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

[universal soldier]

On 1/8/2024 at 10:50 AM, Point Five said:

100%. The book is visibly much worse.

 

Agreed!

[ChiSoxFan]

On 1/8/2024 at 12:13 PM, universal soldier said:

Agreed!

And agreed as well.  My eyesight is starting to fail, but you can tell the books are in dramatically different conditions with your eyes closed.  Anyone who would claim that the book you ended up getting was in the same condition that the initial pictures depicted is living in denial. 

[awakeintheashes]

Did WitterWill link to or mention an eBay name while he was here? I'd like to add to my avoid list...I MEAN IT!

[thehumantorch]

On 1/7/2024 at 5:28 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. 

Perfect post.

[F For Fake]

Teachable moments are important. We all make mistakes. I've made tons, and will continue to make them! Having an opportunity to say "I was wrong, and here's how I'll fix it and learn from it" is such a great thing. It can be a blow to the ego, but owning up and growing as a person is such a valuable experience.

This guy missed his chance, and doubled down with a FDQ exit. Good riddance.

As for the topic at hand, no, I see no reason to add any new rules. I think disclosing the return shipping responsibility is a great idea, and I have always done it myself, but making it a rule, I don't see the need. Reputable sellers will do the right thing. Bad sellers will get weeded out. The world turns on.

Sorry to Balls on the bad transaction. That's a really cool book. Sucks that dingbats are out there screwing up perfectly nice books with their incompetence. 

[rjpb]

As someone who sells a lot of books, I believe it is the seller's responsibility to get the book as advertised to the buyer undamaged, and that the seller takes responsibility for return shipping costs or refunds should that not happen. I suppose there is a grey area if a porch pirate steals a package that has been delivered, but even there, the seller should require signature on a value above a level they are comfortable reimbursing, to avoid such potential problems.

Shipping damage, and significant unmentioned flaws not obvious from images, like restoration or brittle pages or interior tape, even if they arguably don't have much impact on grade are good enough reasons for return at seller's expense. If it's a difference in grade assessment or anything else that's subjective, then it is the buyer's responsibility to pay for return shipping.