Should Return Policy Disclose Responsibility of Return Shipping on Damage? 6 6

[universal soldier]

Some people should stick to selling and shipping on the bay, no big loss from what I can see as he seemed to be here for the sale and not much else.

On 1/6/2024 at 7:39 PM, ChiSoxFan said:

 Good reputations here are hard to build, but l've seen so many people over time wreck them over the smallest of things (this could be a perfect Exhibit: A of that).

 

This  ^ ^

Edited January 7 by universal soldier

[KCOComics]

On 1/6/2024 at 2:59 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Some of the pile on posts that prompted me to post this morning appear to have been removed. There's one, at least, that I can recall. That makes it look like I'm over reacting and siding with the guy who couldn't pack, and who took it badly when it was politely pointed out to him. I'm not. My advice was that people should own their mistakes. Separate to that, I said I didn't like pile ons. That comment took into account the nature of the removed post(s) and where the dialogue was heading.

I don't disagree with your sentiment. 

Piling on can be counter productive and put  people on defense. Instead of "learning a lesson" - they say screw it, let's burn it down. 

And look,  the self policing around here has done a pretty effective job at protecting a fee free selling venue for decades... so I'm not even telling anyone to change their ways. 

I just think piling on over simple disagreements can be counter productive. 

Piling on when it's out right fraud and deception - game on! 

[PovertyRow]

On 1/4/2024 at 12:27 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I guess I should be thankful that in all my years of buying on these boards, this problem has only now come up for me.

The basics:

Bought a book, seller ships in a regular (not padded) envelope with no reinforcement (bag and board only). Book is observably damaged. Take it up with seller, who refuses to pay return shipping. My refund is now being held hostage upon returning the book on my dime. (Paid by Zelle, which I also think should be banned here on the Boards since there is no protection - but that's another thread.)

Not that $5 is a big deal (and I see it as paying $5 to never deal with this clown again), but I think most people can relate to improperly packed books and then a seller not paying for return shipping on something that is their fault for not shipping it properly can be frustrating.

I recently had a sale where I missed a detached staple, buyer wanted a return. No problem, send it back and I pay return shipping. It was my mistake, my responsibility. I see absolutely no grey area, however, the seller in my transaction whined, moaned, balked and accused me of ripping him off on a $75 book that he gave me such a good deal on. Clearly, there are two rules of thought regarding customer service ethics.

Would like to hear if other Boardies feel this is something that should be added to the Return Policy.

$5 or $5000 should make no difference. If the seller packages in such a way that it invites damage, and damage occurs. that seller has to be responsible and pay the return shipping. Anything else is, in my opinion, PL worthy.

[PovertyRow]

On 1/6/2024 at 6:15 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

 

On 1/6/2024 at 6:15 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Bad packaging drives me nuts but I've come to accept that it simply doesn't register with many people. It doesn't make them bad people - they just have a blind spot, possibly born of a lack of connection or understanding with the physicality of the item that they are selling.

Seriously? "A lack of connection"  with the "physicality of the item they are selling"? PLEASE tell me you're jesting.

On 1/6/2024 at 6:15 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I would support a rule here on the forum along the lines of "Seller pays return shipping if demonstrable bad packaging results in damage"

As would I.

Edited January 7 by PovertyRow

[Get Marwood & I]

On 1/7/2024 at 4:51 AM, PovertyRow said:

Seriously? "A lack of connection"  with the "physicality of the item they are selling"? PLEASE tell me you're jesting.

Yes, that was a bit wordy wasn't it. I was serious though. Some people just don't understand that comics are delicate. They don't intuitively understand the importance of condition. Indeed, some dealers I know don't understand (care?) about condition, manhandling comics that you hand them to purchase. We are attuned to it. How to handle and treat a comic. What it means to bend the spine of a comic that has survived unbent for 60 years. Others aren't. 

On 1/7/2024 at 4:51 AM, PovertyRow said:

As would I.

It looks like some of us do, and some of us don't. Such a rule would protect buyers from sellers who can't pack properly.

@Dr. Balls Are you planning to wrap this up?

[Dr. Balls]

Dang, I missed all the action yesterday. Including more protestations of "the book was returned exactly like I sent it!"  

On 1/6/2024 at 8:32 PM, KCOComics said:

I don't disagree with your sentiment. 

Piling on can be counter productive and put  people on defense. Instead of "learning a lesson" - they say screw it, let's burn it down. 

And look,  the self policing around here has done a pretty effective job at protecting a fee free selling venue for decades... so I'm not even telling anyone to change their ways. 

I just think piling on over simple disagreements can be counter productive. 

Piling on when it's out right fraud and deception - game on! 

I will share an unpopular opinion: there is not nearly enough public shaming going on in the world. I don't mind the dog piling. It serves a very social purpose that has gotten lost in modern societies way of thinking: if you're an assclown, and a great many people point it out - you have two choices: change your assclowney ways, or go somewhere else that may allow you to continue to be an assclown.

This guy got dogpiled for being an utter turd of a seller, and he has now left the building. Worth it.

On 1/7/2024 at 3:25 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

 

@Dr. Balls Are you planning to wrap this up?

I agree with @ThothAmon - we don't need anymore rules. However, maybe a slight modification to the General Rules on Returns would be helpful. Such as 'Return shipping on a damaged package paid by the Seller' or something like that. As others have pointed out, regardless of how good or bad you pack something, if the shipping company damages it, the Seller is still responsible to land it in the condition it was purchased in.

It's a small thing, but I do read seller's return policies. And while this dingbat said "No Returns", I did not expect resistance upon receiving a damaged package. I don't know, nor care what this guy's problem was. I had a cool, inexpensive Sabrina 1, and he jacked it up by packing it poorly. 

I don't know what else to cover, I consider all of this closed and am glad this dink has deleted his account and left. 

[KCOComics]

On 1/7/2024 at 6:51 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Dang, I missed all the action yesterday. Including more protestations of "the book was returned exactly like I sent it!"  

I will share an unpopular opinion: there is not nearly enough public shaming going on in the world. I don't mind the dog piling. It serves a very social purpose that has gotten lost in modern societies way of thinking: if you're an assclown, and a great many people point it out - you have two choices: change your assclowney ways, or go somewhere else that may allow you to continue to be an assclown.

This guy got dogpiled for being an utter turd of a seller, and he has now left the building. Worth it.

I agree with @ThothAmon - we don't need anymore rules. However, maybe a slight modification to the General Rules on Returns would be helpful. Such as 'Return shipping on a damaged package paid by the Seller' or something like that. As others have pointed out, regardless of how good or bad you pack something, if the shipping company damages it, the Seller is still responsible to land it in the condition it was purchased in.

It's a small thing, but I do read seller's return policies. And while this dingbat said "No Returns", I did not expect resistance upon receiving a damaged package. I don't know, nor care what this guy's problem was. I had a cool, inexpensive Sabrina 1, and he jacked it up by packing it poorly. 

I don't know what else to cover, I consider all of this closed and am glad this dink has deleted his account and left. 

 

I am big on personal accountability.  It's the biggest thing I work on with my kids. When you screw up,  don't deny it,  don't run away,  own it and fix it. 

I see that lack of personal accountability everywhere! Work, society.  

And I agree - he should have taken responsibility for this. He screwed up. He should have owned it. It was $5. He overreacted over a nothing issue. 

But I still stand by my statement.  People should weigh in on the situation - who is right and defining how to make it right - I see that as helpful. It's when the comments turn towards getting demeaning that they become counter productive.  When you back people into a corner,  your less likely to get your desired outcome. 

[ThothAmon]

On 1/7/2024 at 7:28 AM, KCOComics said:

 

I am big on personal accountability.  It's the biggest thing I work on with my kids. When you screw up,  don't deny it,  don't run away,  own it and fix it. 

I see that lack of personal accountability everywhere! Work, society.  

And I agree - he should have taken responsibility for this. He screwed up. He should have owned it. It was $5. He overreacted over a nothing issue. 

But I still stand by my statement.  People should weigh in on the situation - who is right and defining how to make it right - I see that as helpful. It's when the comments turn towards getting demeaning that they become counter productive.  When you back people into a corner,  your less likely to get your desired outcome. 

Here’s the thing. If I’d been more like Dr. Balls and publicly (or even privately) conveyed to the seller after I received them that comics need to be shipped safely and not in bubble wrap mailers this thread may never have been necessary. Often if I believe an eBay seller is a novice with comics I’ll suggest ways for them to be shipped safely. Sadly after decades of doing this I’m still amazed at how often someone would put a $1000 worth of comics in the mail with no protection from bending or dropping. I’ve also found that those same people don’t want to hear about it. Perhaps it’s in their nature. For me learning to ship safely/cost effectively took time and effort and is still a challenge. 

[comix4fun]

On 1/6/2024 at 6:57 AM, CAHokie said:

That was an extreme escalation on his part. If only he would have had another option. Something like saying, “Hey, sorry about that.  I will pack better next time.”

In 2024…megalomania has a very low bar for entry. 

[comix4fun]

On 1/6/2024 at 10:51 PM, PovertyRow said:

Seriously? "A lack of connection"  with the "physicality of the item they are selling"? PLEASE tell me you're jesting.

As would I.

I would have gone with “ doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing “ 

[Number 6]

I know my opinion on this will not be a popular one, but while I will go ahead and share it, please do not attempt to label it as “blaming the victim”, that’s not what I’m doing. 
 

I agree that the seller was in the wrong. I agree that his packing was slipshod and resulted in the books being damaged. And I agree that despite the seller’s stated “no returns” policy the seller should not only have accepted the return but also refunded the return shipping cost due to his negligent packaging. 
 

However, I don’t think a new rule is needed as I think the rule we already have regarding seller’s having stated return policy already covers this. 
 

This seller stated “no returns” in his sales thread rules (which complies with the rules). For me personally, when I see that a seller has a “no returns” policy, I take them at they’re word, and I understand that what they mean is that when they’ve been paid and the item is handed to the post office they’re washing their hands of it and don’t feel an obligation to stand behind what they sell from that point on. I’m not passing judgement, I’m just interpreting that is how they choose to do business. And many do. 
 

So for me personally, unless I have a prior history of doing business with a “no returns” seller, when I see that type of policy in a sales thread 9 time out of 10 I’m going to pass it buy. 
 

Now, should a blanket, simplistic “no returns” policy cover events like this where comics don’t arrive as advertised because of negligence on the seller’s part?  Personally, no I don’t think so. But again, if a seller just states simply “no returns” without qualifying it any way (and this is a reason I skip over those threads as it’s an indication that they haven’t put a lot of thought into their rules and the various ways a transaction might play out) without any qualifiers then I’m taking them at their word that they’re going to refuse take responsibility for anything and everything.  I can’t just assume that the seller will do the right thing if such a situation comes up. 
 

Now after seeing “no returns” and a buyer is still tempted to buy, rather just assume that their policy will make allowance for such a situation, I think the appropriate thing to do is ask before making a claim on anything in the thread. 
 

Likewise, if a new, unfamiliar seller pops up here (honestly I had never seen this member’s name until this thread) and you have no idea whether they know how to pack comics properly, I think the prudent thing to do is for a buyer to ask before claiming books in the thread, not just quickly assume that everyone who sells here knows what they’re doing. 
 

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion because when a sales thread goes up people want to jump in and start throwing up ‘take it’ and don’t want to risk losing out on something they want because they took to time to ask some clarifying questions via PM. 
 

And to be clear: by saying the above I am in no way suggesting that somehow what happened here was Balls’ fault because he didn’t ask questions before hand or that he ‘got what he deserved’ by buying from a “no returns” seller.  Balls had every right to ask and expect for the return shipping to be covered and that the seller should have agreed. 

What I am saying is:  this is why I don’t think a new rule.  
 

While I personally don’t think a seller’s stated return policy absolves them of responsibility in a situation like this…I also believe that buyers have a responsibility to do a certain amount of due diligence before entering into a transaction.  And I think it would it would be a mistake to constantly adding and tweaking rules to shield buyers from that responsibility.  
 

I appreciate that the community wants to look out for each other but we also have to look out for ourselves.  

 

[ThothAmon]

On 1/7/2024 at 9:31 AM, Number 6 said:

For me personally, when I see that a seller has a “no returns” policy, I take them at they’re word, and I understand that what they mean is that when they’ve been paid and the item is handed to the post office they’re washing their hands of it and don’t feel an obligation to stand behind what they sell from that point on

I agree with all your points but this one. To me, as a buyer no returns means once it’s delivered not when it’s handed over to the shipper. The seller has the duty to get it to me safely and in the condition sold. If that happens then no returns. 

[comix4fun]

On 1/7/2024 at 8:31 AM, Number 6 said:

I know my opinion on this will not be a popular one, but while I will go ahead and share it, please do not attempt to label it as “blaming the victim”, that’s not what I’m doing. 
 

I agree that the seller was in the wrong. I agree that his packing was slipshod and resulted in the books being damaged. And I agree that despite the seller’s stated “no returns” policy the seller should not only have accepted the return but also refunded the return shipping cost due to his negligent packaging. 
 

However, I don’t think a new rule is needed as I think the rule we already have regarding seller’s having stated return policy already covers this. 
 

This seller stated “no returns” in his sales thread rules (which complies with the rules). For me personally, when I see that a seller has a “no returns” policy, I take them at they’re word, and I understand that what they mean is that when they’ve been paid and the item is handed to the post office they’re washing their hands of it and don’t feel an obligation to stand behind what they sell from that point on. I’m not passing judgement, I’m just interpreting that is how they choose to do business. And many do. 
 

So for me personally, unless I have a prior history of doing business with a “no returns” seller, when I see that type of policy in a sales thread 9 time out of 10 I’m going to pass it buy. 
 

Now, should a blanket, simplistic “no returns” policy cover events like this where comics don’t arrive as advertised because of negligence on the seller’s part?  Personally, no I don’t think so. But again, if a seller just states simply “no returns” without qualifying it any way (and this is a reason I skip over those threads as it’s an indication that they haven’t put a lot of thought into their rules and the various ways a transaction might play out) without any qualifiers then I’m taking them at their word that they’re going to refuse take responsibility for anything and everything.  I can’t just assume that the seller will do the right thing if such a situation comes up. 
 

Now after seeing “no returns” and a buyer is still tempted to buy, rather just assume that their policy will make allowance for such a situation, I think the appropriate thing to do is ask before making a claim on anything in the thread. 
 

Likewise, if a new, unfamiliar seller pops up here (honestly I had never seen this member’s name until this thread) and you have no idea whether they know how to pack comics properly, I think the prudent thing to do is for a buyer to ask before claiming books in the thread, not just quickly assume that everyone who sells here knows what they’re doing. 
 

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion because when a sales thread goes up people want to jump in and start throwing up ‘take it’ and don’t want to risk losing out on something they want because they took to time to ask some clarifying questions via PM. 
 

And to be clear: by saying the above I am in no way suggesting that somehow what happened here was Balls’ fault because he didn’t ask questions before hand or that he ‘got what he deserved’ by buying from a “no returns” seller.  Balls had every right to ask and expect for the return shipping to be covered and that the seller should have agreed. 

What I am saying is:  this is why I don’t think a new rule.  
 

While I personally don’t think a seller’s stated return policy absolves them of responsibility in a situation like this…I also believe that buyers have a responsibility to do a certain amount of due diligence before entering into a transaction.  And I think it would it would be a mistake to constantly adding and tweaking rules to shield buyers from that responsibility.  
 

I appreciate that the community wants to look out for each other but we also have to look out for ourselves.  

 

I agree that no new rule is needed.

The items I placed in bold above, they aren’t just your personal feelings, they are basic black letter contract and transactional law. Nothing in stated “ no returns “ terms exculpate a seller from negligence. More than that sellers, regardless of “as is” “no returns” or other terms, must deliver the items purchased in the same quality and condition as they were when they induced sale and accepted payment.
 

There’s no extra diligence required of buyers. Performance of the contracted behavior is what’s required of both parties. Buyers to pay in a timely manner and Sellers to deliver the items in the same condition as they were at moment of sale.  A “no returns” policy doesn’t remove the performance responsibility on either party. Until the item is in the hands of the buyer in the condition promised, it’s on the seller. Lots of online sellers desire to have it be not their problem once it is in the hands of the post office or shipper, and I want a solid gold unicorn….we are both going to be disappointed. 
 

So, you’re correct, no new rule is needed…but for a different reason. Your personal feelings on transactional responsibly are actually global contractual requirements in the parties. It’s already covered. Sellers have to deliver what they promised, and if they fail, they haven’t performed their duties under the deal, and no policy regarding returns will shield them…especially in a case of negligent packaging or handling. 

[Number 6]

On 1/7/2024 at 6:55 AM, ThothAmon said:

I agree with all your points but this one. To me, as a buyer no returns means once it’s delivered not when it’s handed over to the shipper. The seller has the duty to get it to me safely and in the condition sold. If that happens then no returns. 

While I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, it sounds reasonable to me, I think where disagreements between buyers and sellers arise is:  what constitutes “in the condition sold”? 
 

If something substantial was missed - a clipped coupon or writing on the interior, or the item was damaged in transit (especially if the seller’s packing contributed to the damage) then I would think those would be reasonable exceptions to the “no returns” rule. 
 

But what if the seller listed the book as NM- and buyer feels strongly that it’s no better than VF+?  The buyer is going to argue that it didn’t arrive in the condition it was sold as. But in my experience this is, bare minimum, exactly the type of return a seller is trying to get out of with a “no returns” policy. 
 

If “no returns” only kicks in when a buyer is completely satisfied with all aspects of a transaction, then a policy of “no returns” is meaningless and redundant. If a buyer is satisfied obviously he’s not going to return it. And from my experience, sellers who have a “no returns” policy don’t intend that policy to be meaningless. 
 

To be clear:  I’m not advocating for a no-returns policy with teeth. 
 

My point was  simply, as a buyer if I’m doing my due diligence and trying to play it safe, I personally have found it safer to interpret a seller’s no return policy in a seller-centric way rather than a buyer-centric way as that’s often how they intended it. If a seller doesn’t want to stand behind his advertised grade then what else is he going to try and wiggle out of with that policy?

Edited January 7 by Number 6

[Dr. Love]

The refutation of physical damage to the book, twice and strongly, on the seller's part is the most concerning aspect of this kerfuffle. Either it was a bald faced lie or the eyes wouldn't see what the mind didn't want to see.  

Hit the bricks it is and good riddance.

[Number 6]

On 1/7/2024 at 7:02 AM, comix4fun said:

I agree that no new rule is needed.

The items I placed in bold above, they aren’t just your personal feelings, they are basic black letter contract and transactional law. Nothing in stated “ no returns “ terms exculpate a seller from negligence. More than that sellers, regardless of “as is” “no returns” or other terms, must deliver the items purchased in the same quality and condition as they were when they induced sale and accepted payment.
 

There’s no extra diligence required of buyers. Performance of the contracted behavior is what’s required of both parties. Buyers to pay in a timely manner and Sellers to deliver the items in the same condition as they were at moment of sale.  A “no returns” policy doesn’t remove the performance responsibility on either party. Until the item is in the hands of the buyer in the condition promised, it’s on the seller. Lots of online sellers desire to have it be not their problem once it is in the hands of the post office or shipper, and I want a solid gold unicorn….we are both going to be disappointed. 
 

So, you’re correct, no new rule is needed…but for a different reason. Your personal feelings on transactional responsibly are actually global contractual requirements in the parties. It’s already covered. Sellers have to deliver what they promised, and if they fail, they haven’t performed their duties under the deal, and no policy regarding returns will shield them…especially in a case of negligent packaging or handling. 

Well, it’s always a relief to find out that my personal feelings happen to land on the right side of The Law. 
 

What I was trying to get across … and may not be doing a very good job of …is that when I’m evaluating whether or not to do business with a seller I personally have found it better to try to ascertain what the mindset of the seller is rather than view it through the lens of my personal stances are or what is legally allowed. 
 

Because if there’s a problem, I’m 99.99% sure I’m not taking them to court so working out a resolution is going to depend on what the seller is willing to do rather than what I can force him to do. 

[comix4fun]

On 1/7/2024 at 10:45 AM, Number 6 said:

Well, it’s always a relief to find out that my personal feelings happen to land on the right side of The Law. 
 

What I was trying to get across … and may not be doing a very good job of …is that when I’m evaluating whether or not to do business with a seller I personally have found it better to try to ascertain what the mindset of the seller is rather than view it through the lens of my personal stances are or what is legally allowed. 
 

Because if there’s a problem, I’m 99.99% sure I’m not taking them to court so working out a resolution is going to depend on what the seller is willing to do rather than what I can force him to do. 

It’s not a court of law as much as the court of the cgc boards or the court of PayPal claims we are talking about, really. 
I get what you mean though, about trying to avoid problems before they happen, but most sellers have some form of no return policy….they just all reside inside contract law and if everyone works within the same universe of responsibilities and expectations, everyone knows where they stand and how to do it right and what is wrong. 
 

This seller, in this situation, fails to understand his responsibilities..but the buyer had no way of knowing he would be this irresponsible simply from a “no returns” line.  The reaction of the buyer, and of this thread, serve two purposes. 1) It informs this board of aberrant seller whose behavior is outside the norm and outside of normal transactional boundaries. 2) it informs the seller (and other sellers perhaps) of the expectations of the boards for transactional responsibility. So, it’s been a valuable thread for those reasons if for no other ones. 

The community reinforcing expectations is what makes buyers confident in dealing, that everyone understands the terms and language the same way. That “no returns” bears the subtext of , “but for seller’s failure, damage in transit”, etc. If a seller if overt in their defiance of their responsibilities before dealing, avoid…for sure. But otherwise expect sellers to handle their business responsibly.  
 

We just need threads like this to make sure everyone knows who has wrong ideas of how to do business against accepted standards and thus who to avoid. 

[wombat]

While I agree "no returns" can certainly be a red flag, I absolutely don't think it is a get out of jail free card. To me that only covers someone changing their mind on the purchase with no claims of damage, etc. 

[Dr. Balls]

On 1/7/2024 at 9:37 AM, Dr. Love said:

The refutation of physical damage to the book, twice and strongly, on the seller's part is the most concerning aspect of this kerfuffle. Either it was a bald faced lie or the eyes wouldn't see what the mind didn't want to see.  

Yeah, I think the last act of defiance and continuing to insist the book is in the exact condition he sold it to me in is really the head-scratching part of this. When I look at the original photo, and then the photos I took of the book, and the crease in the backing board coinciding with the tearing - I see the same book in two different conditions. Is everyone else seeing this, or are some people seeing it differently (since he posted low-res pictures and I have higher-res pics from my camera)? I already wear glasses, so I doubt my eyesight is in question - but you never know.

[Point Five]

On 1/7/2024 at 6:17 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Yeah, I think the last act of defiance and continuing to insist the book is in the exact condition he sold it to me in is really the head-scratching part of this. When I look at the original photo, and then the photos I took of the book, and the crease in the backing board coinciding with the tearing - I see the same book in two different conditions. Is everyone else seeing this, or are some people seeing it differently (since he posted low-res pictures and I have higher-res pics from my camera)? I already wear glasses, so I doubt my eyesight is in question - but you never know.

100%. The book is visibly much worse.