy specifies that you will charge a restocking fee, a returns fee or that the buyer is responsible for any Paypal charges incurred whilst giving them a refund, there's no way whatsoever the seller is allowed to simply say "here's your refund - it's only 95% of what you paid, suck it up, junior".

[DrWatson]

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

 

Because sometimes the apparent victim is, in fact, the victimizer.

 

1. There are many sellers who consider the sale of CGC-slabbed comics to be final. Have I missed the post where the 'aggrieved' buyer specified that the return in question was unslabbed?

 

2. There are a few buyers who take advantage of return policies on unslabbed books, and scoop up many more books than they intend to actually buy, using a generous seller return policy as a kind of 'approvals' process. To deal with such buyers on a regular basis is to accrue fee after fee, and can be damaging to sellers with high integrity and a liberal return policy.

Good Lord, we agree. I'm struck dumb.

 

 

You've set yourself up for a slam-dunk retort on that one.

How about I'm struck more dumber?

[DrWatson]

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

 

Because sometimes the apparent victim is, in fact, the victimizer.

 

1. There are many sellers who consider the sale of CGC-slabbed comics to be final. Have I missed the post where the 'aggrieved' buyer specified that the return in question was unslabbed?

 

2. There are a few buyers who take advantage of return policies on unslabbed books, and scoop up many more books than they intend to actually buy, using a generous seller return policy as a kind of 'approvals' process. To deal with such buyers on a regular basis is to accrue unnecessary expenses and significant wasted time, and can be damaging to sellers with high integrity and a liberal return policy.

 

1) As the dealer's return policy allowed for the buyer to send the book back, whether it was raw or slabbed doesn't really seem relevant here.

 

2) Then either ban those buyers from buying from you or change your general returns policy. Again - unless your returns policy specifies that you will charge a restocking fee, a returns fee or that the buyer is responsible for any Paypal charges incurred whilst giving them a refund, there's no way whatsoever the seller is allowed to simply say "here's your refund - it's only 95% of what you paid, suck it up, junior".

That's all well and good, but nonetheless moot as we don't know who the seller is, much less their return policy or what they would have refunded TrippyMcDickie if he had bothered to contact the seller.

[hockey&comicsguy]

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

 

Because sometimes the apparent victim is, in fact, the victimizer.

 

1. There are many sellers who consider the sale of CGC-slabbed comics to be final. Have I missed the post where the 'aggrieved' buyer specified that the return in question was unslabbed?

 

2. There are a few buyers who take advantage of return policies on unslabbed books, and scoop up many more books than they intend to actually buy, using a generous seller return policy as a kind of 'approvals' process. To deal with such buyers on a regular basis is to accrue unnecessary expenses and significant wasted time, and can be damaging to sellers with high integrity and a liberal return policy.

 

 

As schmidt said, have a clear cut policy that pays people back in FULL. And if not, state what fees may be incurred for return of merchandise. That's on the seller. And once identified, simply stop dealing with those who abuse your returns policy. Again, that's on the seller.

[namisgr]

The seller is already out of pocket >3% for accepting the standard PayPal fee plus their currency exchange charge, and another chunk of change for having to refund shipping, and all over a sale for which no reasonable explanation has been offered to justify the return.

 

Splitting the 'victimage' and the extra fees between buyer and seller is not an unreasonable option.

 

If there was wear, damage, or defect that was not apparent to the buyer from scans or communication with the seller prior to the transaction, or the comic was damaged in shipping, matters are different. Those are exclusively the seller's responsibility.

[hockey&comicsguy]

That's all well and good, but nonetheless moot as we don't know who the seller is, much less their return policy or what they would have refunded TrippyMcDickie if he had bothered to contact the seller.

 

True in this specific case. In general, I think mschmidt is on the money.

[Comicopolis]

Can't believe the amount of victim-blaming that's actually going on in this thread - yeah, the OP isn't exactly mr. popular around here, and starting a thread like this without contacting the seller first is douchey, but, man, if this was anybody else, not a single person would be saying that the buyer should just eat a loss because the seller doesn't know how to use Paypal's refund system :doh:

 

Because sometimes the apparent victim is, in fact, the victimizer.

 

1. There are many sellers who consider the sale of CGC-slabbed comics to be final. Have I missed the post where the 'aggrieved' buyer specified that the return in question was unslabbed?

 

2. There are a few buyers who take advantage of return policies on unslabbed books, and scoop up many more books than they intend to actually buy, using a generous seller return policy as a kind of 'approvals' process. To deal with such buyers on a regular basis is to accrue fee after fee, and can be damaging to sellers with high integrity and a liberal return policy.

Good Lord, we agree. I'm struck dumb.

 

 

You've set yourself up for a slam-dunk retort on that one.

How about I'm struck more dumber?

 

Stumb.