S3D Re: Exploded view[er] (2)

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 12:06:09 EDT
>From: JNorman805@xxxxxxx

>John R. writes:
><< It seems to me that the main problem is that Jim just didn't understand
> the rules under which Ebay operates - specifically he seems to be expecting
> some sort of "guarantee", even though none seems to have been mentioned
> in the ad. If he insists that his purchases come with a guarantee, I agree
> that he should stick with commercial retailers, or individual sellers who
> state ahead of time that they offer a guarantee.  >>

>Are you serious!!??  The only "guarantee" I ask for is the one I would give 
>to anyone else -- the integrity of an honest description.  

If an "honest description" is *really* all you're after, then what matters
is whether the viewer description fitted the seller's honest assessment
*at the time it was still in the possession of the seller*. If something
happened to it to cause the wires to short after it left the seller's
hands, then that's no reason to imply that the seller was being dishonest
when making the assessment.

The tone of your correspondence with the seller certainly causes me to feel
that you were claiming that the seller had been dishonest in the assessment
of the electrical condition of the viewer. The seller claimed he had tested
it to the extent of making sure the light worked - and I have not seen any
compelling reason to disbelieve the seller on this point.

If you insist on the seller seeing to it that the viewer remains in the
condition described *after it leaves the seller's hands* (or alternatively
if you insist on being reimbursed if it stops being in the condition originally
described after it leaves the seller's hands), then what you are asking for
is *in effect* a guarantee. Whether or not you choose to call it a guarantee,
it's a guarantee.

Now a guarantee can be a fine thing, and in many cases can be of benefit
to both buyer and seller. But a guarantee is something that needs to be
established ahead of time - it's not the place of the buyer to retroactively
decide that there was a guarantee. Also bear in mind that a guarantee
adds to the sale price - for high-reliability new items the addition may
be only a few percent, but for used equipment it's not at all unusual for
a guarantee to add a *factor* of five to ten to the sale price. So there's
no reason to assume that all potential buyers will *want* a guarantee,
which makes it even more important that any guarantee that is implemented
be agreed upon by buyer and seller *ahead of time*.

I did not see anything in the ad to indicate that a guarantee was being
offered, and your description of Ebay's reaction does not seem to indicate
that they insist on a guarantee.

>If you consider that an optional extra, thanks for the warning.

That's a rather ambiguous remark - if you're trying to make a point,
could you please make it more clearly?

><< 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 judgement on the
> matter. >>

>I just love how people make assumptions like this.  

Do you also love it when you do it?

>John, would it interest 
>you to know that I posted the full, unexpurgated exchange of e-mail between 
>me and the seller?  

No, it doesn't interest me, but of course I was aware that you had posted
that 200+ line exchange. In fact it was reading that post which prompted me
to comment. Before that, though you had posted on it several times before,
I withheld any comments, for lack of information on the situation, and
figuring that the poor guy (you) had had enough trouble, what with your
viewer "exploding". But by volunteering to post that large account on what
previously had been your personal business, presented as a piece of evidence
to invite judgement, you made it everyone's business. And reading carefully
through the messages caused me to believe that the seller is more in the
right in this case than you are. And unless some new evidence appears,
I will continue to think that you are treating the seller unfairly. Granted,
he could perhaps do something to help you out as a good-will gesture,
but observing from your log that you have presented an atmosphere of
accusation and threats to the seller right from the beginning of the
problems makes me less sympathetic to you for his failure to do you a favor.

>Yuo have had the benefit of all the "facts" he cared to 
>share with me.  

I named some of the "missing" items relevant to the case in the reply
to George Themelis. They aren't necessarily items of information that would
have come from the seller.

>And frankly, I resent your implication that I withheld facts 
>to make my case.  

As a person on S3D once wrote, "I just love how people make assumptions 
like this." I made no implication of deliberate withholding of facts.

John R   [my opinions]


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