Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 78

Thread: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Malaga
    Posts
    3,755
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    52
    Thanked in
    39 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 6 Times in 1 Post

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    I am sorry you feel this way but if you understand the whole story before you jump to conclusions the issues will be clearer. If you want the full facts of the story I shall be happy to continue the discussion by private message. I suspect, however, the facts will do nothing other than cause your high horse to stumble.

    I made a legitimate claim through eBay for the refund of postage along with a complaint about the fraudulent nature of the supplier. The same claim was made to the local trading standards authority. If you understand the eBay claims process you will know that the supplier had an opportunity to present his side of the transaction which he did. eBay ruled in my favour and made an ex-gratia payment to me in compensation. These are eBay's rules, well known in advance to buyers and sellers alike. No one forces anyone to do business on eBay but if you do so then you are required to abide by the rules. I have no more 'robbed' the supplier than if I had sued in a court of law and won. Quite the opposite in fact, the supplier made a fraudulent listing on eBay, was caught and punished.

    I find your accusation of a lack of honesty, based upon an entirely incomplete knowledge of the facts distressing and I request an apology.

    Furthermore your casual racism, importuning the honesty of an entire nation based upon no knowledge whatsoever of one person to be offensive in the extreme. This kind of attitude should have died out years ago and certainly has no place on this forum. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  2. #32
    samxxz Guest

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    I agree your claim was legimate when you did not receive the lens. But when all the dusts settle, it's you who gets the lens for free and the seller shipped the merchandise without getting paid. Your analogy of a court of law does not stand. Paypal's decision is not justice. Its first priority was to cover its ass. Its decisions have constantly made sellers suffer and many have left eBay because of the unfair treatments. And, please tell me since you get a perfectly good lens, what was fraudulent about the seller's listing?

    I have been on eBay since 1999. And even if I lack of knowledge of eBay it's not lack of honesty, it's ignorant at most.

    As to calling me racist, even you agree that your customs give a lot of trouble to the merchadise shipped to your country. Now your story adds more aspect of trouble for the world to know. That's all my points. If you want to use racism as a weapon, fire away. Oh, that reminded me your first story. Why did your customs send the first lens back? Becuase you refuse to pay the duty at the full value? I smell the lack of honesty again.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Malaga
    Posts
    3,755
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    52
    Thanked in
    39 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 6 Times in 1 Post

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    I offered to share all the facts of the story with but you seem to prefer commenting from a position of self-confessed ignorance.

    Spanish law states that the customs value for calculation of duty is the invoice value. It is the amount paid for an item, not the notional value of the item that is the basis for calculating duty. This is broadly consistent with customs law around the world, there are exceptions but not in the EU.

    The invoice I provided to Spanish customs was the original invoice I received from the supplier for the amount I paid for the lens. Also provided was a note under company seal (original) confirming the legitimacy of the invoice. Spanish customs chose to ignore this paperwork and levy (illegally) an amount of duty in excess of that due. If by refusing to pay an illegally levied tax you think I am guilty of dishonesty, that is your right but I cannot agree.

    The lens supplied to me was different to lens described in the listing in a number of significant ways, making the listing fraudulent in both its description and its omission of crucial facts. The lens was described as brand new UK stock. It was neither brand new nor UK stock. A mis-description of this kind even if by accident is reason to overturn the transaction. The listing offered courier delivery to my door for an additional payment. I made the additional payment.

    The lens was not delivered to my door. It was left with a complete stranger 4km away. When the lens arrived the packaging was extensively damaged. Some items (admittedly minor ones) described as part of the listing, were missing. The lens was clearly used and was not UK stock but Japanese stock, apart from the failure disclose the origin, which is a trading offense in the EU, Japanese stock carries the Olympus 1 year world wide warranty. UK Olympus stock has a 2 year warranty.

    In summary: I contracted and paid for a brand new, boxed, complete, UK lens to be delivered to my door. I was supplied a secondhand, Japanese item, parts of which were missing, that was left with a stranger.

    My first recourse was with the supplier who I asked to take the lens back and provide a refund. He refused. My second course of action was to contact eBay and open a dispute. PayPal was not involved as I paid via direct bank transfer. The third course of action was to make a formal complaint to the trading standards authority in the UK. the result was that the eBay claims process was resolved in my favour, I received compensation. The TSA complaint was upheld.

    Whilst the lens is perfectly good, it is not what I contracted to buy. I wanted to return it and was not given that option. The supplier had the opportunity to rectify his mistakes and chose not to.

    In the light of the foregoing, I would appreciate some pointers from one with such an advanced nose for dishonesty. What would you suggest I should have done ? How should I have approached the transaction in a more honest way. Which of my actions do you take particular offence at and what would you have done in the circumstances.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    4
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    Bear,

    Sounds like the person accusing you of dishonesty was talking out of ignorance, and is now too proud to offer an apology, which would be the least that a civilized person coudl do.

    Any one of those things would have been enough to void the transaction; and seeing as how the seller refused to abide by the eBay system and accept a return of an item described improperly (and not shipped as he said he would ship it), it seems like tough luck on him for getting his lens back: he's now outside of the system of protection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear View Post
    I offered to share all the facts of the story with but you seem to prefer commenting from a position of self-confessed ignorance.

    Spanish law states that the customs value for calculation of duty is the invoice value. It is the amount paid for an item, not the notional value of the item that is the basis for calculating duty. This is broadly consistent with customs law around the world, there are exceptions but not in the EU.

    The invoice I provided to Spanish customs was the original invoice I received from the supplier for the amount I paid for the lens. Also provided was a note under company seal (original) confirming the legitimacy of the invoice. Spanish customs chose to ignore this paperwork and levy (illegally) an amount of duty in excess of that due. If by refusing to pay an illegally levied tax you think I am guilty of dishonesty, that is your right but I cannot agree.

    The lens supplied to me was different to lens described in the listing in a number of significant ways, making the listing fraudulent in both its description and its omission of crucial facts. The lens was described as brand new UK stock. It was neither brand new nor UK stock. A mis-description of this kind even if by accident is reason to overturn the transaction. The listing offered courier delivery to my door for an additional payment. I made the additional payment.

    The lens was not delivered to my door. It was left with a complete stranger 4km away. When the lens arrived the packaging was extensively damaged. Some items (admittedly minor ones) described as part of the listing, were missing. The lens was clearly used and was not UK stock but Japanese stock, apart from the failure disclose the origin, which is a trading offense in the EU, Japanese stock carries the Olympus 1 year world wide warranty. UK Olympus stock has a 2 year warranty.

    In summary: I contracted and paid for a brand new, boxed, complete, UK lens to be delivered to my door. I was supplied a secondhand, Japanese item, parts of which were missing, that was left with a stranger.

    My first recourse was with the supplier who I asked to take the lens back and provide a refund. He refused. My second course of action was to contact eBay and open a dispute. PayPal was not involved as I paid via direct bank transfer. The third course of action was to make a formal complaint to the trading standards authority in the UK. the result was that the eBay claims process was resolved in my favour, I received compensation. The TSA complaint was upheld.

    Whilst the lens is perfectly good, it is not what I contracted to buy. I wanted to return it and was not given that option. The supplier had the opportunity to rectify his mistakes and chose not to.

    In the light of the foregoing, I would appreciate some pointers from one with such an advanced nose for dishonesty. What would you suggest I should have done ? How should I have approached the transaction in a more honest way. Which of my actions do you take particular offence at and what would you have done in the circumstances.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Malaga
    Posts
    3,755
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    9
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    52
    Thanked in
    39 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 6 Times in 1 Post

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    Thanks for your message of support. The end of the thred was odd in the extreme. The guy only posted twice here, both times to accuse me of dishonesty. He then disappeared completely. Bizarre. There may be some truth in his comments. i did get the lens for much, much less than it was worth and the supplier did end up out of pocket but I think my behaviour was entirely justified (I would say that wouldn't I !) I offered to return the item for a refund. I truly do not know what else I should have done.

  6. #36
    samxxz Guest

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    I stopped responding because I don't think I will get anywhere. It's only one-sided story and I have no way to verify. I can only find the holes in your story. Here is one more: you said it was guarded safe and sound by a local merchant, but then you said the packaging was completely damaged. If you lie to cover up these holes I certainly won't catch it. The fact remains that you got a lens for free. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. I do not expect to convince anyone. I leave this for every seller to make their own judgment, and I think I have spent enough time on this for what I care.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    4
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    Quote Originally Posted by samxxz View Post
    I stopped responding because I don't think I will get anywhere. It's only one-sided story and I have no way to verify. I can only find the holes in your story. Here is one more: you said it was guarded safe and sound by a local merchant, but then you said the packaging was completely damaged. If you lie to cover up these holes I certainly won't catch it. The fact remains that you got a lens for free. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. I do not expect to convince anyone. I leave this for every seller to make their own judgment, and I think I have spent enough time on this for what I care.
    I wouldn't feel badly about it. He may have got the lens for free, but it wasn't what was advertised, wasn't what he requested, and wasn't shipped in the manner he requested and paid for. He asked the seller to accept a return of the item for a refund (which was unquestionably justified), the seller refused (which wasn't justified).

    The seller, in short, refused to abide by the eBay terms he had agreed to abide by in listing that item on eBay. He then effectively placed himself outside of eBay protection. That is his problem, and as far as I'm concerned, he got what he deserved.

    He was trying to rip off a customer by describing the item in a factually incorrect way and also accept additional money for signature-at-door delivery when he did not in fact pay extra to have it shipped that way. For him to simply issue a refund and take the lens back -- on a deception that seems to be clearly intentional, not accidental -- is to let him get off the hook; it is entirely fair that he is now the one who ends up being shorted, rather than the customer he was trying to short-change.

    Also, you claim to have found a hole in his story; I think you are either just not understanding what he is saying clearly. A shipping package that has been damaged during shipping can still be guarded safe and sound by a local merchant: as in, knowing it isn't theirs, they don't take it for themselves, sell it to someone else, open it, or discard it (which was rather nice of them, seeing as they had no obligation to hold onto it).

  8. #38
    samxxz Guest

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    Quote Originally Posted by dh003i View Post
    Also, you claim to have found a hole in his story; I think you are either just not understanding what he is saying clearly. A shipping package that has been damaged during shipping can still be guarded safe and sound by a local merchant: as in, knowing it isn't theirs, they don't take it for themselves, sell it to someone else, open it, or discard it (which was rather nice of them, seeing as they had no obligation to hold onto it).
    This is quibble. How can you say a package is safe and sound if it is completely
    damaged? How do you know if it's damaged by the shipper or the local merchant?

    I said, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. That's just my opinion. As a seller I will try my best to treat my customer right. But knowing that there are such risks selling internationally, I will not do it. Who knows if the buyer I am dealing with is honest or not.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    4
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Likes: 0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    Quote Originally Posted by samxxz View Post
    This is quibble. How can you say a package is safe and sound if it is completely
    damaged? How do you know if it's damaged by the shipper or the local merchant?
    Does it really matter? If the seller had done what he said he was going to do, it would have been in the customer's hands, not someone many miles away. But my point is merely that I think he meant that the merchant had kept the package for whoever it was intended for, rather than taking it for himself or throwing it out.

    I said, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. That's just my opinion. As a seller I will try my best to treat my customer right. But knowing that there are such risks selling internationally, I will not do it. Who knows if the buyer I am dealing with is honest or not.
    That's what eBay ratings are for. I have a 100% positive eBay ratings, with all but 1 of my feedbacks as a buyer. One can read the ratings and assess whether or not one thinks they're legitimate ratings or the result of some feedback scam loop (which I believe eBay has now caught onto).

    It seems to me like the seller was trying to rip off the buyer by hundreds of dollars. Instead, he ended up out hundreds of dollars. Good.

    But if there is a gripe about that, how is it the buyer's fault? He wanted to return the product, the seller refused (in violation of his obligations). Tough luck on the seller. Are you suggesting the buyer has some sort of positive obligation to go to the hassle of setting up a shipping, packaging the box, and paying the shipping fee to return the lens to a fraudulent seller?

    I think a lot of seller's complaints about eBay are bunk. A lot of sellers seem not to understand economics, and act as if they're the reason why eBay is what it is. The reality is that for any kind of facilitated trading exchange like eBay, you need both buyers and sellers; both are important.

    And really, for the most part, a buyer has done his job once he has paid in a timely manner. End of discussion. So if eBay does change it's policy to allow sellers to leave negative feedback for buyers, it should only be for buyers who don't pay in a timely manner, and who haven't opened a dispute to explain why (e.g., if after they won the item, the seller e-mailed them something suggesting a scam, or changed the terms, or whatever).

    But basically, if a buyer pays in a timely manner, they have done their job and almost ought to get automatic positive feedback, unless the seller provides evidence otherwise.

  10. #40
    samxxz Guest

    Re: Comparing the Digital Zuiko 50-200 old and new

    Quote Originally Posted by dh003i View Post
    Does it really matter? If the seller had done what he said he was going to do, it would have been in the customer's hands, not someone many miles away. But my point is merely that I think he meant that the merchant had kept the package for whoever it was intended for, rather than taking it for himself or throwing it out.
    Of course if does. Do you remember I was questioning his honesty and was looking for holes in his story?

    Quote Originally Posted by dh003i View Post

    That's what eBay ratings are for. I have a 100% positive eBay ratings, with all but 1 of my feedbacks as a buyer. One can read the ratings and assess whether or not one thinks they're legitimate ratings or the result of some feedback scam loop (which I believe eBay has now caught onto).

    It seems to me like the seller was trying to rip off the buyer by hundreds of dollars. Instead, he ended up out hundreds of dollars. Good.

    But if there is a gripe about that, how is it the buyer's fault? He wanted to return the product, the seller refused (in violation of his obligations). Tough luck on the seller. Are you suggesting the buyer has some sort of positive obligation to go to the hassle of setting up a shipping, packaging the box, and paying the shipping fee to return the lens to a fraudulent seller?

    I think a lot of seller's complaints about eBay are bunk. A lot of sellers seem not to understand economics, and act as if they're the reason why eBay is what it is. The reality is that for any kind of facilitated trading exchange like eBay, you need both buyers and sellers; both are important.

    And really, for the most part, a buyer has done his job once he has paid in a timely manner. End of discussion. So if eBay does change it's policy to allow sellers to leave negative feedback for buyers, it should only be for buyers who don't pay in a timely manner, and who haven't opened a dispute to explain why (e.g., if after they won the item, the seller e-mailed them something suggesting a scam, or changed the terms, or whatever).

    But basically, if a buyer pays in a timely manner, they have done their job and almost ought to get automatic positive feedback, unless the seller provides evidence otherwise.
    You know sellers can't leave neg anymore, so, not all bad buyers can be identified. If it's a domestic sale, I agree the buyer's obligation stops at paying on time. But there are always customs/long delays involved in international sale. If a buyer takes advantage of the law of their country, on some of my honest mistake, I will lose my merchandise. I was not saying that THAT seller doesn't deserve punishment. But if I was the buyer in this case, I would still offer the seller a partial payment, no matter how he treated me, or I would lose sleep at night. I might keep the money with some regret but I would certainly not happily announce it to the world that I have created an imaginary fund for my photo gear. That reminds me of watching a villain in a movie showing how gracious he is.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •