Mycomicshop cancelled my order without asking me, I lost money on the foreign exchange refund and they have stopped contacting me and done nothing to make it right. 2 2

[ttfitz]

On 11/29/2022 at 2:29 PM, VintageComics said:

There's a difference between being OWED something and just being given something out of goodwill. 

Good businesses often go above and beyond when they don't have to. 

I see now that MCS responded along those lines. 

I would agree that they didn't "have to", but my hope is that upon reflection MCS/Conan has realized that it was the right thing to do, not some magnanimous gesture of goodwill, done to make up for his complaint not being dealt with sooner.

Because the facts seem pretty simple to me - MCS made a mistake (not deliberately, but still a mistaken) in charging him for a book they were unable to provide. It is not unreasonable to expect that after such a transaction going south, the person who is not to blame for the problem should have their debits and credits to balance, regardless of the reasons for why the amounts might not match on the two parties accounts.

Yes, as someone (or many someones) posted earlier, changes in exchange rate in an international transaction is part of the risk; that risk should fall on the party who made the error.

[VintageComics]

On 11/29/2022 at 7:09 PM, ttfitz said:

It is not unreasonable to expect that after such a transaction going south, the person who is not to blame for the problem should have their debits and credits to balance, regardless of the reasons for why the amounts might not match on the two parties accounts.

If you are talking about reimbursing people for foreign exchange losses, it is completely unreasonable as is the ideology that supports it. It goes against every capitalist business principle of free market enterprise.

You have to draw a line somewhere otherwise your line of thinking here opens up a Pandora's Box of slippery slopes.

If someone wants to avoid cross border, foreign exchange variations they should be dealing in the denomination of the seller. 

A business is only responsible in refunding a person the funds they were out in the denomination the purchase was made.

They are NOT responsible for keep track of foreign exchange, which country the person a resident of and how much they should compensate them to make them whole in their own denomination. 

Your insistence implies a huge sense of self entitlement and quite frankly is ridiculous.

Good luck finding many if any businesses that agree with you. 

[ttfitz]

On 11/29/2022 at 8:41 PM, VintageComics said:

If you are talking about reimbursing people for foreign exchange losses, it is completely unreasonable as is the ideology that supports it. It goes against every capitalist business principle of free market enterprise.

The man attempted to purchase a comic, not speculate in foreign currency.

On 11/29/2022 at 8:41 PM, VintageComics said:

Your insistence implies a huge sense of self entitlement and quite frankly is ridiculous.

There were three parties involved here - 2 buyers and one seller. One of the buyers got exactly what he transacted for - the comic in question. The seller also got what he wanted, payment for that comic. In your view, the only person who didn't get anything out of the equation, thru no fault of his own, should be the one to pay for the mistake made by someone else?

I'm not sure how expecting to not pay for the error of someone else is exhibiting as "huge sense of self entitlement." To wash your hands of such things because you don't set the exchange rates seems much more a matter of self-entitlement to me. As for the "ideology that supports it", that's a rather simple one, too - one should take responsibility for one's errors. Is that something you find completely unreasonable?

And once again, I'm not saying that MCS was required to take full responsibility for their error, but that it was the right thing to do.

[VintageComics]

On 11/30/2022 at 2:11 AM, ttfitz said:

The man attempted to purchase a comic, not speculate in foreign currency.

There were three parties involved here - 2 buyers and one seller. One of the buyers got exactly what he transacted for - the comic in question. The seller also got what he wanted, payment for that comic. In your view, the only person who didn't get anything out of the equation, thru no fault of his own, should be the one to pay for the mistake made by someone else?

I'm not sure how expecting to not pay for the error of someone else is exhibiting as "huge sense of self entitlement." To wash your hands of such things because you don't set the exchange rates seems much more a matter of self-entitlement to me. As for the "ideology that supports it", that's a rather simple one, too - one should take responsibility for one's errors. Is that something you find completely unreasonable?

And once again, I'm not saying that MCS was required to take full responsibility for their error, but that it was the right thing to do.

No.

When you do something across borders the same rules DO NOT apply as doing the same within your own borders. Whether you're shopping, travelling or doing anything else, that's adulting 101.

Buyer beware. 

Remember, being Canadian I'm speaking from personal experience as I have been on the wrong side of this topic more than once myself.

So while it's an unfortunate thing, I have always believed that there is ZERO obligation on the part of the seller to be responsible for fluctuating foreign exchange of the buyer's home country in regards to refunds and to think otherwise is ridiculous. 

 

Let's flip the tables and say that rather than having a net loss on his refund due to foreign exchange, that the buyer had a net gain through some freak of nature.

This opens an entire can of worms. Who then gets the windfall?

Does the seller keep the extra money? Or does he return the extra to the buyer? 

Your logic creates an infinite new set of variables to account for with no clear solution. It's not reasonable or logical. It's emotional, and using emotion to determine the solution doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

 

The only reasonable solution is for a buyer to deal in funds that are the same denomination as the seller. 

And if you STILL disagree, feel free to find a list of businesses out there anywhere that disagree with me and agree with you.

I don't think you'll find any. 

 

[jas1vans]

On 11/28/2022 at 7:16 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

I'm pretty sure that he DID NOT inhale. Spliffs don't count anyways.