PayPal dispute question: seller trying to return after 90 days 1 1

[miraclemet]

It's a semantic argument. 

You described the book with all the atributes of being restored, but didnt use the word restored. Anyone who knows anything about comics (and you should know something if you are spending $450 on a comic) would know that your descriptors equal restored or at least likely restored. 

you talk about possibly married pages and a possible spot of color touch.

To me that's full disclosure. 

If I list a car with a blown engine and no wheels and then the buyer complains that I didn't say it was un-drivable.... well...

[Buzzetta]

13 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The buyer is an idiot.

Take the return, block them, then out them here.

It's not worth your time to fight it. It IS worth your time to make sure this fool is outed, so others can block as necessary.

But if you want to try and fight it...you may be able to retrieve the original listing. Do you have the "sold" e-mail that eBay sent you? A forced return is not a foregone conclusion.

MAYBE not in this case because he did not use the word "restored"

But in terms of if something is worth fighting for in general, I disagree with you.  It IS worth fighting it and sometimes amounts to nothing more than 20 minutes of your time. 

I say the following if what the original poster was true.

• Book CLEARLY advertised as restored. (Title, Seller Notes, Description, (Maybe twice in the description - and NOT surrounded by a wall of text)
• Buyer's complaint is that the book came back restored. 

Then... 

• You are obviously never going to do business with the buyer again if you take the book back.
• The buyer is never going to business with you if you do not take the book back - you still would not anyway because of the headache. 
• Why encourage bad behavior? If you take the book back and block him he simply moves on to doing it again but to possibly me... or you... 

 

Yeah, I have 20 minutes of my time to call PayPal and have them review the listing and close the case. 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Buzzetta

[Red_Hood]

1 hour ago, Callaway29 said:

The buyer is not right.

Then you condone a seller skirting around the fact it is restored and using terminology to give the interpretation that maybe...just maybe ...its not restored.

Good luck to you in your collecting endeavors!

The fact is...the seller sold it with a description that it might be possible that it could be restored and it could be unrestored because the seller won't clearly state that it is clearly color touch or that the pages are married.  He using the word "possibly" thinking its going to help wash his hands of it. 

He did not clearly state it as RESTORED and therefore caused himself this headache and I bet the buyer wins the case.

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Red_Hood

[Red_Hood]

23 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

MAYBE not in this case because he did not use the word "restored"

But in terms of if something is worth fighting for in general, I disagree with you.  It IS worth fighting it and sometimes amounts to nothing more than 20 minutes of your time. 

I say the following if what the original poster was true.

• Book CLEARLY advertised as restored. (Title, Seller Notes, Description, (Maybe twice in the description - and NOT surrounded by a wall of text)
• Buyer's complaint is that the book came back restored. 

Then... 

• You are obviously never going to do business with the buyer again if you take the book back.
• The buyer is never going to business with you if you do not take the book back - you still would not anyway because of the headache. 
• Why encourage bad behavior? If you take the book back and block him he simply moves on to doing it again but to possibly me... or you... 

 

Yeah, I have 20 minutes of my time to call PayPal and have them review the listing and close the case. 

I have to disagree with your statement I put in bold.

There is no where in the title that it says restored.  Nor is the book clearly advertised as restored.  The wording used leaves it open to either be restored or not restored and the seller never stating it as restored.

[wombat]

1 minute ago, Red_Hood said:

I have to disagree with your statement I put in bold.

There is no where in the title that it says restored.  Nor is the book clearly advertised as restored.  The wording used leaves it open to either be restored or not restored and the seller never stating it as restored.

So what if it leaves it open? If someone says a book may be restored why would they be surprised if it comes back restored? That absolutely was as described. 

[Buzzetta]

4 minutes ago, Red_Hood said:

I have to disagree with your statement I put in bold.

There is no where in the title that it says restored.  Nor is the book clearly advertised as restored.  The wording used leaves it open to either be restored or not restored and the seller never stating it as restored.

And I have to disagree with your reading comprehension skills. 

Go re-read what I wrote... you even quoted it.  

MAYBE not in this case because he did not use the word "restored"

I also have to reread what I wrote because I jumbled the second sentence... but re-reread... 

 

[Red_Hood]

The price the buyer paid was certainly not in line for a restored copy in that condition.  

I don't think the buyer was doing anything wrong and his final bid price shows that he paid for a book that he thought was unrestored.

The fact is, the word restored was never used in the title or description and just because people here might have an elementary understanding of key words to look for 
when seeing something described with red flag adjectives for a book to be restored does not mean the collecting community at large understands restored books.

I think the seller was skirting around the description to help realize as much money as he could with the auction and I can't believe that people condone his lack of full disclosure as 

he never once said it was restored and just described the possibility of color touch or married pages.  Maybe the seller shouldn't sell something he isn't sure about.

Likely just washing his own hands of buying a book that he thought might not be restored and passing the hot potato onto an unsuspecting buyer.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Red_Hood

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 hours ago, BruceParker said:

Is this the listing?

https://www.comicsvalue.com/php/detaildata.php?itemnr=192899660185&vdesktop=1

Nice! I've never heard of that site before. 

[vheflin]

Seller knew it was restored but didn't explicitly list it as such so as to maximize the sale price; a deliberate deception.

If the buyer was foolish and should have known it was restored, then why did the seller use the qualifiers 'may' and 'possibly' in describing the restoration?  Why did the seller not know it was restored?

Can I sell a 1 oz. gold coin for $1500, state it 'may' be tungsten and be absolved of all responsibility when it is found to be worthless?

[wombat]

If a buyer reads that description and pays a price in line with a book without the defects listed as possibilities they deserve exactly what they get. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Since the revelation of the listing has come to light, showing the exact wording of the description...while I don't like the hedging verbiage, indicating it may be, rather than is, restored, a reasonable buyer can't complain that a book that is described as potentially having color touch and married pages comes back form CGC as actually restored.

Sellers should take returns. It's better in the long run. Forcing someone to keep something they don't want is bad business practice in general, and regardless of the truth, a buyer will remember it long, long afterwards. Do you need someone coming along ten years from now, saying "so and so sold me a restored book without disclosing it and ripped me off!!", long after you could prove otherwise?

Obviously this doesn't apply to fraud or negligent damage on the buyer's part, which should go without stating, but...you know where we are.

Yes, as a buyer, I say fight until you get the right outcome. As a seller, no. Always take the return, save yourself the hassle, and move on. Out the buyer, and let others make their own decision. It is my sense that the buyer bought the book hoping the seller was wrong, and when it turned out otherwise, now they want to return it. Tacky, and worth a block, but not worth fighting.

[vheflin]

22 minutes ago, wombat said:

If a buyer reads that description and pays a price in line with a book without the defects listed as possibilities they deserve exactly what they get. 

Agreed, as does the seller.

[Buzzetta]

15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sellers should take returns. It's better in the long run. Forcing someone to keep something they don't want is bad business practice in general, and regardless of the truth, a buyer will remember it long, long afterwards. Do you need someone coming along ten years from now, saying "so and so sold me a restored book without disclosing it and ripped me off!!", long after you could prove otherwise?

Obviously this doesn't apply to fraud or negligent damage on the buyer's part, which should go without stating, but...you know where we are.

 

Ehh,

I will always fight a return when the buyer is being fraudulent, or deceptive, or negligent or remorseful. 

I will always take back a return where I a screwed up or missed something or no I cannot prove my case. 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Ehh,

I will always fight a return when the buyer is being fraudulent, or deceptive, or negligent or remorseful. 

I will always take back a return where I a screwed up or missed something or no I cannot prove my case. 

 

 

 

If the buyer is being fraudulent, deceptive, or negligent, I have no problems with fighting that, when and if it happens. But a general policy to take returns is wise. There are sellers who screwed me over well over a decade ago...Richard Muchin, Chris Conklin, others...that I will happily badmouth to this day for selling me garbage and not standing by their sales....and that, back in the day where the buyer was well and truly screwed. These sellers stole from me, and I had no recourse. I don't want anyone who buys from me legitimately feeling like they got ripped off.

[Buzzetta]

24 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If the buyer is being fraudulent, deceptive, or negligent, I have no problems with fighting that, when and if it happens. But a general policy to take returns is wise. There are sellers who screwed me over well over a decade ago...Richard Muchin, Chris Conklin, others...that I will happily badmouth to this day for selling me garbage and not standing by their sales....and that, back in the day where the buyer was well and truly screwed. These sellers stole from me, and I had no recourse. I don't want anyone who buys from me legitimately feeling like they got ripped off.

I think it also comes down to the item.

I have a no-return policy on eBay.  As known, I also sell jewelry over ebay.  Nothing crazy... things usually priced between $100-$350 an item.  I learned early on that there are customers that like to buy an item and wear it for a bit and then return it.   That no return policy has come in handy.  I have had people ask if they can have additional pics taken in reference to points of the item to as far as having the items worn on a female's wrist.  I have no problem doing any of that.  However, after awhile you get a sense of who is a 'buyer' and who wants to take it home for free to wear it out for a night or to try it around and twirl in a mirror.  When they ask way too many questions at some point I will remind them to be very sure because there are no returns.  

Now why do I do that?

As also known I manage a relative's eBay account that also sells the same type of jewelry.  Unbeknownst to the buyer they are sometimes trying the same routine with me operating under two accounts. I roll my eyes because I have a sharp memory and have caught a few gals with almost a scripted routine trying the same thing across the two accounts.   This is why I do what I can to fight because if you don't it merely encouraged bad behavior toward others.   I have seen that first hand. 

PS to this... It is more than amusing when someone realizes that to them, a seller who they have not done business with before already has their account blocked. If you are a bad buyer on one account, I am blocking you on both. 

[rjpb]

I can see why one might have a no return policy with items like jewelry or clothing, but best just take comics back no questions asked. In my experience it's a rare request. Of the hundreds of comics and lots I've sold on ebay , I've had two returns, once because the buyer disagreed with my average grade for a low grade group lot (they felt the books were more of a GD+ than G/VG on average ), and once the listed reason was "decided I didn't want it" - about a month after purchasing. Small aggravations in the scheme of things. 

[Artboy99]

is the seller expected to compensate for the grading costs?

 

[wombat]

1 hour ago, Artboy99 said:

is the seller expected to compensate for the grading costs?

 

I don't how the buyer could ever make that happen. 

[James J Johnson]

10 hours ago, Callaway29 said:

The buyer is not right.

With a 6 month window of paypal chargeback or credit card chargeback, the buyer is always right, even if he's not. Which is why the only place I would even think of selling books is through the majors other than ebay because a sale is not a sale until 6 months have passed on ebay.

[James J Johnson]

Which leads me to wonder, how do sellers like MyComicShop deal with scenarios like this. You sell on ebay and I'm assuming that you must accept paypal. Now I've seen sellers who don't take paypal, but I'm going to assume that a seller with a huge presence, like, MCS, must take paypal because a lot of people would be eliminated from buying if they didn't, paypal the preferred method for most buyers on ebay.

So let's say that a $50,000 book has been consigned to MCS. It's sold, he's paid, through paypal, and at some point in the near future, once the sale goes through, the book is delivered and the buyer satisfied, MCS pays his consignor their $45,000 (or whatever the net is after ebay and paypal fees + MCS's fee.

3 months later, MCS logs into paypal and there's a notice of $45,000 being held pending chargeback. Buyer doesn't like it, unauthorized charge, identity fraud, or whatever other reasons might arise for a chargeback. Now what? Is this all MCS's issue to handle, or is his consignor somehow also on the hook pending the outcome? I'm going to assume that with the consignor paid and out of the picture, it's MCS's battle alone, am I wrong?

Curious how something like this works for the large ebay entities that take consignments where chargebacks can seriously impede the bottom line because the profit was very negligible compared to the potential liability if a sale goes haywire.

Edited August 10, 2019 by James J Johnson