Ebay noob question

PipersSon · Feb 7, 2012

Buyer wants to return an item I sold him; we are in disagreement about item quality, although I sold it in absolute good faith. He is asking for a 'significant price discount' which I have refused.

But my :violin:

woes aside, whose responsibility is it to carry the cost of return shipping of the product to me?

And when I reimburse him after he returns the product, should I pay him his cost plus PP fees, or pay him just cost, so he east the PP fees (as I ate the fees when he paid me?)

thebac · Feb 7, 2012

By Ebay/Paypal rules, return shipping is the responsibility of the buyer.

However, if the item is in fact of a lower quality than described, I would refund the return shipping, both because in that case you would be at fault and the buyer would almost certainly leave negative feedback if you don't. If you find that the item is exactly as described, you would be under no obligation to refund return shipping, moral or otherwise, but negative feedback is more likely. Of course, if you have already sufficiently ticked off your buyer you might get negative feedback regardless of whether you refund the return shipping or not.

With respect to the Paypal fees, if you refund the original payment, PP fees are refunded, so no one is out any PP fees (do not send a separate payment to the buyer, simply refund the original payment).

PipersSon said:
Buyer wants to return an item I sold him; we are in disagreement about item quality, although I sold it in absolute good faith. He is asking for a 'significant price discount' which I have refused.
But my woes aside, whose responsibility is it to carry the cost of return shipping of the product to me?
And when I reimburse him after he returns the product, should I pay him his cost plus PP fees, or pay him just cost, so he east the PP fees (as I ate the fees when he paid me?)

Achilles_ · Feb 7, 2012

PipersSon said:
Buyer wants to return an item I sold him; we are in disagreement about item quality, although I sold it in absolute good faith. He is asking for a 'significant price discount' which I have refused.
But my woes aside, whose responsibility is it to carry the cost of return shipping of the product to me?
And when I reimburse him after he returns the product, should I pay him his cost plus PP fees, or pay him just cost, so he east the PP fees (as I ate the fees when he paid me?)

I received a SC from a huge ebay seller (ebay consignment) only to find an hole in the fabric that was not listed. I offered to split the cost of repairs with her ($70 from without a trace, so $35 each) Is this against some sort of protocol? If she does not accept I will probably just return it. Item cost $120

PipersSon · Feb 7, 2012

thebac said:
By Ebay/Paypal rules, return shipping is the responsibility of the buyer.
However, if the item is in fact of a lower quality than described, I would refund the return shipping, both because in that case you would be at fault and the buyer would almost certainly leave negative feedback if you don't. If you find that the item is exactly as described, you would be under no obligation to refund return shipping, moral or otherwise, but negative feedback is more likely. Of course, if you have already sufficiently ticked off your buyer you might get negative feedback regardless of whether you refund the return shipping or not.
With respect to the Paypal fees, if you refund the original payment, PP fees are refunded, so no one is out any PP fees (do not send a separate payment to the buyer, simply refund the original payment).

Thanks.

I want to make sure-- I refund after the buyer sends back the product, right?

Edit - just saw on eBay that I need to refund only when I get my product back.

JiltedBuyer · Feb 7, 2012

PiperSon is sending me so many weird emails, I had to join this forum to get to the bottom of this.

He posted the following in an ebay auction, after trying to sell the same shoes here for $300 without success:

"This is a brand new in box, first quality (not a second) burgundy shell cordovan Allen Edmonds Bradley. Please see pictures.
I am letting it float at the minimum starting price so we can find it's fair market value.
These retail for $550 plus shipping so get yourselves a bargain here.
Please see pictures and ask me any questions because this item is NOT returnable (unless I have made material errors in representation)."

So, thinking these were as described, I won the auction. Only two pictures were posted, one view of the uppers, and one view of the soles. What is there to worry about though? After all, they are "BRAND NEW IN BOX" and "FIRST QUALITY (NOT A SECOND)"? Oddly, they were shipped Parcel Post, no signature confirmation, (in other words, if I claimed I never got them, without signature confirmation for over $250, I would have gotten a full refund back regardless of whether I sent them back or not) when it would have been cheaper to send them Priority Mail in a flat rate box. Anyway, here is what I received:

Now, far be it from me to be a stickler, but this is not a "first quality" pair of shoes, and it really irked me that this person went over the top to describe them as "first quality (not second quality). You cannot really see it in these iphone photos, but the insoles say "Dalton" on them, and were bleached out. It is something not possible to NOT notice. Who knows what other flaws could be lurking in this shoe? To say they are "first quality" is an outright fabrication.

So, I had the gall to say to the seller "Unless you are willing to significantly discount the price, I want to return these."

Apparently, great offense was taken to this by PipersSon, and I was accused of all sorts of things, but my inquiries regarding the bleaching of these insoles was ignored.

In fairness, he did offer to take them back for a full refund, but since the item was blatantly mis-characterized, I maintain he should also pay my return shipping.

On an unrelated note, I can confirm that the Bradley Shell in Burgundy is a fantastic looking shoe (the uppers on these are nice, but the lining does have a bubble in it, which is another way to be 100% sure it is a second AT BEST, as if the wrong insole weren't enough of a clue).

So, I appeal to the jury of this Board, if I am over-reacting, then I encourage you to buy from PipersSon if he ever tries to sell anything else. If, however, you agree that the above pictures cannot be squared with a description of a "first quality" AE shell, then you have your warning for this fellow.

CYstyle · Feb 7, 2012

thebac said:
By Ebay/Paypal rules, return shipping is the responsibility of the buyer.
However, if the item is in fact of a lower quality than described, I would refund the return shipping, both because in that case you would be at fault and the buyer would almost certainly leave negative feedback if you don't. If you find that the item is exactly as described, you would be under no obligation to refund return shipping, moral or otherwise, but negative feedback is more likely. Of course, if you have already sufficiently ticked off your buyer you might get negative feedback regardless of whether you refund the return shipping or not.
With respect to the Paypal fees, if you refund the original payment, PP fees are refunded, so no one is out any PP fees (do not send a separate payment to the buyer, simply refund the original payment).

They keep the $.30 though. Your paypal fees depending on your rate, but for example 2.9% + $.3, they refund the 2.9% but not the 30 cents. ******* thieves. Sure it's only 30 cents but in the long scheme of things it adds up.

JubeiSpiegel · Feb 8, 2012

This thread just got real...

PipersSon · Feb 8, 2012

JiltedBuyer said:
PiperSon is sending me so many weird emails, I had to join this forum to get to the bottom of this.

He posted the following in an ebay auction, after trying to sell the same shoes here for $300 without success:

"This is a brand new in box, first quality (not a second) burgundy shell cordovan Allen Edmonds Bradley. Please see pictures.
I am letting it float at the minimum starting price so we can find it's fair market value.
These retail for $550 plus shipping so get yourselves a bargain here.
Please see pictures and ask me any questions because this item is NOT returnable (unless I have made material errors in representation)."

So, thinking these were as described, I won the auction. Only two pictures were posted, one view of the uppers, and one view of the soles. What is there to worry about though? After all, they are "BRAND NEW IN BOX" and "FIRST QUALITY (NOT A SECOND)"? Oddly, they were shipped Parcel Post, no signature confirmation, (in other words, if I claimed I never got them, without signature confirmation for over $250, I would have gotten a full refund back regardless of whether I sent them back or not) when it would have been cheaper to send them Priority Mail in a flat rate box. Anyway, here is what I received:

Now, far be it from me to be a stickler, but this is not a "first quality" pair of shoes, and it really irked me that this person went over the top to describe them as "first quality (not second quality). You cannot really see it in these iphone photos, but the insoles say "Dalton" on them, and were bleached out. It is something not possible to NOT notice. Who knows what other flaws could be lurking in this shoe? To say they are "first quality" is an outright fabrication.

So, I had the gall to say to the seller "Unless you are willing to significantly discount the price, I want to return these."

Apparently, great offense was taken to this by PipersSon, and I was accused of all sorts of things, but my inquiries regarding the bleaching of these insoles was ignored.

In fairness, he did offer to take them back for a full refund, but since the item was blatantly mis-characterized, I maintain he should also pay my return shipping.

On an unrelated note, I can confirm that the Bradley Shell in Burgundy is a fantastic looking shoe (the uppers on these are nice, but the lining does have a bubble in it, which is another way to be 100% sure it is a second AT BEST, as if the wrong insole weren't enough of a clue).

So, I appeal to the jury of this Board, if I am over-reacting, then I encourage you to buy from PipersSon if he ever tries to sell anything else. If, however, you agree that the above pictures cannot be squared with a description of a "first quality" AE shell, then you have your warning for this fellow.

All I can say is - I have bought and sold a number of times n this forum. Not one word of complaint. And now you come here to tell me I am cheating?

Let me emphasize what you yourself said:

In fairness, he did offer to take them back for a full refund, but since the item was blatantly mis-characterized, I maintain he should also pay my return shipping.

As for blatantly mis-characterized and your accusations, let me tell you - or rather the members here since I value my time on SF:

1. Your first response to me on ebay was to pressure me to lower prices by 40-50% IIRC , citing an example of a used pair of shoes.
2. I refused to lower prices and asked you to return these forthwith, and said immediately I would refund you.
4. At which point you began the process of calling me a liar.
5. All I asked on this forum was what my responsibilities were in this case (please see my earlier quote in this thread) because I wanted to be a responsible ebayer.
6. Background for members on my intent: These shoes were purchased by me first quality from AE a while ago, as a result of info on this very forum. I got these shoes, did not want them and offered to give them at cost to member rmspawn here. When he said he did not want them, I put 'em on ebay,
7. Jiltedbuyer, you will get your money back; I have already said that. Just make sure you return the same pair of shoes I sent you.

JiltedBuyer · Feb 8, 2012

This is actually some good information from PipersSon, for the first time.

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, you purchased these during that brief window on the AE website when they were mistakenly listed for the discount price of a calfskin pair.

There was some discrepancy about this, as some claimed AE honored the price, and others claimed AE refused to honor the mistaken price.

If you are telling the truth, they honored the price by sending you a defective pair! Was that part of the deal, that they honored the price, but only with a defective pair? Did you know this beforehand? You are certainly not being very forthright about the circumstances under which you acquired these shoes.

Also, if you didn't want these shoes in the first place, why did you buy them? I mean, it is one thing to take advantage of AE's website mistake because you want the shoes for that price, and it seems to me another (less respectable) thing, to try to buy shoes you don't want at a good price so you can profit from AE's mistake.

What you have failed to explicitly acknowledge, although you have implicitly acknowledged it, is that you sent me a defective pair -- not a terrible worthless pair -- but certainly not a first quality pair. I do maintain your listing was dishonest, but again, I will leave it the readers of this thread to make their own judgment about your good faith based on the facts presented.

I am returning these shoes to you in today's mail, and I expect not only a full refund, but also to reimburse me for the return postage cost.

JubeiSpiegel · Feb 8, 2012

So what PipersSon is saying is that JiltedBuyer posted pics of other shoes, instead of the shoes Piper claims to have sent? From the back and force brashness on both parties, i assume this dilemma will not be resolved gentlemanly. In the future, this can be avoided by taking pictures of the shoe serial number when selling, that way you know the pics in question are of the same shoe, and that the same shoes were returned to you.

PipersSon · Feb 8, 2012

JiltedBuyer said:
.............Also, if you didn't want these shoes in the first place, why did you buy them? I mean, it is one thing to take advantage of AE's website mistake because you want the shoes for that price, and it seems to me another (less respectable) thing, to try to buy shoes you don't want at a good price so you can profit from AE's mistake.

Is that any of your goddamn business? Do I ask you why you're selling all that stuff on ebay in the first place? Did I not say I offered them to a member at cost here?

What you have failed to explicitly acknowledge, although you have implicitly acknowledged it, is that you sent me a defective pair -- not a terrible worthless pair -- but certainly not a first quality pair. I do maintain your listing was dishonest, but again, I will leave it the readers of this thread to make their own judgment about your good faith based on the facts presented./quote]

I have not acknowledged any such thing. You are putting words in my mouth. To my knowledge that pair of shoes was first quality.

I am returning these shoes to you in today's mail, and I expect not only a full refund, but also to reimburse me for the return postage cost.

I agreed to refund you from the outset, from your first PM to me on ebay, so why the hysterical repetition and posturing as if I am denying you the refund?

You asked for a refund, I agreed. I have always agreed to this.

TheWGP · Feb 8, 2012

Ebay policy: JiltedBuyer pays return shipping. PipersSon refunds original purchase price & original shipping. END OF STORY.

BTW, those pics do look like some minor shopwear, but I wouldn't consider them "used" by any stretch of the imagination.

classicusa · Feb 8, 2012

Interesting. I have a question for the seller.

If you purchased the shoes new from AE, then decided you didn't want them, why not return them to AE for a full refund? For you to sell them "at cost" you actually lose money with final value fees, paypal fees, etc. are considered. Your best financial option was to simply return them to AE.

You can return them to AE anytime. Why did you not go this route?

PipersSon · Feb 8, 2012

classicusa said:
Interesting. I have a question for the seller.
If you purchased the shoes new from AE, then decided you didn't want them, why not return them to AE for a full refund? For you to sell them "at cost" you actually lose money with final value fees, paypal fees, etc. are considered. Your best financial option was to simply return them to AE.
You can return them to AE anytime. Why did you not go this route?

Sequence of events:

I buy shoe from AE at a discount

I decide I don't want them.

I offer to sell shoe at the same discount to an SFer. Who decides he does not want them.

After that I felt I was within my rights to try and make a profit on the re-sale. At some stage I took them to ebay.

A Guy from Shanghai · Feb 8, 2012

classicusa said:
Interesting. I have a question for the seller.
If you purchased the shoes new from AE, then decided you didn't want them, why not return them to AE for a full refund? For you to sell them "at cost" you actually lose money with final value fees, paypal fees, etc. are considered. Your best financial option was to simply return them to AE.
You can return them to AE anytime. Why did you not go this route?

Gosh, why is this of your concern?

Ebay noob question

Distinguished Member

Timed Out

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Well-Known Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Classic Menswear Featured products

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: