• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

general question about a dealer and return policy...

Started by TrippyMcSkippy-migration,

171 posts in this topic

DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted

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.

I'm not talking in generalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hockey&comicsguy

hockey&comicsguy

Posted
Posted
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 position.

 

If there was wear or damage 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.

 

If it was a standard paypal fee. We don't know that. He could've done a personal payment, right? As for refunding the shipping, I didn't see if that was even mentioned. As far as I understand it, most sellers don't cover the costs of the buyer shipping the item back, so any shipping chargers are a wash in my mind. Don't know about any exchange charges.

 

Does there have to be "damage" that wasn't apparent in the scan? Is there nothing to be said for having a book in hand and having it not present as you thought it would? Does that then mean the quality of the scan plays some role here? Haven't people ever gotten a book that just didn't meet their expectations and want to send it back? If we're talking raw books and somebody gives it "x" grade and you think it's not, do you need to get into specifics about what "damage" you think makes it not the same grade as what the seller thinks?

 

The bottom line ought to be that if the buyer wants to return the item (in accordance with any time frame or whatnot given by the seller) they ought to be able to return it and made whole. I don't think its up to the seller to determine the legitimacy of the buyer's reasoning for the return. Take the book back, refund in full and choose to either deal with that person in the future or not. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hockey&comicsguy

hockey&comicsguy

Posted
Posted

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.

I'm not talking in generalities.

 

I gathered. It was merely a comment. Who is being argumentative now? :baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted
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 position.

 

If there was wear or damage 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.

 

If it was a standard paypal fee. We don't know that. He could've done a personal payment, right? As for refunding the shipping, I didn't see if that was even mentioned. As far as I understand it, most sellers don't cover the costs of the buyer shipping the item back, so any shipping chargers are a wash in my mind.

 

You've assumed the seller has not offered to cover the cost of the buyer shipping the item back. Can you point me to the post that makes this clear? I believe the OP indicated that the seller generously reimbursed him for the return shipping, hence my comment about splitting the 'victimage' being an option.

 

As for using PayPal Personal for acquiring merchandise, we all know now that the Personal option wasn't established to do this, and to do so would be to violate the terms and services of PayPal. I assume this is not in play with the transaction under discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hockey&comicsguy

hockey&comicsguy

Posted
Posted

 

You've assumed the seller has not offered to cover the cost of the buyer shipping the item back. Can you point me to the post that makes this clear?

 

As for using PayPal Personal for acquiring merchandise, we all know now that the Personal option wasn't established to do this, and to do so would be to go against the terms and services of PayPal.

 

You're right. It's an absolute, 100% assumption. But you already knew that so what's the point? There's a lot of assumptions being made about this transaction. We're having a discussion.

 

As for the personal option I didn't see where he stated anything to that effect. So I don't know if it was used or not. Maybe I missed it. (shrug) Either way, being against paypal policy doesn't mean people don't use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted

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.

I'm not talking in generalities.

 

I gathered. It was merely a comment. Who is being argumentative now? :baiting:

It wasn't argumentative. It was a statement of fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted

 

You've assumed the seller has not offered to cover the cost of the buyer shipping the item back. Can you point me to the post that makes this clear?

 

As for using PayPal Personal for acquiring merchandise, we all know now that the Personal option wasn't established to do this, and to do so would be to go against the terms and services of PayPal.

 

You're right. It's an absolute, 100% assumption. But you already knew that so what's the point? There's a lot of assumptions being made about this transaction. We're having a discussion.

 

I didn't assume, but took my information from the OP

 

They did complain about how they had to absorb the shipping costs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hockey&comicsguy

hockey&comicsguy

Posted
Posted

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.

I'm not talking in generalities.

 

I gathered. It was merely a comment. Who is being argumentative now? :baiting:

It wasn't argumentative. It was a statement of fact.

 

A completely understood and extraneous statement of fact. But if you felt it was absolutely necessary so as to avoid any confusion so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hockey&comicsguy

hockey&comicsguy

Posted
Posted

I didn't assume, but took my information from the OP

 

They did complain about how they had to absorb the shipping costs.

 

Got it. I didn't catch that. Which begs the question of why they would complain about that. Was it in their policy to do so or not? If it was, they shouldn't complain. If it wasn't, they shouldn't have eaten those costs and if they did anyway, well then whose fault is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted

I didn't assume, but took my information from the OP

 

They did complain about how they had to absorb the shipping costs.

 

Got it. I didn't catch that. Which begs the question of why they would complain about that. Was it in their policy to do so or not?

 

You know why they might complain? They may not have gotten a satisfactory explanation as to why the book was being returned, and they had to shell out some of their hard-earned money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted

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.

I'm not talking in generalities.

 

I gathered. It was merely a comment. Who is being argumentative now? :baiting:

It wasn't argumentative. It was a statement of fact.

 

A completely understood and extraneous statement of fact. But if you felt it was absolutely necessary so as to avoid any confusion so be it.

You're from Ohio, aren't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hockey&comicsguy

hockey&comicsguy

Posted
Posted

 

You know why they might complain? They may not have gotten a satisfactory explanation as to why the book was being returned, and they had to shell out some of their hard-earned money.

 

I added a comment to my last post that may have been missed. There's not enough information to know if their complaints were valid I guess.

 

Was it in their policy to do so or not? If it was, they shouldn't complain. If it wasn't, they shouldn't have eaten those costs and if they did anyway, well then whose fault is that?

 

As for a satisfactory explanation, I guess we're working off of different premises. I for one don't see it as my job or a necessity to be satisfied by the whims of buyers. It's quite simple in my mind. They want to return it. Doesn't matter to me if its because there was a missed tear seal or they had some unexpected medical issue arise and need the money. I'm more concerned that people are happy with their purchases and in dealing with me than whether or not I am satisfied with their reason for wanting to return something. If they give me a reason I think is silly, I just won't deal with them in the future. It's simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted
I suggest everybody stops posting until the OP comes back and gives us some more information.

 

If you expect to get information from the OP, then you haven't been paying attention. :baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing