S3D Re: Exploded view[er]

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 11:34:47 +0000
>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: S3D Re: Exploded view[er]

>IMO, the seller handled this very poorly by refusing to "negotiate" and, 
>given the number of successful transactions in eBay, he has plenty of room 
>and eBay-earned income to do so.  The least he could do would be to take
>the viewer back and cancel the transaction.  I understand that Jim's reply
>was a bit strong but just consider what he went through!

I agree that negotiation on the part of both seller and buyer would have
been better. Rather than blame the seller for the electrical problem, try to
cancel the whole deal, and implicitly threaten to send in a negative report,
the buyer could have negotiated in terms of restoring the viewer to the
condition described in the ad. The seller might not be legally obligated to
help out, but might be willing to do so as a goodwill gesture, especially
if not under blame and threat.

>>There seem to be a lot of facts missing from the public description of this
>>case, which hamper the readers' ability to make a rational judgment on the
>>matter.

>What missing facts are you referring to?  I don't see any.

- Approximately what percentage of this seller's business is in Green
  Button viewers (or stereo equipment, for that matter)? Some of Jim's
  arguments seem to be based on what the seller "should have known" about
  the equipment. If this is just a sideline, expections about what the
  seller "should have known" should be less.

- I like your argument, that it would be appropriate for the seller to
  pay for the repairs, better than Jim's. But while we know how much Jim
  paid for the viewer, we don't know how much you charged for the repairs
  (well, you know, but I don't), and also don't know the breakdown of
  how much of that bill was for diagnosing and fixing the electrical explosion
  problem, how much for tightening screws or whatever you think the seller
  should have mentioned but didn't, and how much for shiny new light bulbs,
  painting, racing stripes, etc., that you seem to be implying that the
  seller should also pay for. If fixing the short was $5, I'd say sure, it's
  perfectly reasonable to ask the seller to pay for it, if it was $200,
  it might be a different matter. A person performing legal arbitration on
  such a case would certainly want to know these dollar amounts, and consider
  them to be relevant.

Those are the main "missing" items that come immediately to mind. As I
said before, I'm not asking that the information be supplied - just stating
that it's hard to make a reasonable judgement without it.

John R


------------------------------