Yep! Everything saved except for Susan's original inquiry as to the condition, but we have the response that says it is in good condition with no repairs or other anomalies.
When they called, Susan was told they would make a refund on the purchase price, but not the shipping. One way was $31, so sending it back meant a loss of over $50 for something that was not represented honestly. When I talked to Mary, I told her that because they didn't disclose the repair, they were obligated to make full restitution. We would not have bid had we known of the repair. She informed me that she was under no obligation to disclose it because it wasn't a repair, something only a fool would have believed. The conversation got somewhat up tempo, and was terminated. Minutes later we received a call from Michael in which he said that he would not take the piece back under any circumstances, which was my reward for not agreeing with them that the repair was an inclusion. They have exaggerated pretty much the entire thing, attempting to make me look like the problem, including altering the photograph of the damaged area in question. That's one reason I'd love to get this thing before a judge. Too damned bad this country is so hell bent on defending crooks at the expense of honest folks.
That would be me! Neurosis. I don't seem to be able to come to terms with thieves, liars and other vermin. What are they going to do to me, stop me from using eBay? Wow! Now there's a loss. What ever would I do? Where else can I go to get screwed out of hard earned money? I gather you feel that losing my "rights" to following eBay is worth a great deal to me. Certainly more important than the $1240 dollars my wife is out. Did I mention we live on SS? Did I mention that amount of money represents
1/12th of our income? Maybe to you a thousand dollar screwing is insignificant. To us, it's a different matter. We worked for our money, Richard, it was not a gift to us. Did I mention that I was never unemployed one day of my life once I started working after high school? Did I mention I have never drawn so much as one thin dime of unemployment pay? Did I mention that I worked 60 hour weeks routinely, because that's what honest people do that want to get ahead and don't have an education from which they can leverage their income. I'm at a loss to understand why you feel it's better forgotten.
No possible good? If I can prevent even one person from paying too much for a piece of junk from these people, please tell me how it can do no possible good? My intention is to cause great harm. To their dishonest business. If they think they can skin us and escape unscathed, I'll see to it that it costs them as much as possible. I can do that by telling the truth. They can't prosecute me for telling the truth, no matter how much it harms their business, and that's exactly what I intend to do. It's not a good idea to get crosswise with people like me, and I doubt I'm alone.
There is a very decent man that lurks on the list that is an attorney, and he is advising me. I believe I'd be inclined to follow his recommendations at this point. Out of respect for his choice to remain anonymous, I shall not disclose his name,. but he knows who he is. He informed me that he never posts, prefers to not get into pissing contests with idiots. Smart man!
On Wed, 5 May 2004 22:48:07 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" shouted from the rooftop:
You should have taken the refund minus the shipping and chalked up the $81 difference to experience. I'm not on the sellers side, but they now have a good argument against you.
-Carl "An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura
Hmm. Does this apply to other purchases as well? For example, if I were to purchase a honda civic and there were a warranty issue with it, I would expect the dealer to make good on it. But what if I were to purchase a Lexus or a Mercedes? It almost sounds as though you would advocate eating the repair costs myself, simply becuause the extra cost of the fancier car is just a silly luxury item.
The UCC does not make distinctions based on the catagory of the purchase. Luxury vs essential. Where do you draw the line? Food? Clothing? What's the clip level above (or below, depending on your perspective) where complete honesty is required of a seller?
What if he had bought a camera? A bicycle? An antique chair? A car?
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
I recently had an insurance company attempt to cheat me on a damage claim to my home. They wanted to pay me $700, which was unacceptable considering the damage, and after I'd been paying their premiums for many years with nary a claim.. Before I took it to small claims court, I paid $25.00 to have a subpoena issued against the representative of the ins. company that was located in an adjacent state. They had to hire a local lawyer to show up in court, after unsuccessfully attempting to "quash" the subpoena. I had several more independent appraisals done of the damage and stayed on top of the situation and generally made their life miserable. We settled before the next small claims court appearance for $4,000. I was out about $50.00 for the fees for issuance of two seperate subpoenas and some of my time on my days off to be there when the home repair estimators showed up. Harold, you might think about getting some accurate appraisals of the worth of this item in it's present flawed condition and going this route. In my state $4,000 is the limit in small claims court, so I did pretty well. And, Kinch, there aren't any "major and minors". If you get blatantly screwed, no matter what it concerns, you don't roll over for it. The rational man makes every effort to remedy the situation. You can believe that my adversary was well defended. Sic 'em, Harold.
Great story - but I would comment that even though you did "win" they are still your insurance company. No doubt after the dust settled, they probably dropped your coverage. And included a not in your file (which you could not see) to the effect that 'insured is recalcitrant and sticks up for himself. Suggest that any other insurance company stay away from him!'
Insurance companies. Don't get me started....
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
" Not a good scenario, Harold. I know it's hindsight, but I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned using eBay's Escrow service when buying expensive items:"
EBay's Escrow service? Yeah, right! Hey, that'll work - just send in another fox to guard the hen house!
Bob (like a rabbit, doesn't trust anything that may be a dog) Swinney
I had printed copies of the auction last night, just in case you had not. (My wife was somewhat puzzled as to why I did this, until I explained the situation.
[ ... ]
I hope that you *can* get it in front of a judge -- and a properly unbiased one, at that.
Thanks, Statics! Need I tell you I'm about to do the same thing? This guy has, from all appearances, a total lack of ethics. Or is he on the other side? Sure makes you wonder.
For the life of me, I can't understand why decent people should turn the other cheek where matters like this are concerned. All the crooks need is the slightest of cooperation through no action on the part of the victims and they continue the course. For us to let this one slide just makes no sense to us.
One would have to question the motive of anyone that seems to be in support of the crooks, and I certainly am suspicious in this case. Decent folks don't encourage the criminals, they do what they can to stop them, often at great expense. Sometimes it even costs more than the dollar value, but there's more at stake here than money.
If you will review my first reply to your original post, you will see that "this guy" was offering advice intended to minimize your further losses, both financial and psychological, that your insistence on absolute justice will inflict upon your own head.
All litigation is fraught with emotional trials. It will consume you and ruin your life for the duration, and there can be lasting effects. It will bleed you white in the wallet, because while there are cheap lawyers, lawyers that can actually win cases are very costly. If you have never experienced it, then you should take the advice of those who have. I have been a plaintiff in too many civil trials, and spent too many $10s of thousands on lawyers, to suggest otherwise. I have been in too many armed confrontations, and fired too many shots at the real crooks, to have anything but an intense interest in the more vital ethical issues of standing your ground. One has to learn to pick one's fights, but you say "to let this one slide just makes no sense". Rob Roy would have been dead in that tavern with that attitude.
You make a believable and convincing story of having being swindled, although we haven't heard the other side, and it would be wrong to make any judgments without it. But you apparently cannot step back and look objectively at the fact that this is all over a silly trinket with artificial value. That you were willing to pay big money for such a thing doesn't change the absurdity of it all. It could have been Beanie Babies, or before that Dutch tulips. All stupid stuff that people get into stupid quarrels over. You sound like you're ready to commit libel because of some tiny bubble speck of a flaw in the goods.
I'll leave the question of anyone fitting your estimate of a "total lack of ethics" to a future judge, who teaches the ethical principle of setting aside smaller disputes, not insisting on absolute justice in this life, even to turning the other cheek or walking a 2nd mile or handing over your cloak.
This does not "encourage the criminals" as you state, because you are supposed to learn to avoid or manage this eBay risk in the future. Leave the punishment of crooks and swindlers to the state, that is the ethical basis to civilization vs vigilantism. If you seek raw revenge, recovery from this wrong being impossible, you will regret it.
I've read and understood, for the most part, that which you are saying, and while it makes sense, I am still of the opinion that to do nothing is to endorse the criminal actions of the perpetrator. I can tell anyone that is willing to listen what they have done, and how they have done it, and so long as I tell it like it is, I am not liable for anything. Telling the truth is not against the law. If the lousy bastards choose to take me to court, I'll welcome their charges with open arms.
You have heard only my side of the argument, to that I will agree. Will you give me your permission to send you a picture of the item that shows the repair of which I speak? Also a copy of the email that they sent when we asked specifically if there were any issues with the condition of the piece? It would be easy enough for you to go to the link I posted to see the item and their description. This is no tiny bubble speck of a flaw, this is a repair of an item that renders it relatively valueless in the collecting field. They intentionally withheld the condition of the piece, then when they were challenged we were told that it wasn't a repair, that it was an inclusion. The condition, regardless of what it may be, should have been disclosed in the ad, and it wasn't. The various photos were carefully composed to make sure it was not visible. When we inquired we were told it was in good condition. That's called fraud. Fraud is a criminal offense. I'm not sure, but it could even be a felony.
I'm not sure that you do or don't understand what art glass includes, but this is a piece of fine art that is roughly 100 years old. Should you be familiar, this is a piece of Webb cameo glass. That it might be your choice in collectibles or not is not important, but that it is something that my wife chooses to collect for her pleasure is, especially to me. I'm lucky to have a wife that is supportive of me and the decisions I make, and I enjoy returning the favor. For me to stand by and see her screwed out of the money is what makes no sense, just like standing by and watching someone rape her would make no sense. I have yet to exhaust my options, and while this thing is eating me alive, I'll go to my grave early before I'll forget the matter. Have you ever known any Greeks? Are you aware of our dedication to matters?
I realize I won't change your position, and likely you are the one that is in his right mind, but I'd certainly like you to see the listing and the response we got from these people when we asked, and then get a look at what they declined to disclose. If nothing else, you'll understand the level of disappointment that a good and loving wife has experienced when what was, to her, an item that she has waited to own for years, turns out to be nothing more than scrap glass at a very high price. Please, do not deny my wife her pleasure by demeaning her love and interest in her choice of collecting. This is a fine woman that never demands anything and is a caring and giving individual the is deserving of her one and only vice, her art glass collecting.
On Fri, 7 May 2004 01:36:09 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" shouted from the rooftop:
Harold-
Richard is right: at the end of the day, it's a piece of glass, not worth losing sleep over.
According to your earlier post, the seller _did_ offer to refund the money, minus shipping, but you didn't accept that. Which you should have because the whole matter would have died right there. It looks like you shot yourself in the foot because now you will either recover nothing or spend thousands to recover $1200 or wind up being sued for libel.
-Carl "An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura
Or they have gone out of business because they cannot collect the fees owed them.....
While I don't agree with the principle you advocate (that non-essential goods or services can be sold without ethics) your legal advice has the ring of truth to it.
After thinking a bit about this, I would say that Harold possibly should have accepted the refund, minus shipping, and then attempted to recover the shipping later.
As far as libel and slander are concerned, as my attorney on retainer tells me, "truth *is* an absolute defense."
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
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.