eBay Seller cornfieldcomics-and-bricks BEWARE 3 3

[kav]

2 minutes ago, Bird said:

Oops, sorry about that. My mistake. I still think his words were clear, he will refund what you paid. If you do not trust those words why would you trust whatever else he has to say? You have to take the first step and send it back no matter what he says.

Explain why he will not type the words "I will refund $300".

"Refund what you paid" is NOT clear.  At all.  various things were paid and a $100 refund was issued.  Murky.

[1Cool]

10 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Here's what the UCC says: "(2) Expenses of inspection must be borne by the buyer but may be recovered from the seller if the goods do not conform and are rejected."

And "(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it (b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances."

In this case, it was both difficulty of discovery and the seller's assurances that induced the buyer to accept the book initially, even though it did not conform to the terms of the sale.

In other words, if the entity that sold you the car explicitly stated something significant about the vehicle that turned out to be untrue...like, say, it had a new engine...and you took it to a mechanic who discovered that the engine was, in fact, original and had 150,000 miles of wear on it...then you may be able to recover the cost of that inspection. That's what I'm seeing the language say.

Good info.  Sounds like just about everything in current life - up to debate by two lawyers that charge $300 an hour.  In this case the buyer is only asking for the seller to refund the $300 so it should be a moot point and the seller should just state there will be a $300 refund once the book comes back (ie full refund).  I wonder if our discussion will eventually get pulled into a small claims court and we can get a ruling at least - which will obviously be overturned by another judge lol)

[RockMyAmadeus]

32 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

46 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Here's what the UCC says: "(2) Expenses of inspection must be borne by the buyer but may be recovered from the seller if the goods do not conform and are rejected."

And "(1) The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it (b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances."

In this case, it was both difficulty of discovery and the seller's assurances that induced the buyer to accept the book initially, even though it did not conform to the terms of the sale.

In other words, if the entity that sold you the car explicitly stated something significant about the vehicle that turned out to be untrue...like, say, it had a new engine...and you took it to a mechanic who discovered that the engine was, in fact, original and had 150,000 miles of wear on it...then you may be able to recover the cost of that inspection. That's what I'm seeing the language say.

Good info.  Sounds like just about everything in current life - up to debate by two lawyers that charge $300 an hour.  In this case the buyer is only asking for the seller to refund the $300 so it should be a moot point and the seller should just state there will be a $300 refund once the book comes back (ie full refund).  I wonder if our discussion will eventually get pulled into a small claims court and we can get a ruling at least - which will obviously be overturned by another judge lol)

You ain't kidding. Re-reading this, you can interpret "may be recovered" (at least) two different ways:

1. Can definitely be recovered (meaning the clause guarantees the buyer the absolute right to recover those costs in the event the goods don't conform.)

2. Could possibly be recovered (meaning the clause is contigent on some other factor(s), and does not guarantee such a right.)

I lean toward "the buyer has the right to recover the cost of inspection from the seller if the goods don't conform", but I'm no lawyer, and that "may" may very well mean it's contingent and not guaranteed.

It's a wonder anyone successfully communicates at all. And people complain about "walls of text"...it's to avoid this kind of ambiguity!

Edited June 10, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[Buzzetta]

4 hours ago, kav said:

Buzz Seldin cant just send the book back as the return period has expired.  He was offering to send it back as a gentleman with no ebay guarantees, if Peeples would agree to refund the full $300.  Peeples refused, and has apparently been stringing us along the whole times saying he would do that in a heartbeat with the excuse that the guy 'sent him a weird message'.   

Here's what's not weird- Seldin stated clearly 'just state that you will refund the full $300, not $200, and I will send the book back!'

the end.

He could state anything he wants in some thread.  No one cares.  There is nothing binding in this thread that anyone would ever pay attention to. 

Go to the police.  File the paperwork.  No one cares and no one will do anything about it.  This whole return is centered on a handshake agreement over $100-300. I will be surprised if anyone finds this worth the time. 

So much around here is on a gentleman’s agreement.  Think about the books you send to CGC... think about sending them to who you have press your books.

send the book and be done with it. 

[BSeldin305]

14 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

He could state anything he wants in some thread.  No one cares.  There is nothing binding in this thread that anyone would ever pay attention to. 

There are 11 pages worth of comments that show folks care.  The point was to put the community on notice about this seller; if you don't care about that, that's up to you. 

 

[Buzzetta]

11 minutes ago, BSeldin305 said:

There are 11 pages worth of comments that show folks care.  The point was to put the community on notice about this seller; if you don't care about that, that's up to you. 

 

I don’t think I articulated myself well. 

Threats of legal action will not amount to much. 

Requiring him to write down what the deal is for reimbursement is not binding.  Just because someone, somewhere, wrote it online does not make it binding. 

No one will care. 

 

[kav]

1 minute ago, Buzzetta said:

I don’t think I articulated myself well. 

Threats of legal action will not amount to much. 

Requiring him to write down what the deal is for reimbursement is not binding.  Just because someone, somewhere, wrote it online does not make it binding. 

No one will care. 

 

I see it as kind of a psychological move-inform the guy you're a lawyer, ask him to make a statement of refund amount and see what his reaction is.  And, it worked.  The guy high tailed it out of here.  Now we know he never had any intention of a full refund/return he was glad to unload a trimmed book and wasnt gonna do anything to reverse that.  He wanted the board on his side saying 'sure I'll do a refund' but when push came to shove-nope.

[BSeldin305]

If I have in writing he will send $300, and then he sends $200, I have a very strong lawsuit for breach of contract- and possible fraud as well with an award of attorney's fees possible. 

But I never threatened legal action - I just want to make sure we were on the same page.  And we were not.  

Edited June 10, 2019 by BSeldin305

[kav]

It's usually the guy that disappears that's the at fault party.  There's another thread where someone claimed @James J Johnson made a 'bet' with him and needs to 'pay up'.  Despite several requests to show where such a bet supposedly took place, the dude has VANISHED.

[James J Johnson]

9 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

I disagree with the grading fees aspect but whatevs.  I also speak as a buyer in that situation.  

When I purchased a raw copy that was determined by CGC to have color touch, the dealer refunded the cost of purchase only.  (Not naming the dealer publicly)

When I purchased a raw book from an auction house that was determined by CGC to be trimmed the auction house refunded the cost of purchase only + shipping back the book. (Not naming the auction house publicly.)

If you're collecting only unrestored books, and buying and submitting a book you bought in good faith as unrestored, represented by the seller as unrestored, then regardless of the number of the grade, the restored finding renders that book materially defective and if correctly represented by the seller with the restoration disclosed, since the buyer would have passed on bidding on a book identified as restored, that, is what in this type of case, entitles a buyer to a refund of his grading fees and a full refund for the item if the buyer chooses that rather than a downward adjustment of price (partial refund).

If not, then if the book is returned and the $300 paid is refunded, the seller is still out the $100 for grading only due to the seller's negligence. The buyer should be made whole as all of the blame for his $100 loss in that scenario would be due to the seller's misrepresentation of the item.

[kav]

20 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

If you're collecting only unrestored books, and buying and submitting a book you bought in good faith as unrestored, represented by the seller as unrestored, then regardless of the number of the grade, the restored finding renders that book materially defective and if correctly represented by the seller with the restoration disclosed, since the buyer would have passed on bidding on a book identified as restored, that, is what in this type of case, entitles a buyer to a refund of his grading fees and a full refund for the item if the buyer chooses that rather than a downward adjustment of price (partial refund).

If not, then if the book is returned and the $300 paid is refunded, the seller is still out the $100 for grading only due to the seller's negligence. The buyer should be made whole as all of the blame for his $100 loss in that scenario would be due to the seller's misrepresentation of the item.

I disagree.  There are no guarantees with a raw book.  Everyone knows this.  Otherwise there would be no need to get a book graded.  You buy a raw book, you assume some risk.  You dont get to defray that risk and make the seller pay for grading fees.  You cant get the guarantee of a slabbed book at raw prices.

Thats like wanting to play the stock market, but if your investment fails, you get your money back.

Edited June 10, 2019 by kav

[Bird]

 Can you get a resto check without paying grading fees ? 

[Buzzetta]

2 hours ago, BSeldin305 said:

If I have in writing he will send $300, and then he sends $200, I THINK I have a very strong lawsuit for breach of contract- and possible fraud as well with an award of attorney's fees possible. 

But I never threatened legal action - I just want to make sure we were on the same page.  And we were not.  

Fixed that for you.

You “think” you have a strong lawsuit over $100.  If the guy dodged you for $100 and a court actually feels like entertaining you he is dodging that as well. 

You have words on a message board.  You don’t know who exactly you are talking to. You don’t know if there was a typo from 3 to 2.  You don’t have a strong anything.  Your case is actually pretty weak. 

And even so... I have watched people dodge bigger things than $100 and some people are still seeking action. 

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Buzzetta

[kav]

2 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Fixed that for you.

You “think” you have a strong lawsuit over $100.  If the guy dodged you for $100 and a court actually feels like entertaining you he is dodging that as well. 

I have watched people dodge bigger things than $100 and some people are still seeking action. 

 

Buzz is correct here.  Just because you win in small claims doesnt mean you will actually see any money.  In my case $1500.

[Buzzetta]

29 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

If you're collecting only unrestored books, and buying and submitting a book you bought in good faith as unrestored, represented by the seller as unrestored, then regardless of the number of the grade, the restored finding renders that book materially defective and if correctly represented by the seller with the restoration disclosed, since the buyer would have passed on bidding on a book identified as restored, that, is what in this type of case, entitles a buyer to a refund of his grading fees and a full refund for the item if the buyer chooses that rather than a downward adjustment of price (partial refund).

If not, then if the book is returned and the $300 paid is refunded, the seller is still out the $100 for grading only due to the seller's negligence. The buyer should be made whole as all of the blame for his $100 loss in that scenario would be due to the seller's misrepresentation of the item.

Yet... that is not always the case as professional grading is subjective and sometimes even in error. 

I wish I received back the grading fees in both cases but sadly I did not. 

[Buzzetta]

1 minute ago, kav said:

Buzz is correct here.  Just because you win in small claims doesnt mean you will actually see any money.  In my case $1500.

Go back and quote what I edited in.  His “strong” case is weak and dependent on words on a message board. 

Buzz who is for some reason stuck in Jamaica even though this train doesn’t stop in Jamaica. 

[kav]

The main drawback to poor business practices exposed on the boards is board members have a tendency to throw monkey wrenches and follow people selling careers for decades.  The list of notorious sellers here, many of whom boardies got banned from ebay etc, are legion.  Goodnewscomics and Ducoso come to mind, as well as BluPlanetComics, now all defunct.

[kav]

2 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Go back and quote what I edited in.  His “strong” case is weak and dependent on words on a message board. 

Buzz who is for some reason stuck in Jamaica even though this train doesn’t stop in Jamaica. 

I dont understand what you are instructing me to do.

[Buzzetta]

Just now, kav said:

I dont understand what you are instructing me to do.

Oh, I had edited my post seemingly as you quoted and responded to it.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

Grading...the opinion as to the general condition of the item in question...the "number on the label"...is subjective, and cannot be guaranteed, by anyone.

The presence or absence of restoration is not subjective. It is either there or it is not; whether and by whom it is, or is not, detected, or even if someone makes an error, doesn't change the absolute truth of whether it exists or not.