eBay Seller cornfieldcomics-and-bricks BEWARE 3 3

[Prince Namor]

Edited June 10, 2019 by Chuck Gower

[kav]

22 minutes ago, HuddyBee said:

Speaking of.

Is trimming restoration, or just really small, controlled, deliberate "missing pieces?" 

If you chop a book in half can you sell as two books with 'missing pieces'?

-asking for a friend

[kav]

I can understand some of the hesitation due to past conflicts but both of you guys everything is a ok you dont have to be suspicious of each other!!!  Lets do this!  I will even warranty the whole deal with my own money!

[BSeldin305]

Thank you everyone for your efforts;  I can not send him the book if he will not put in writing the amount he intends to refund. (Especially since we are outside of the eBay return system protections).

[kav]

9 hours ago, BSeldin305 said:

Thank you everyone for your efforts;  I can not send him the book if he will not put in writing the amount he intends to refund. (Especially since we are outside of the eBay return system protections).

He will!!

Edit-he WONT.

Edited June 10, 2019 by kav

[kav]

11 minutes ago, BSeldin305 said:

Thank you everyone for your efforts;  I can not send him the book if he will not put in writing the amount he intends to refund. (Especially since we are outside of the eBay return system protections).

ps will you be sending it in slab as a gesture of good will?

[BSeldin305]

Just now, kav said:

ps will you be sending it in slab as a gesture of good will?

Of course it will come in the slab.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

46 minutes ago, HuddyBee said:

But why would you "rely" on information you could not detect yourself?

Because sellers bear the responsibility...all of it...for accurately describing what they have, and if they don't, they're still responsible, whether they are aware or not...especially when a seller makes an affirmative representation that the book is "unrestored" (that is, they declare "this is what this item is", rather than "I don't know" or "I'm not aware.") It doesn't matter to the buyer if the seller wasn't an expert, it doesn't matter if he couldn't detect it...the responsibility is still his. The only difference is whether he did it on accident...which is probably the case here...or he knew full well what he had and lied about it, and either way, that's not the buyer's concern.

In cases like this, the buyer bears zero responsibility for making sure sellers accurately describe their items. The only exception is when something is sold "as is", and there's no functional way to sell "as is" on eBay, because the buyer has the right of inspection before purchase. Otherwise, the buyer is never at fault if and when a seller has not accurately described his or her merchandise, regardless of either of their levels of expertise, or lack thereof.

51 minutes ago, HuddyBee said:

This isn't true in every sense. Its black and white in that if it is present or not. But it's not black and white to the naked eye, as neither of you detected it.

But it doesn't matter if it was detected or not by either of them. It was there; it exists. It's not subjective. Its presence or absence doesn't change, even if a million people don't detect it. And that is the only sense, in this case, that matters. Lack of detection doesn't magically shift a measure of responsibility to the buyer, nor absolve the seller in any way.

59 minutes ago, HuddyBee said:

I only ask that you consider this from the sellers perspective.

I don't speak for the buyer, or anyone but myself, but this entire thread has considered this from the seller's perspective. The buyer laid out his case, the seller had the opportunity to respond, and affirmed the buyer's story in all essential details.

1 hour ago, HuddyBee said:

Both of you are getting an undesirable outcome from this situation. He had a book that he thought was unrestored, sells it, and 5 months later a guy wants $100 from him. He has no idea what could have been done to the comic, by either you (not saying anything was done) or CGC. He was not in possession of the book during those 5 months. He is not responsible for what happened during those 5 months (even if something didn't happen). Conversely, you are at a loss in the grade your book returned as. Both of you are at a loss in this situation.

Which is why the buyer laid out the evidence he had, including the original pictures of the listing, as well as the book in the slab, as well as the correspondence between the two of them. All of these issues have already been addressed. The seller first claimed that CGC was wrong...which is very, very unlikely...then that the buyer may have trimmed it himself...then back again to CGC got it wrong, and he stands by his assessment that the book is unrestored. But here's the kicker: if the seller was that sure it was unrestored, why didn't he offer to buy the book back from the buyer, pay him for everything he was into the book, and then take it up with CGC? The buyer didn't disagree with CGC's assessment...the seller did. Is the seller obligated to pay appraisal costs? Probably not, but in certain cases, sellers have been made to pay appraisal costs as well. 

Bear in mind, I'm not talking about forcing the seller to do this. I'm saying that the seller, if he/she valued their reputation, would go above and beyond to make sure a customer didn't get screwed by his/her actions. Also bear in mind that the seller not only said CGC was wrong about there being trimming...they implied that this happened on a regular basis.  

The buyer, on the other hand, from the evidence presented, made a good faith effort to have the book professionally evaluated...which is absolutely the correct move, by the way...and discovered that the item in question was specifically and unequivocally not as described.

You have to look at the evidence, and the evidence here says that the seller said "too bad, not my fault, not my problem, everyone is wrong but me, go away." How is the buyer supposed to consider the seller's perspective in light of that?

1 hour ago, HuddyBee said:

Is trimming restoration, or just really small, controlled, deliberate "missing pieces?" 

It's restoration. Restoration is the intentional manipulation of an item to make it appear to be in better condition than it would otherwise appear without that work, whether the work is obvious or not. Restoration isn't a dirty word, but becomes dirty when people fail to disclose it and/or refuse to accept it after it's discovered. "Missing pieces" is obvious to a casual observer, "trimming", especially "micro-trimming" is not, and it's intended that way.

Is there a chance CGC screwed up? Of course. What is the likelihood they did so in this case? Pretty slim. But in any case, if the seller valued their reputation, they ought to take the book back, refunding every dime the buyer paid in the process (and they would get back a professionally graded copy in return, so they're not losing anything but the shipping), and take it up with CGC....IF they believe what they claim.

Odds of that happening.........?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Even still, the seller balks. If the seller refuses to pay for the cost of the grading, the seller is not entitled to the slab. 

[kav]

Troubling.  B Seldin has made every effort here.

[James J Johnson]

34 minutes ago, kav said:

Troubling.  B Seldin has made every effort here.

The buyer has bent over backwards. Here's the only acceptable way this should have gone down if the seller was responsible and stood behind his product:

Buyer: "I submitted that AS 5 listed unrestored I bought from you to CGC and it graded with a purple label. CGC found it to be trimmed"

Seller: "Sorry to hear that. I was unaware of and didn't think it was trimmed. What do you suggest for a remedy?"

Buyer: "I think a $100 partial refund would be fair, considering that I spent almost that much to have it graded, only to find out that it was not unrestored"

At that point, the seller completely at fault and in the wrong, should have seized this simple and fair request as an easy way out of a bad situation of his own making and gladly said:

Seller: "Sure. That seems fair. I'll Paypal you $100 and I'm sorry for my mistake".    End of story.

And by doing this the seller would have saved himself $400, which is what the buyer should have ben entitled to for a return if he chose to go that route.

1) $300 (the refund)

2) $100 (the grading fees and postage).

Why the grading fees in this case?

Because the book was misrepresented as unrestored.. If the buyer opted for a return and refund, the grading fees incurred for the misrepresented book should have been included with the refund. 

[kav]

13 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

The buyer has bent over backwards. Here's the only acceptable way this should have gone down if the seller was responsible and stood behind his product:

Buyer: "I submitted that AS 5 listed unrestored I bought from you to CGC and it graded with a purple label. CGC found it to be trimmed"

Seller: "Sorry to hear that. I was unaware of and didn't think it was trimmed. What do you suggest for a remedy?"

Buyer: "I think a $100 partial refund would be fair, considering that I spent almost that much to have it graded, only to find out that it was not unrestored"

At that point, the seller completely at fault and in the wrong, should have seized this simple and fair request as an easy way out of a bad situation of his own making and gladly said:

Seller: "Sure. That seems fair. I'll Paypal you $100 and I'm sorry for my mistake".    End of story.

And by doing this the seller would have saved himself $400, which is what the buyer should have ben entitled to for a return if he chose to go that route.

1) $300 (the refund)

2) $100 (the grading fees and postage).

Why the grading fees in this case?

Because the book was misrepresented as unrestored.. If the buyer opted for a return and refund, the grading fees incurred for the misrepresented book should have been included with the refund. 

I mostly agree with everything you said and would have handled it that way myself.  However if someone buys a used car with a 30 day warranty and spends $500 on rims and it turns out to be a lemon, Judge Judy dont give em the $500 spent on rims.  

[James J Johnson]

4 minutes ago, kav said:

I mostly agree with everything you said and would have handled it that way myself.  However if someone buys a used car with a 30 day warranty and spends $500 on rims and it turns out to be a lemon, Judge Judy dont give em the $500 spent on rims.  

The rims have value. They can be taken off the car, the car returned with the original wheels or a suitable replacement, then the rims used on another car or sold. This slab only has relevance to this comic. Which was misrepresented.

Edited June 10, 2019 by James J Johnson

[kav]

6 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

The rims have value. They can be taken off the car, the car returned with the original wheels or a suitable replacement, then the rims used on another car or sold. This slab only has relevance to this comic. Which was misrepresented.

Not these rims-they are custom made to fit only that car!!

[RockMyAmadeus]

This idea, that buyers somehow bear some responsibility for not-as-described items or items damaged in shipping, has been popping up with disturbing regularity around these boards. It's  not true.

Sellers bear total and complete responsibility for 1. making sure everything they sell is accurately represented, and 2. getting the item to the buyer in the condition it was represented to be in.

The only exception is in "as is" cases, and in that scenario, the buyer has the right to inspect, or have the item inspected, prior to purchase. That's not (typically) how eBay works, so that's not an option that sellers on eBay have, and in no case can the seller misrepresent the item to induce a sale (which is what this seller did, even if unintentionally.)

All of this talk about "well, the buyer missed it (some flaw) too" and "well, the seller said they weren't an expert, so" or "it's not the seller's fault what USPS/FedEx/UPS/etc does to a package" or "well, you weren't very polite to the seller" does not shift any responsibility to the buyer in any scenario whatsoever. Sellers aren't "let off the hook" in regard to their responsibility to deliver what was promised in any respect based on what a buyer knows, or can detect, or their level of expertise, etc. That does NOT mean a buyer can reject for "not as described" if the goods actually ARE as described, but it is the seller, and the seller alone, who is responsible for accurately describing them.

Obviously buyers should work with sellers wherever possible, but that doesn't mean buyers have any obligation besides 1. paying for the items, and 2. notifying the seller if there's something wrong with the items.

Here's what the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs sales and commercial transactions throughout the US, has to say about some of these things:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2

§ 2-509. Risk of Loss in the Absence of Breach.

 

(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier

• (a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but
• (b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are there duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are there duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.

(2) Where the goods are held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved, the risk of loss passes to the buyer

• (a) on his receipt of a negotiable document of title covering the goods; or
• (b) on acknowledgment by the bailee of the buyer's right to possession of the goods; or
• (c) after his receipt of a non-negotiable document of title or other written direction to deliver, as provided in subsection (4)(b) of Section 2-503.

(3) In any case not within subsection (1) or (2), the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.

 

In other words...the buyer isn't responsible for loss...which includes damage...until such time as the buyer can take possession of the items; the seller is, provided there's no breach of contract. As I understand it, many sellers (including the present one) on eBay are classified as "merchants" and are therefore subject to subsection (3). The difference between subsection (1)(b) and subsection (3) is when a buyer actually receives the goods as opposed to when the buyer can pick up the goods, as I understand it. 

§ 2-513. Buyer's Right to Inspection of Goods.

 

(1) Unless otherwise agreed and subject to subsection (3), where goods are tendered or delivered or identified to the contract for sale, the buyer has a right before payment or acceptance to inspect them at any reasonable place and time and in any reasonable manner. When the seller is required or authorized to send the goods to the buyer, the inspection may be after their arrival.

(2) Expenses of inspection must be borne by the buyer but may be recovered from the seller if the goods do not conform and are rejected.

 

In other words, the buyer can inspect them, or have someone else inspect them ("in any reasonable manner.") And...if the goods don't conform...like restoration is discovered...the expense MAY be recovered from the seller.

 

§ 2-606. What Constitutes Acceptance of Goods.

 

(1) Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer

• (a) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he will take or retain them in spite of their non-conformity; or
• (b) fails to make an effective rejection (subsection (1) of Section 2-602), but such acceptance does not occur until the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect them; or
• (c) does any act inconsistent with the seller's ownership; but if such act is wrongful as against the seller it is an acceptance only if ratified by him.

 

In plain language, that means the buyer has the right to inspect the items within a reasonable length of time, and that the buyer signals his acceptance by letting the seller know, or simply not responding at all. "Conforming" means "as described" or "as represented."

 

§ 2-608. Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part.

 

(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it

• (a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
• (b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances.

(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.

(Emphasis added)

That means that if a buyer accepts an item, and then later discovers it didn't conform (was not as described) because of a hard-to-detect defect (such as trimming), then they can revoke their acceptance and reject the item. Or, since the acceptance of the buyer was reasonably induced by the seller's assurance that the book was unrestored, when it was discovered to not conform with that assurance, the buyer has the right to reject. The seller made the assurance that the book was unrestored, which induced the sale; that turned out to be untrue.

The buyer has the absolute right to reject, and may be able to recover the cost of inspection from the seller because of that assurance. 

 

[kav]

No one has suggested that the seller shouldnt be willing to do a full refund/return.  This point has been mentioned several times.  Not sure who your argument is directed at.

[James J Johnson]

Just now, kav said:

Not these rims-they are custom made to fit only that car!!

 

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The buyer has the absolute right to reject, and may be able to recover the cost of inspection from the seller because of that assurance. 

 

Correct. Any and all expenses or damages incurred if that assurance turned out not to be true. The undisclosed trimming renders the item falsely represented, thus in this case defective, since the buyer is expecting to be receiving an unrestored book, as was represented by the seller.  

[Buzzetta]

OMG @BSeldin305 Send the damn book back.  If he doesn't refund you, then PayPal has you covered.  Unless of course you monkeyed around with the book and he has scans that can prove otherwise or send Jim back a German newspaper.

@Peoplesjim Take the book back if @BSeldin305 sends you back what you sent him in the condition that you sent it in. 

@kav How is that? 

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Buzzetta

[Buzzetta]

4 hours ago, James J Johnson said:

The buyer has bent over backwards. Here's the only acceptable way this should have gone down if the seller was responsible and stood behind his product:

Buyer: "I submitted that AS 5 listed unrestored I bought from you to CGC and it graded with a purple label. CGC found it to be trimmed"

Seller: "Sorry to hear that. I was unaware of and didn't think it was trimmed. What do you suggest for a remedy?"

Buyer: "I think a $100 partial refund would be fair, considering that I spent almost that much to have it graded, only to find out that it was not unrestored"

At that point, the seller completely at fault and in the wrong, should have seized this simple and fair request as an easy way out of a bad situation of his own making and gladly said:

Seller: "Sure. That seems fair. I'll Paypal you $100 and I'm sorry for my mistake".    End of story.

And by doing this the seller would have saved himself $400, which is what the buyer should have ben entitled to for a return if he chose to go that route.

1) $300 (the refund)

2) $100 (the grading fees and postage).

Why the grading fees in this case?

Because the book was misrepresented as unrestored.. If the buyer opted for a return and refund, the grading fees incurred for the misrepresented book should have been included with the refund. 

I disagree with the grading fees aspect but whatevs.  I also speak as a buyer in that situation.  

When I purchased a raw copy that was determined by CGC to have color touch, the dealer refunded the cost of purchase only.  (Not naming the dealer publicly)

When I purchased a raw book from an auction house that was determined by CGC to be trimmed the auction house refunded the cost of purchase only + shipping back the book. (Not naming the auction house publicly.)

[Peoplesjim]

I tried to offer the buyer a refund, if he would send the book back. I saw he posted our conversations. 

He started the email with this:

 

Send me the $300 back via paypal tonight and I will send you the graded book via priority mail tomorrow.  

I am a lawyer licensed with the Florida, New York and DC Bars. I tell you this because if I don't send the book to you as promised, you can file a bar complaint against me in those jurisdictions in addition to any other rights you may have.  

Happy to discuss.  

Brad Seldin, Esq.

 

After multiple attempts to get the book back, buyer won’t send. 

I agreed to give him original purchase price from eBay. He finally wrote this:

 

If you can not commit in writing to sending me $300 after you get the book, we can not work this out.