The Chicken or the Egg

I purchased an item through RCU. I was not happy with the product
after I recieved it so I contacted the seller and he agreed to take it
back. We are now at a stalemate. He says I need to send the product
back before he sends me the money and I say he needs to send me the
money before I sent back the product. What do you think?
Reply to
geebee
Loading thread data ...
How did you handle it in the first place? Do it the same way in reverse, since now the product is going the other direction.
George
Reply to
George Ball
I purchased an item through RCU. I was not happy with the product after I recieved it so I contacted the seller and he agreed to take it back. We are now at a stalemate. He says I need to send the product back before he sends me the money and I say he needs to send me the money before I sent back the product. What do you think? =========================================== If I order something from Sears, I have to send it back before they issue a refund. I think this is no different. Send it "adult signature required" so you know who receives it.
Reply to
Carrell
Almost nobody issues a refund to a customer without the return of the item first. It is hardly unreasonable for the seller to want to have the return of the item and inspect it before refunding your money.
I would simply create a folder with copies of all records of the original transaction and correspondences regarding the items return. Send the items back using a method requiring a signature by the seller for verification that they received the item back. If the seller refuses to issue a refund after getting the items back then file reports and take whatever legal actions you feel are necessary.
There is no advantage to holding on to the item since you clearly do not want it.You give up none of your rights to either small claims or filing a mail fraud report, by returning it first, should the seller not refund the agreed upon sum. On the other hand I doubt a small claims judge or a postal investigator would show much interest in your claim if you never returned the goods as requested before a refund is issued.
Chicken or Egg? Nope, just a one sided stand off that gives the advantage to the seller since after a reasonable length of time he will not be obligated to refund your money at all. His conditions are neither unusual nor unreasonable for a refund to be issued and he is not obligated to take any further actions until you comply.
Bob Ruth
Reply to
BobAndVickey
Yes, good idea, call a lawyer and drag the process out for about two years and run the cost up to far above the value of the item.
Or, you could send it back and wait for the return of your money, knowing that if it is not returned, it is a probable case of mail fraud.
Reply to
HH
Yeah and when the seller refuses it, because he has no idea what is in the box or the condition it is in, then the buyer has spent money for nothing and the seller is still not obligated to refund his money until the item is returned via normal shipping.
From the sellers perspective he has a right to inspect the item to determine if anything is missing or damaged after he shipped it to the buyer before paying a refund. Clearly not unreasonable if he is offering a refund on the item for the unsatisfied buyer.
The real question here is why is the buyer so paranoid about returning the item as most people do everyday? It appears on the surface that the seller has followed through with the original transaction and has offered to make good on a refund only requiring normal reasonable process be followed of returning the item first.
Playing games with the seller is stupid as I stated before he has made a reasonable offer and he has to do nothing more if the buyer does not return the item via normal shipping. If nothing else the seller by now probably is starting to suspect that either the buyer has a screw loose or that he is hiding something about the condition of the item that he does not want the seller to see until he has got his refund.
So exactly what is the reason for the paranoia here?
Bob Ruth
Reply to
BobAndVickey
I think you don't have a leg to stand on. You're the one not happy with the product. The seller is certainly more than happy with the money you sent him. You want your money back. You should assume the risk.
Reply to
Mathew Kirsch
Thanks for all of the input. I think it is interesting that most of the people who sided with the original seller think that I am "paranoid" and am involved in a "one sided stand off" and I didn't have "a leg to stand on". I would expect as much from negative people who can take a simple question and turn it into smack. I only asked how you thought it should be handled not what you thought of me. For all of your information, the deal has been settled and I am shipping the item back. When I send him the tracking number, he will send the money. Also FYI, I sent an email to the RCU administrator to ask him about it and his thought was that he should send the money first but if we could work it out that would be better. So thats what we did. Thanks again for your input.
Reply to
geebee
I would have to disagree with the RCU administrator, and agree with most other replies posted here. It would be highly unusual to issue a refund before receiving the item back. Still, it's nice to hear everything worked out. It sounds like the seller is a trustworthy, honorable person who did the right thing.
Alan Harriman
So thats what we did.
Reply to
Alan Harriman
The only person turning it into "smack" is you. You asked how it should be handled, providing your own opinion. I provided mine, and I stand by it. If you took offense because my opinion differed from yours, that is your problem.
Reply to
Mathew Kirsch

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.