Advertisements


Go Back   Four Thirds User discussion forum > FTU Noticeboard > Articles highlighted from near and far > Recently published FTU articles

Recently published FTU articles Keep up to date with the latest FTU articles and contribute your comments.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15  
Old 14th February 2009
dh003i dh003i is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times 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
Of course if does. Do you remember I was questioning his honesty and was looking for holes in his story? [in reference to me saying it doesn't matter if the shipping company damaged the package or if the merchant did]
(a) Why would the merchant damage it? This seems only possible if the merchant did so on-purpose, as I've never heard of anyone damaging something accidentally upon receiving it in a box (especially if it is properly packaged. (b) It doesn't matter from his pov, because either way, it is the seller's fault for not delivering it in the upgraded manner that the buyer had specifically paid for.

I don't see any hole in the story there. It seems clear to me that all the buyer was saying is that the local merchant held onto the package for whoever it belonged to.

Quote:
You know sellers can't leave neg anymore, so, not all bad buyers can be identified.
Well, they can still have strikes against them; I believe sellers can set terms in their sale where any bids from buyers with strikes can be discarded (that may even be an option to check off).

I do agree that the eBay system can be improved; but it isn't horrible as-is. It has served me, mostly a buyer, and many sellers just acceptably. It could be improved by: (a) Allowing sellers to leave negative feedback against buyers for say not paying, pending a time to allow the buyer to provide evidence as to why; (b) Not showing either feedback until both buyer and seller leave feedback, thus preventing feedback extortion. Also, neither side should be able to get feedback from the other without leaving it (i.e., the system holds feedback left for you until you leave feedback for the other side).

Quote:
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.
That may be an argument against shipping internationally in general, although fortunately many do ship internationally, thus furthering the extent of the free market. However, it doesn't really apply in this particular case. The main thing here was eBay's decision.

Quote:
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.
Well, I don't see why he should offer partial payment for something he didn't request. If his story is true, it is very clear that the seller was trying to pull one over on him. Instead, the seller lost. Good. I wouldn't lose sleep over that, provided I'd asked for a refund upon return and been turned down, and provided I had no reason to think it was an honest mistake.
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 PM.


The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2012, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger