I'm surprised, Gary, normally you supply comment in a knowledgeable manner, but describing the fault as a "small cosmetic defect", certainly disqualifies you from any credence in the collectable art world, or for that matter most any other collectable field. Condition is everything. Try getting top dollar for a Colt Peacemaker with a replacement screw. As for the case in point, as I understand it, Harold was never offered a full refund as that would have included shipping charges. Reputable dealers offer full refunds including freight if the item is "not as described".
On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" shouted from the rooftop:
Harold- you keep forgetting that you were offered a refund. Which you refused. The instant you refused the refund offer, the balance tipped in favor of the seller because the seller can now claim that YOU acted in bad faith- that because YOU bid to much for the glass YOU want YOUR money back. EBay is an auction: "Where-is, as-is" with no refunds promised.
Again, you screwed up and made a cheap lesson into an expensive one.
"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on" -Sam Goldwyn
You have lost this battle.
-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura
I agree. Go for it Harold. The guy cheated you. All these keyboard philosophers would feel the same way you do if it happened to them. Even Mr. Kinch was pissed off when it happened to him over the sum of $150. Look at all the time he spent going after the crook. When it happened to you, he tries to make it look noble and high minded by saying his only intent was to "educate" the public about ebay fraud. Not likely.
The armchair lawyers are here in abundance, also. Most of whom take the position of "don't do anything, you might be sued" or "you made a wrong move, you better forget it". I would do exactly what you are trying to do.... nail him to the wall in any way I could. Let HIM suffer the consequences of his actions. We have become a nation of cowards, unable or unwilling to take a stand for what is right and wrong. If more people stood up for what they believe, willing to take risks for justice, we might HAVE more justice for all.
Mark
P.S. This is another reason I like Gunner.... he's a stand-up kind of guy. Won't take any crap, and does his best to do the right thing, even at great cost to himself. His political views don't mean much to me. What he is, does.
Or try to get a first rate price for a diamond with a chunk of coal in it.
I agree. Gary had a brain fart.
Gunner
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell
The convoluted thinking displayed by both you and Gary leave me without words. I didn't expect much from you, Carl, but I've always looked at Gary as being of super intelligence. So much for that idea. He may be smart as all hell, but I question his ethics at this point.
For the two of you, this can all be rendered down to a simple thing from all appearances:
It doesn't matter that we were told lies to encourage a higher bid, or in our case, any bid, and it is our fault for challenging someone that told us lies once we received the item in question. . We should have sent the item back at a loss when it was totally their fault we are unhappy because they refused to disclose a real condition of the item in question. I gather that the two of you feel the seller was well within his/her rights to misrepresent the item, and we have no basis for complaining. The seller is under no obligation to make us whole again, it's just tough luck for us that they chose to tell lies.
Please be sure to let us know what name you use on eBay as a seller, assuming you sell there, so we can avoid bidding on any of your items. If you endorse that kind of business practice, I certainly don't want to do business with you.
As much as Kinch has voiced his opinions, I've yet to see him endorse the dishonesty on the part of the seller the way you and Gary have. I do appreciate his brutal honesty in the cost of pursuing the matter, and the philosophy that it's better to cut your losses. The book's not closed on that matter yet, but right now I see a law suit, even at great expense. One that involves punitive damages. Maybe the judge will tell us to grow up.
A couple months ago I settled with an insurance company who represented the guy who ran into me. The litigation went on for over three years. Their first offer would not have even paid the medical bills up to that point. This law suit had much more at stake than your piece of art but I still think you should pursue it. Many nasty and untrue things were said about me, "experts" lied, etc.. But, sticking with it and not letting them grind me down (got close tho') paid off in the end. So stick with it Harold. Once, when sitting in small claims court and watching the action, I saw a judge award the plaintiff the full amount and then, without a request from the plaiintiff, award even more for other damages incurred but not claimed. I think it was for interest and the cost of collection and missing time from work. Apparently this is something the judge can do when they want. At least in WA. Maybe a trip to the library to check out a book about small claims may give you some tools to help you. I think NO LO PRESS may have something. Not sure if it is Nolo or No Lo. I'm sure it comes from "No lo contrende"which means "no contest". Anyway, I don't know latin or law but I do know persistence pays off. Cheers, eric
I think the thing that has been most difficult for me is the gross sadness that Susan has had to endure at the hands of these bastards, Dave. She has shopped literally for years to find a piece of blue Webb, and has done her homework endlessly in order to secure a nice piece, knowing that she could buy only one. The money is gone, there is no prospect of buying another. She was crushed when she received the piece in question. The very first thing she noticed was the repair. It is impossible to ignore.
We are common folks with limited funds, living in retirement, and certainly not in the lap of luxury. She has almost no hope of ever getting a piece for her collection now, and if we try to sell it, it is likely to fetch only a couple hundred dollars at best. The value is not there, and we can't, and won't, be a part of fraud in selling to someone without disclosing the real condition.
I thank you for your understanding. You have recognized, exactly, our point. Too bad the seller didn't have your fine standards.
I think that art glass is done differently. If it's perfect, it's worth something. If it has one small cosmetic defect, it's basically a jelly glass.
The analogy would be to selling a stud horse - who shoots blanks.
Perfect in every other way - but because he cannot do what he was sold for, he's worth his weight in - dog food.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
- Oh, there is recourse... In various forms... as to your imagination... and I will let it go at that. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I've seen guys let stuff like this eat them up. Make sure to play check with your health.
- It would be interesting to me to see what, if any, real actions can be taken that provide any fruits. I had a related experience with an outfit called "cyclone motors" for my CNC mill/drill project. I have finally received most of the equipment, literally all that he can deliver, and have to leave it at that. My neighbor's situation is on topic as well. He purchased some furniture from Pinecraft here in St. Louis Park, as he and I both believe in trying to give the local business the shot. Paid for up front. Never delivered. This was approximately a year ago. He went to court, won a judgement. Done deal? Hardly. This guy knows how to play. He's even been featured on the local TV channel 5 Investigates. Another lady, with the same sad story. He gave the same song and dance, some bull about "minimum orders". It was never clear, even after promises on TV that he came through for her, and definately has not come through with my good friend & neighbor. Once the judgement was handed down, you have to fill out forms of discovery (where does he bank?) of course it's an empty account. He can have the sheriff's office sieze his car, but it will cost $500 to do that, that might be recoverable. He can have the sheriff come in and sieze the cash drawer, but how much will be in the till? Frankly, I'd rather picket the guy. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D It just seems a shame that the real, true & clear victims have no real recourse. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D Something is broken. Best of luck.
I guess I don't understand something here, and it has not been discussed up to this point.
The seller offered a refund, and then withdrew that offer. Wouldn't a reputable seller make that refund offer unconditionally?
Here I am *not* discussing the shipping cost issue, but rather the idea that if a business is on the up and up, they would make the refund offer, and stick to it. That such a refund (minus the shipping costs) has been offered and then retracted does not speak well of the seller. One could even imagine that if a seller was aware of the recalcitrant nature of the purchaser, he might deliberately offer something with the almost certain knowledge that it would be rejected.
Who is to say that such a refund would actually be sent, if Harold were to return the piece at his own expense? If the seller is willing to deliberately mis-represent the item from the outset, it might be tough to actually *get* the refund.
I think a reputable seller at this point would say, 'look, we're sorry you don't like it. We'll refund the purchase price and split the shipping with you.'
All of the reputable businesses I've ever delt with via mail or phone or internet have never retracted an offer of refund once it was made. That's one feature of this deal that just plain rubs me the wrong way. Either it's a refund offer, or it isn't. But it cannot be both, no matter what the buyer said in response. Is Harold strong willed? Yep. Can he rub folks the wrong way? Umm, uh hum. Well mister vendor, welcome to the world of dealing with the public. I suspect that in absolute terms, Harold probably rates a six or a seven in the 'problem customer' catagory.
I wonder what that seller does if he hits a nine or a ten? 'Cause with photos like those two, that's gonna happen sooner rather than later.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
Thank you. The interval of time from the offer to refund, minus shipping, and the denial of a refund under any circumstance, was a period of only a few minutes. I discussed the issue of non-disclosure with Mary Dowd, the wife of the owner, as a reason they should refund shipping, to which she replied that she was under NO obligation to disclose the repair, which she proudly proclaimed to be an inclusion, which was her basis of non-disclosure. She wanted me to believe that if I wasn't happy with the fact that it had a flaw, that was my problem, not hers. It was at that point that the discussion turned heated and the possibility of legal action was raised. I don't recall the ensuing comments, but within a minute, tops, we were off the phone. Within another minute the phone rang and we were told by Michael J. Myers that because we had upset his wife he would not take back the item, period. In other words, if we didn't agree that the piece was not repaired, we were unreasonable, therefore he had no obligation to rectify a wrong. Magically, his lies were suddenly valid, and our legal complaint of non-disclosure were his basis for retracting his offer.
One could even imagine
These people, and I use that term loosely, have refused to talk to us. Only when they received documents from the AG of Washington State, did the matter go to mediation at their request, but the only terms the seller would accept would be that we discounted the refund by $175, and we sent the item back to them before they refunded our money. They also dictated that if they didn't find the item to be in the same condition that it was sent, they may or may not make the refund. That condition of the piece was of no concern to us because the vase is in the exact same condition as when received, but, HELLO!! How many times should we trust the word of people that have already lied to us a couple times? How many of you would have sent back the evidence of having been screwed, at a reduced price, to the same liars that sent you the problem in the first place? They already accused us of manipulating the photos in some way. Simply not true. I've already covered that with the posting of the pics. How hard would it be for them to say once they had the item that it was returned in a different condition than it was sent? Sorry, these bastards are nothing more than crooks, and I want everyone to know it. If they were not, they would have wanted a satisfied customer. They plain didn't care as long as they got their hands on the money.
Actually, our feedback, minus theirs to us, is wonderful, full of compliments about quick payment and friendly emails. I'm only a bastard when provoked, and then I'm the worst. Susan and I have a strange philosophy. We try to treat people the way we'd like to be treated. We really do. I am the first to confess to being very difficult when screwed with, however. I don't think these bastards treated us fairly. Based on our claims, with you assuming them to be true, do you?
No, they didn't drop me and I expected them to. But about 3 months later my ins. agent put me with a different company. The ins. co. that tried to rip me off lost their license to operate in my state. I don't know the particulars. Served 'em right, to my thinking.
No, sellers, not eBay, specify the terms of sale as regards warranties or non-warranties.
The UCC still overrides the typically idiotic seller's terms.
Virtually every seller who sez "as is" makes express warranties in the listing that make the "as is" disclaimer meaningless.
The most reputable sellers (ahem) plainly offer warranties, satisfaction guarantees, and/or returns.
Paying with a credit card makes it very difficult for the seller to evade warranties and returns.
Not many people are aware that a storefront merchant must write on the credit card receipt "no returns" or "as is", before the customer signs, for such terms to apply. Otherwise the merchant agreement overrides signs posted in the store, etc. This is a great way to test out iffy merchandise in clearance bins. The card issuers force this on merchants because the issuers don't want people having any hesitation to using cards to buy stuff. Same reason they never make you pay the first $50 if your card gets stolen, and why they don't allow merchants to add fees for using a credit card.
I don't care whether Sam Colt hand filed the screw himself, or if it came from Ace Hardware, as long as the gun shoots properly. But you're correct that I'm not in the business of operating a gallery or "investing" in art. When I buy a jelly jar, I expect it to be filled with jelly.
That aside, I've bought a lot of things by mail order, including used items on ebay. Without being able to inspect a used item in person before buying it, I expect to occasionally find something that's not exactly as pictured. I'm delighted when the seller is willing to provide a full refund in those cases. But I don't expect him to pay the return postage any more than I'd expect Sears to pay for my gas to drive over there and return a wrench.
Doing business by mail means the post office gets paid as substitute for my driving to the seller's location and doing the purchase or return in person. As such, since it is my gas that's being saved, I expect to be the one doing the paying. It is just a normal cost of doing business by mail.
I'll repeat what I said before. What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. They both got mad, and neither one has the stones to back down gracefully and settle this matter in a civilized manner.
Nope. Not even close. If Susan was offered the price she paid and the cost of returning the item she'd jump on it. That would include shipping, which was overpriced anyway. The only demand we've ever made of these folks is to be made whole again. They are the ones that did something stupid, not us (unless you count doing business with them). The part you're so conveniently overlooking is that the offer to refund the money was withdrawn, and only a reduced offer has been made since, one where we accept less than our investment, with NO guarantee of a return of the money if they feel we didn't return the item in the same condition in which it was received. These people expect to have sold something and take it back at a profit. We dealt with one woman that had screwed up on the condition of a piece, and in spite of the fact that she was very unhappy when we called her on the poor description, she not only refunded our purchase price, but insisted on refunding shipping, too. We didn't even ask for it. Just goes to show that there are honest people in the world, but you can't add these clowns to the list. They demand their right to lie to us and not pay a price.
You also seem to be able to overlook the fact that we ASKED if the piece had any issues before we bid. We were not told the truth. Frankly, I'm surprised at your inability to see the injustice in this matter. It would be no different than if someone described a lathe to you that was shiny, and you received one that was totally rusted, or perhaps had a bent spindle. The defect of which we speak destroyed the value of this item, as authenticated by someone with credentials. Had Susan known of the repair, she wouldn't have been interested in owning the piece even at a price of a couple hundred dollars. She tries very hard to add only pieces in good condition to her collection. She was denied that right when these people lied to her.
Tell me, Gary, assuming you're a dog lover, if you bought a dog that died before you got it home, would you expect the store to warrant the purchase in some way? If so, why? You'd have a dog, dead or alive. What difference, if any, would it make to you? If you would not contest the dead dog, then I can understand your position. If you would expect the store to make right that which you may feel was a wrongdoing on their part, then your position makes no sense. Why would your dead dog be any different from an item that we were told had no damage when the seller knew all along that it did have, but chose to deny it so they could fetch a high price? They admitted to knowing of the area in question once we had it, they just deny any responsibility for the need to inform us. FRAUD. FRAUD is a crime.
Good agent. Those are getting rarer and rarer. Keep them!
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
On Sun, 09 May 2004 00:28:33 -0500, Richard J Kinch shouted from the rooftop:
I believe all of the above assumes the seller has a storefront, but "Where-is, as-is" applies to the more typical casual sale- not unlike a garage sale.
-Carl "An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura
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.