Expectations when buying used..

[OLG]

Very frustrating. By chance, did you use your credit card for payment through PayPal? Not sure if it would work but you could file a claim via the credit card if you did.

 

Petty response by the seller to 'mark' you negative after all of this. This is yet another example of why the Ebay umbrella can be beneficial for a buyer at least. SO sorry you had to deal with this.

[Barb_]

What a shame.:glare:

[Scuff]

If she truely believed that it could be resold at that price, (or should have been sold at that price in the first place) she would have accepted it back minus the shipping and been out nothing. Kinda makes one think that she knew she was scamming you.

 

FYI- as you have learned, paypal protection is crap. I was burned on ebay in a similar situation, but with a canvas picture. If you're spendig any significant amount of money, use the credit card option. Then you have recourse with them when paypal sees the money is already out of the sellers account and sides with them.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Scuff

[Mothersweets]

So sorry you got burned on this, Kim. :grouphug:

 

Well, I hope she is still reading this thread and knows that she did a really shady thing. She should be ashamed of herself!

[LoriK]

Such a nice testimony that she "prayerfully" decided to scam you.

[MiniBlondes]

What a shame. I hope you're able to get at least some of your money back through resale.

[MommyK]

If she truely believed that it could be resold at that price, (or should have been sold at that price in the first place) she would have accepted it back minus the shipping and been out nothing. Kinda makes one think that she knew she was scamming you.

 

FYI- as you have learned, paypal protection is crap. I was burned on ebay in a similar situation, but with a canvas picture. If you're spendig any significant amount of money, use the credit card option. Then you have recourse with them when paypal sees the money is already out of the sellers account and sides with them.

 

I know.. I thought I used my visa through pp, but it turns out it came from my savings acct. Game over.

 

Bleh. I have it listed. We'll see.

[Donna A.]

Just an FYI..... I want to share a little something that I know about the seller in this case.

 

I had the same curriculum for sale at the same time. MommyK had PM'd me inquiring about it, but I already had a transaction in progress with someone from a different board. Then two days later, MommyK's seller PM'd me asking how my transaction (if there was one) with MommyK "panned out" because she has no feedback. She was expressing nervousness because of the recent hullabaloo over Angie/Jess/whoever, who has been (it seems) "professionally" scamming homeschoolers for a good year and a half, at least.

 

I let that seller know that I'd already sold my curriculum to someone else, so I didn't really have anything to share about her buyer (MommyK) as to whether she was a good risk or not.

 

I don't know either MommyK or her seller. I have no horse in this race. MommyK feels like she got burned. Her seller feels like it was a fair transaction, and I know for a fact that the seller was nervous about it. I know that *I* was also nervous about selling my own curriculum because of Angie and those like her. :glare:

 

Paypal found in favor of the seller in this case. Meanwhile, I have a personal friend (who's not on this board) who was recently scammed by Angie, and in her case, Paypal found in favor of the buyer (fortunately for my friend).

 

MommyK and her seller both left negative feedback for each other. I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but evidently, either MommyK didn't do a very good job of making her case to Paypal, or it's not in as bad of condition as MommyK is saying. I DON'T KNOW AND I'M NOT MAKING AN ACCUSATION. I'm just saying that I think a lot of people are nervous and/or quick to criticize if something isn't "perfect", and I can see both sides of it. I did not see the books in question. I don't know who's right. But in this thread, we're only hearing one side of the story, and that from a pretty new member who couldn't wait to complain the minute she received her books. (The seller contacted me asking about the buyer on July 8th.) Maybe the books were in worse condition than described... I have no idea. But I do know that the seller in this case is being raked over the coals here, and now has a black mark on her record as a seller, even though she was nervous about selling to a fairly new member without any feedback. Could it be that she was at least somewhat justified?

 

(And FTR, I have NOT researched either the buyer's name or the seller's, but I know I've seen the seller around on this board for a loonnngggg time.)

[MommyK]

Just an FYI..... I want to share a little something that I know about the seller in this case.

 

I had the same curriculum for sale at the same time. MommyK had PM'd me inquiring about it, but I already had a transaction in progress with someone from a different board. Then two days later, MommyK's seller PM'd me asking how my transaction (if there was one) with MommyK "panned out" because she has no feedback. She was expressing nervousness because of the recent hullabaloo over Angie/Jess/whoever, who has been (it seems) "professionally" scamming homeschoolers for a good year and a half, at least.

 

I let that seller know that I'd already sold my curriculum to someone else, so I didn't really have anything to share about her buyer (MommyK) as to whether she was a good risk or not.

 

I don't know either MommyK or her seller. I have no horse in this race. MommyK feels like she got burned. Her seller feels like it was a fair transaction, and I know for a fact that the seller was nervous about it. I know that *I* was also nervous about selling my own curriculum because of Angie and those like her. :glare:

 

Paypal found in favor of the seller in this case. Meanwhile, I have a personal friend (who's not on this board) who was recently scammed by Angie, and in her case, Paypal found in favor of the buyer (fortunately for my friend).

 

MommyK and her seller both left negative feedback for each other. I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but evidently, either MommyK didn't do a very good job of making her case to Paypal, or it's not in as bad of condition as MommyK is saying. I DON'T KNOW AND I'M NOT MAKING AN ACCUSATION. I'm just saying that I think a lot of people are nervous and/or quick to criticize if something isn't "perfect", and I can see both sides of it. I did not see the books in question. I don't know who's right. But in this thread, we're only hearing one side of the story, and that from a pretty new member who couldn't wait to complain the minute she received her books. (The seller contacted me asking about the buyer on July 8th.) Maybe the books were in worse condition than described... I have no idea. But I do know that the seller in this case is being raked over the coals here, and now has a black mark on her record as a seller, even though she was nervous about selling to a fairly new member without any feedback. Could it be that she was at least somewhat justified?

 

(And FTR, I have NOT researched either the buyer's name or the seller's, but I know I've seen the seller around on this board for a loonnngggg time.)

 

Completely fair post. The reason pp sided in her favor was because I didn't inquire about the condition. I did in fact receive the materials, and don't deny that. In that respect, pp is no longer concerned. Had they been different books than stated in the listing, then pp would side with me. Condition of items *unless totally destroyed* is a non-issue to PP.

 

I did not try to scam her. I offered to pay shipping for a full refund. I wouldn't have expected said refund until DC showed she had the books back. She could then resell.

 

I have the books listed. I started this thread to see if my expectations of unmarked curriculum was unreasonable. You are welcome to check out my FSOT thread, and follow to PB links to view the books for yourself. I would ask that you pay close attention to the pictures of the TM.

 

Do I think I got robbed? No. I might have paid $100 for that lot. But not $180. I have not embellished anything.

[Donna A.]

I just read the seller's FS post. The only book in which she mentioned writing (or not) was with respect to The Complete Book of Animals. She didn't mention the condition of any other books at all, good or bad.

 

As to the book which was a former library copy.... she only mentioned that she had "two copies of this book for your children to share". She didn't say where they came from. If it was me, I wouldn't have minded the fact that one of them was a former library copy. She never claimed these were NEW books.

 

As to your paying for shipping on top of the sale price.... Yes, she reduced her price from 190 OBO to 170. But where did she ask for you to pay shipping? Did you offer that, or did she request it in a PM?

 

Based on all of that, I'm not sure how you can think you have a right to a refund. She didn't describe the books.... at all. (Except for the one mentioned.) It sounds like you're unhappy with the price you paid, but considering that she was honest about what she DID say.... I guess I'm just not seeing the justification for the many, many negative posts (and feedback) against this seller. :confused:

[MommyK]

I just read the seller's FS post. The only book in which she mentioned writing (or not) was with respect to The Complete Book of Animals. She didn't mention the condition of any other books at all, good or bad.

 

As to the book which was a former library copy.... she only mentioned that she had "two copies of this book for your children to share". She didn't say where they came from. If it was me, I wouldn't have minded the fact that one of them was a former library copy. She never claimed these were NEW books.

 

As to your paying for shipping on top of the sale price.... Yes, she reduced her price from 190 OBO to 170. But where did she ask for you to pay shipping? Did you offer that, or did she request it in a PM?

 

Based on all of that, I'm not sure how you can think you have a right to a refund. She didn't describe the books.... at all. (Except for the one mentioned.) It sounds like you're unhappy with the price you paid, but considering that she was honest about what she DID say.... I guess I'm just not seeing the justification for the many, many negative posts (and feedback) against this seller. :confused:

 

She asked for shipping in PMs.

 

Yes, I was unhappy with the price I paid, once I realized the books were written in, and pretty worn. I also did not want to keep the materials in their condition (primarily the TM). So I hoped for a refund so she could resell, and I could go off and find something different. And again, I started this thread because I truly wasn't sure if this was reasonable of me in the first place. Had posts read along the lines of "Yeah, that's pretty much the norm for used curriculum.." I would have chalked it up to a learning experience (which I still do). I did not expect her to give me back money for nothing. I was hoping to return the items.

 

I do think I've been pretty frank in and out of PMs. I did try to be reasonable. I didn't charge in attacking. I felt the items were misrepresented. You feel that don't ask, don't tell in this case was fair. We will just have to differ there.

[Donna A.]

And again, I started this thread because I truly wasn't sure if this was reasonable of me in the first place. Had posts read along the lines of "Yeah, that's pretty much the norm for used curriculum.." I would have chalked it up to a learning experience (which I still do). I did not expect her to give me back money for nothing. I was hoping to return the items.

 

I do think I've been pretty frank in and out of PMs. I did try to be reasonable. I didn't charge in attacking. I felt the items were misrepresented. You feel that don't ask, don't tell in this case was fair. We will just have to differ there.

 

I still don't see how they were "misrepresented", and apparently neither did Paypal. How exactly were they misrepresented? Did she SAY anywhere that they were in better condition than what they were? Can you provide evidence of that?

 

Your question to the group (and ongoing discussion) was a very subtle attack on the seller, when in fact the seller did NOT misrepresent the material. You've tainted her reputation whether that's what you intended in the OP or not. If you didn't intend to make her look bad because YOU felt bad about how much you spent on these books, and in fact were just genuinely curious about what the group thinks, then why go on and on about it -- in great detail -- for several pages?

 

A lesson learned. If someone doesn't SAY it, then ask. And be specific. Fair or not, this is the only thing that will hold up in court (so to speak). ;)

 

I do appreciate that you tried to work it out with her, but maybe you should've done that before bringing it to the board?

[MommyK]

Your post is fair. Perhaps I was totally out of line. You're definitely entitled to feel that way.

[A.J. at J.A.]

I still don't see how they were "misrepresented", and apparently neither did Paypal. How exactly were they misrepresented? Did she SAY anywhere that they were in better condition than what they were? Can you provide evidence of that?

 

Your question to the group (and ongoing discussion) was a very subtle attack on the seller, when in fact the seller did NOT misrepresent the material. You've tainted her reputation whether that's what you intended in the OP or not. If you didn't intend to make her look bad because YOU felt bad about how much you spent on these books, and in fact were just genuinely curious about what the group thinks, then why go on and on about it -- in great detail -- for several pages?

 

A lesson learned. If someone doesn't SAY it, then ask. And be specific. Fair or not, this is the only thing that will hold up in court (so to speak). ;)

 

I do appreciate that you tried to work it out with her, but maybe you should've done that before bringing it to the board?

 

I think it is wrong to expect a buyer to have to specifically question about the quality of a book. It is the seller's responsibility to truthfully and fully represent the items without the buyer having to be on guard. That is just plain honesty. If the items are in questionable condition (any writing/highlighting/etc...in my eyes) then that should be noted. I don't mind a book being slightly worn - that's the idea of it being used - but writing/highlighting/etc. is not "regular use" in my opinion. I would totally and completely feel scammed.

 

Blessings,

Angela

[Jean in Newcastle]

I cannot understand the seller refusing to take the book back with a full refund esp. when the buyer is paying postage. Sure, it would be a pain to list the book again to sell it (hopefully with better copy in the ad) but I see that as good customer service. It doesn't matter to me if the seller thinks the buyer was overreacting (which is what I think the buyer means by saying that the sale was "fair"). The buyer did not get what she wanted. Guaranteeing satisfaction is part of doing business and is a tenant that we've always operated by esp. if it is clear that the buyer was not trying to run a scam and the ad did not have the information that the buyer needed to make an informed purchase.

[Scuff]

I had paypal side with the seller when the seller had recieved so much bad feedback in that week and a half that ebay closed them down. Multiple people recieved nothing and those that did recieved very poor items. The picture I was sent was crap and the seller had a posted return policy that things could be rreturned for any reason. Still, paypal sided with the seller. Paypal siding eith the seller in this case really means nothing.

 

If a seller has books that are scribbled in, that should be noted. Yes, a buyer should ask, for their own protection. But the seller needs to state when things are inpoor condition. Sure, it's a she said/she said situation on the condition of the books. But why wouldn't she accept a return? It would cost her nothing, since she could resell, and is no risk, since she doesn't refund until the books are in her possesion. Really, that would have been the best way to handle this. Regardless of who is right about condition, the fact that she stubbornly refuses to work it out makes me want to avoid her as a seller.

[dansamy]

I've noticed people asking unreasonably high prices for used curriculum. I won't pay more than 60% or so for used. I've seen people asking 80-90%. For that price point, I'd expect pristine quality.

[Donna A.]

Okay, I just looked at the buyer's pictures of the books that she's trying to resell. I honestly don't think they're THAT bad... with the possible exception of the TM itself. It has quite a bit of wear (and highlighting!), but it's not falling apart and is clearly still useable. I would/could use it.

 

I think the seller should have warned her about the amount of highlighting in the TM, but aside from that, I think most of the set is in pretty decent condition. Some shelf wear, yeah, but no big deal on that. Out of all those books, I only saw a picture of ONE page with some scribbling on it. (And that was in a book that's not even part of the ECC set... seller just threw that one in with the rest.)

 

Thus, I think the buyer overreacted, but that the seller would do well to refund *part* of her money. Not all. It's still very useable, and it IS a used 1st edition, after all. And if buyer is going to resell it anyway, then she'll get part of her money back from that. So a partial refund from seller, maybe?

 

I also think the buyer should have expected USED curriculum given that it's 1st edition. (Second edition has been out for, what three years now? Four?) I do think the price was probably too high (I would've priced it much lower myself), but I don't think the buyer's reaction to the condition of the books is warranted, either. The inside of the TM is the only thing I would've been shocked by in that whole set.

 

http://s226.photobucket.com/albums/dd308/kymdenise/MFW%20ECC%201st%20edition%20lot/

[Donna A.]

Regardless of who is right about condition, the fact that she stubbornly refuses to work it out makes me want to avoid her as a seller.

 

You don't know that she isn't still considering it. ;)

[All4one]

Wow. If I paid $170 and got books in that condition, I'd be livid. I expect fair pricing and if the books were listed at a higher price, I would expect better condition even if it wasn't stated in the description. I guess I'm being naive to assume the seller would make an honest assessment of what they are selling.

[creekland]

Paypal found in the seller's favor.

 

Bummer. That does surprise me as it goes against what I've heard about them.

 

Please do still leave negative feedback for her, here on the WTM forum. And if she's blocked you to prevent you from doing this, contact the moderators. For the protection of all of us.

 

:iagree: I want to be protected against these types of sellers. I know this one's name now at least (from looking up the original post).

 

Such a nice testimony that she "prayerfully" decided to scam you.

 

:iagree: It's frustrating, no? But there are people like that out there and BUYER BEWARE is their motto I suppose.

 

The reason pp sided in her favor was because I didn't inquire about the condition. I did in fact receive the materials, and don't deny that. In that respect, pp is no longer concerned. Had they been different books than stated in the listing, then pp would side with me. Condition of items *unless totally destroyed* is a non-issue to PP.

 

This is good to know. Thank you for the explanation.

 

I still don't see how they were "misrepresented", and apparently neither did Paypal. How exactly were they misrepresented? Did she SAY anywhere that they were in better condition than what they were? Can you provide evidence of that?

 

I 100% disagree with you - maybe 150%. The books WERE misrepresented in that their condition was not reported. Since one book had a little bit of "use" reported on it, pretty much everyone would expect the others to have been fine - not used a bit and highlighted, etc. If no conditions had been reported, you might have an argument, but that's not the case.

 

There is deliberate misrepresentation here IMO. It is up to the seller to state condition, etc. Had she tried the same stunt elsewhere (e-bay, amazon) she'd have had to issue a full refund plus postage for misrepresentation. I see no reason the Hive has to have lesser standards.

 

I think it is wrong to expect a buyer to have to specifically question about the quality of a book. It is the seller's responsibility to truthfully and fully represent the items without the buyer having to be on guard. That is just plain honesty. If the items are in questionable condition (any writing/highlighting/etc...in my eyes) then that should be noted. I don't mind a book being slightly worn - that's the idea of it being used - but writing/highlighting/etc. is not "regular use" in my opinion. I would totally and completely feel scammed.

 

Blessings,

Angela

 

:iagree:

 

I had paypal side with the seller when the seller had recieved so much bad feedback in that week and a half that ebay closed them down. Multiple people recieved nothing and those that did recieved very poor items. The picture I was sent was crap and the seller had a posted return policy that things could be rreturned for any reason. Still, paypal sided with the seller. Paypal siding eith the seller in this case really means nothing.

 

This is good to know too. Thanks for sharing your info. Paypal appears to have changed a bit over the years. I have to wonder if it's a case of no money being left in the account and them not wanting to try to get it from somewhere.

 

It makes me rethink paying with them to be honest - esp from sites like this where (some) people think it's fine to misrepresent (or not represent) books as they are. It might honestly be best to stick to reputable sites that will honorably consider disputes (and I don't expect the Hive to start doing this - it's not really a sales site). The sales sites have grading guidelines, etc.

 

I know I would never buy from any seller known to misrepresent things (or not represent things) and be unrepentant even when SEVERAL people acknowledge that the "norm" is for the seller to accurately represent their items. To each our own though. For those who think it's ok... these appear to be for sale. ;)

 

I am glad the majority have higher ethics for sales.

[Donna A.]

This is good to know too. Thanks for sharing your info. Paypal appears to have changed a bit over the years. I have to wonder if it's a case of no money being left in the account and them not wanting to try to get it from somewhere.

 

It makes me rethink paying with them to be honest - esp from sites like this where (some) people think it's fine to misrepresent (or not represent) books as they are. It might honestly be best to stick to reputable sites that will honorably consider disputes (and I don't expect the Hive to start doing this - it's not really a sales site). The sales sites have grading guidelines, etc.

 

FYI, my friend got every dime of her money back from Angie Reliford for misrepresenting the condition of the books she sold to my friend. And this was only a couple of weeks ago. So it's definitely not a case of Paypal having changed over the years.

[Kathryn]

I think it is wrong to expect a buyer to have to specifically question about the quality of a book. It is the seller's responsibility to truthfully and fully represent the items without the buyer having to be on guard. That is just plain honesty. If the items are in questionable condition (any writing/highlighting/etc...in my eyes) then that should be noted. I don't mind a book being slightly worn - that's the idea of it being used - but writing/highlighting/etc. is not "regular use" in my opinion. I would totally and completely feel scammed.

 

Blessings,

Angela

 

:iagree: and when one describes wear/use of one book in a lot, the natural assumption is that if others are not described that they are in good condition.

 

I cannot understand the seller refusing to take the book back with a full refund esp. when the buyer is paying postage. Sure, it would be a pain to list the book again to sell it (hopefully with better copy in the ad) but I see that as good customer service. It doesn't matter to me if the seller thinks the buyer was overreacting (which is what I think the buyer means by saying that the sale was "fair"). The buyer did not get what she wanted. Guaranteeing satisfaction is part of doing business and is a tenant that we've always operated by esp. if it is clear that the buyer was not trying to run a scam and the ad did not have the information that the buyer needed to make an informed purchase.

 

:iagree:

 

I looked at the pictures and read the ad. I would be upset. OP, I'm sorry this happened to you.

[QueenCat]

FYI, my friend got every dime of her money back from Angie Reliford for misrepresenting the condition of the books she sold to my friend. And this was only a couple of weeks ago. So it's definitely not a case of Paypal having changed over the years.

 

Hmm.... isn't she the one who scammed several people in a short time period? Totally different situation that Paypal was dealing with, much easier for them to see the obvious scam since so many were involved.

[Donna A.]

Hmm.... isn't she the one who scammed several people in a short time period? Totally different situation that Paypal was dealing with, much easier for them to see the obvious scam since so many were involved.

 

Actually, I don't think PP even took that into consideration. PP said something to my friend to the effect of "if enough people report her", then they could do something about it (aside from just obtaining a refund for the victim, that is). And Angie uses multiple IDs and accounts, anyway. In fact, she has another new one on eBay as of very recently.

 

Angie's scamming has been going on for about a year and a half, that we know of. Apparently a lot of people don't file formal claims against her because she tries *really* hard to talk her way out of it. She tried that with my friend, too... emotional manipulation, etc. There's more to the story that I can't say out loud... suffice it to say that Angie is a master manipulator.

[Scuff]

You don't know that she isn't still considering it. ;)

 

Since they already left each other negative feedback and the paypal dispute is settled, I think it's safe to assume that the matter is closed. If she's reading this and reconsidering, that certainly would be nice for the OP. If I were the OP, though, I wouldn't be counting on it at this point.

[MommyK]

I do want to post this:

 

I do not believe, in fact I am absolutely certain, that the seller did NOT set out to scam. I should have stated that when it was first suggested, but I feel defensive too.

 

I think she felt that they were fine as they were. They were good enough for her when she bought them, so they should have been just fine for me. Her view of the value was just totally different than mine.

 

I am disappointed with the outcome, I've relisted in hopes that I will recoup something. I will probably just purchase the rest from MFW.

 

But I really don't think this seller should be considered a scammer. I think the thought of dealing with a relist is just too much, and the money was already gone. Is it how I would have handled it? No. But we all have our own way.

 

I do encourage anyone who may question my motives, lest I be viewed as a threat, to check my feedback in my other profiles..

 

kymer819 (ebay)

kymdenise (diaper swappers)

kymdenise (the baby wearer)

[Jean in Newcastle]

I do want to post this:

 

I do not believe, in fact I am absolutely certain, that the seller did NOT set out to scam. I should have stated that when it was first suggested, but I feel defensive too.

 

I think she felt that they were fine as they were. They were good enough for her when she bought them, so they should have been just fine for me. Her view of the value was just totally different than mine.

 

 

 

I don't think that you've characterized her as a scammer. I think you've acted honorably through out. I agree that your view and hers of their value is different. I think that if she had spent the money before making sure that the sale was acceptable to the buyer, she was foolish. I am disappointed that she is not owning up to her own mistake in how she represented the material and even in possibly spending the money that wasn't totally hers to spend yet (because in business, you don't spend money until making sure that the transaction was to everyone's satisfaction). I'm even more disappointed that she is defending her decision with religious language.

[Donna A.]

I do want to post this:

 

I do not believe, in fact I am absolutely certain, that the seller did NOT set out to scam. I should have stated that when it was first suggested, but I feel defensive too.

 

I think she felt that they were fine as they were. They were good enough for her when she bought them, so they should have been just fine for me. Her view of the value was just totally different than mine.

 

I am disappointed with the outcome, I've relisted in hopes that I will recoup something. I will probably just purchase the rest from MFW.

 

But I really don't think this seller should be considered a scammer. I think the thought of dealing with a relist is just too much, and the money was already gone. Is it how I would have handled it? No. But we all have our own way.

 

I do encourage anyone who may question my motives, lest I be viewed as a threat, to check my feedback in my other profiles..

 

kymer819 (ebay)

kymdenise (diaper swappers)

kymdenise (the baby wearer)

 

Kim, I appreciate this post. :001_smile:

 

Check out her signature..... You'll see why your seller didn't PM you as promptly as you thought she should have. She's a little distracted. :sad:

 

 

I am disappointed that she is not owning up to her own mistake in how she represented the material and even in possibly spending the money that wasn't totally hers to spend yet (because in business, you don't spend money until making sure that the transaction was to everyone's satisfaction).

 

Except this isn't a business, is it? These are moms just swapping used goods that they're done with. I know there have been plenty of times that I sold something ONLY because I needed the money really badly just to put gas in the van or buy some groceries. I CAN'T wait to follow all the steps of a good "business" to make sure everybody's happy. If I was running a business, then I'd be a dealer and wouldn't be allowed to swap curriculum here, would I? Nor would she.

 

Y'all just won't let up on her when she MIGHT actually be reconsidering this whole thing.... in between all her duties with a premature baby and three other little ones. :confused:

[Jean in Newcastle]

Except this isn't a business, is it? These are moms just swapping used goods that they're done with.

 

Of course it isn't a business. If it were, it would be against board rules. But it definitely is a business transaction. My ds15 sells things on ebay and has since he was 12. He's selling his used goods (and computers he's refurbished). It isn't a business but he had better be conducting himself ethically and professionally or I would personally make sure that he corrected any mistakes in that regard. People buying things on this board and other boards depend on the sellers treating the transaction as if it were a business transaction. I realize that we all have circumstances in our life. But while we give hugs and advice to each other in that regard with all sincerity and good feeling, it shouldn't come into a business transaction. I don't mean that to sound cold, but I do think that should be the case. I would certainly hope that others would expect me to conduct business ethically and professionally whether I was buying or selling.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Jean in Newcastle

[creekland]

I don't think that you've characterized her as a scammer. I think you've acted honorably through out. I agree that your view and hers of their value is different. I think that if she had spent the money before making sure that the sale was acceptable to the buyer, she was foolish. I am disappointed that she is not owning up to her own mistake in how she represented the material and even in possibly spending the money that wasn't totally hers to spend yet (because in business, you don't spend money until making sure that the transaction was to everyone's satisfaction). I'm even more disappointed that she is defending her decision with religious language.

 

:iagree: It's the other seller people are talking about being a scammer (someone who repeatedly tries to defraud people). In this case, I think she misrepresented the books by NOT putting their condition down while doing so for one book, but that's only scamming if it's done repeatedly.

 

Of course, people doing it once and getting away with it can lead to scamming... hopefully it won't in this case. I wouldn't chance it though. She has proven she won't make something right after the fact if there's an error on her part.

[Donna A.]

Of course it isn't a business. If it were, it would be against board rules. But it definitely is a business transaction. My ds15 sells things on ebay and has since he was 12. He's selling his used goods (and computers he's refurbished). It isn't a business but he had better be conducting himself ethically and professionally or I would personally make sure that he corrected any mistakes in that regard. People buying things on this board and other boards depend on the sellers treating the transaction as if it were a business transaction. I realize that we all have circumstances in our life. But while we give hugs and advice to each other in that regard with all sincerity and good feeling, it shouldn't come into a business transaction. I don't mean that to sound cold, but I do think that should be the case. I would certainly hope that others would expect me to conduct business ethically and professionally whether I was buying or selling.

 

Yes, you did sound cold.

 

I get what you're saying, Jean. I do. I'm always very careful with the products I'm selling and take care to describe, package, ship, etc. very well. And in this case, I did acknowledge that the TM in question had way too much highlighting to not to be mentioned. I also mentioned that I wouldn't have asked that much money for the set in the first place. But if the seller received it that way (w/all the highlighting) and actually used it that way herself, maybe she just didn't happen to think about it at the time she was selling, what with having a new, preemie, probably sick baby on hand. Maybe she's inexperienced at what's considered "normal wear and tear" and should or should not be mentioned up front. Maybe she WILL still consider a partial (or full) refund.

 

Regardless of the error, I still don't think it was such a grave one that she ought to be raked over the coals as badly as she has been in this thread. I think the OP was wrong to make such a big deal out of it. I think the OP was wrong to publicly re-post the comments about the seller's "prayerful" decision... especially if she herself claims to be a Christian. That's gossip, biblically speaking. She intended to stain the reputation of a fellow sister in Christ over something that she herself is partly responsible for. The OP was mad, so she was out to make this seller look bad in whatever way she could. She succeeded.

 

I wonder if the OP (and many others in this thread) react the same way when they're out in public and don't receive perfect service everywhere they go? It's one thing to speak with your money -- go elsewhere next time -- and maybe even speak to the manager about it. It's quite another to cause a scene, yelling and pointing at someone who's struggling under pressure (new employee? Busier than usual and clearly swamped?) and maybe not doing it quite "right".

 

The seller in this case made an error. I agree that she should've done a couple things differently. But so did the buyer. It was a FIRST edition manual and the buyer didn't ask any questions. (Which she herself said is the reason PP denied her claim.) Not very smart on her part, but she sure has done her job to make the seller look bad. And the buyer came here and announced her problem BEFORE even trying to work it out with the seller. Maybe the seller would've responded differently if the buyer had taken a different approach?

[MommyK]

Yes, you did sound cold.

 

I get what you're saying, Jean. I do. I'm always very careful with the products I'm selling and take care to describe, package, ship, etc. very well. And in this case, I did acknowledge that the TM in question had way too much highlighting to not to be mentioned. I also mentioned that I wouldn't have asked that much money for the set in the first place. But if the seller received it that way (w/all the highlighting) and actually used it that way herself, maybe she just didn't happen to think about it at the time she was selling, what with having a new, preemie, probably sick baby on hand. Maybe she's inexperienced at what's considered "normal wear and tear" and should or should not be mentioned up front. Maybe she WILL still consider a partial (or full) refund.

 

Regardless of the error, I still don't think it was such a grave one that she ought to be raked over the coals as badly as she has been in this thread. I think the OP was wrong to make such a big deal out of it. I think the OP was wrong to publicly re-post the comments about the seller's "prayerful" decision... especially if she herself claims to be a Christian. That's gossip, biblically speaking. She intended to stain the reputation of a fellow sister in Christ over something that she herself is partly responsible for. The OP was mad, so she was out to make this seller look bad in whatever way she could. She succeeded.

 

I wonder if the OP (and many others in this thread) react the same way when they're out in public and don't receive perfect service everywhere they go? It's one thing to speak with your money -- go elsewhere next time -- and maybe even speak to the manager about it. It's quite another to cause a scene, yelling and pointing at someone who's struggling under pressure (new employee? Busier than usual and clearly swamped?) and maybe not doing it quite "right".

 

The seller in this case made an error. I agree that she should've done a couple things differently. But so did the buyer. It was a FIRST edition manual and the buyer didn't ask any questions. (Which she herself said is the reason PP denied her claim.) Not very smart on her part, but she sure has done her job to make the seller look bad. And the buyer came here and announced her problem BEFORE even trying to work it out with the seller. Maybe the seller would've responded differently if the buyer had taken a different approach?

 

Actually, I did approach the seller before posting here. It was after she read the PM, and did not respond, that I started to be concerned and posted here.

 

As for the "prayerful" comment.. I don't understand why you feel that was a jab. I stated she was 'prayerfully considering'.. didn't I? That is what she pm'd me. She told me she was praying about it and had not come to a decision. I don't understand why that would prompt you to question my own faith. I can appreciate that you are here to defend her because she doesn't feel in a position to defend herself, but again, I don't feel I've stepped out of line. I certainly have not called her faith into question, and I would respectfully ask that you not accuse me of such, as well as you not call my faith into question. You have directed that accusation at me, and it was not me who has made comments about such.

[MommyK]

I directed her to this thread, and she has read it.. She feels she is being fair, and was prayerful about it.

 

I understand, and if the money is gone, it's gone. This has been hurtful for me too. Ugh.

 

I hope this doesn't scare other sellers far from me!

 

Actually, I did approach the seller before posting here. It was after she read the PM, and did not respond, that I started to be concerned and posted here.

 

As for the "prayerful" comment.. I don't understand why you feel that was a jab. I stated she was 'prayerfully considering'.. didn't I? That is what she pm'd me. She told me she was praying about it and had not come to a decision. I don't understand why that would prompt you to question my own faith. I can appreciate that you are here to defend her because she doesn't feel in a position to defend herself, but again, I don't feel I've stepped out of line. I certainly have not called her faith into question, and I would respectfully ask that you not accuse me of such, as well as you not call my faith into question. You have directed that accusation at me, and it was not me who has made comments about such.

 

Posting to correct myself. I have bolded the comment where I referred to her being prayerful. I don't see how that called her faith into question. I absolutely don't.

[Donna A.]

Actually, I did approach the seller before posting here. It was after she read the PM, and did not respond, that I started to be concerned and posted here.

 

As for the "prayerful" comment.. I don't understand why you feel that was a jab. I stated she was 'prayerfully considering'.. didn't I? That is what she pm'd me. She told me she was praying about it and had not come to a decision. I don't understand why that would prompt you to question my own faith. I can appreciate that you are here to defend her because she doesn't feel in a position to defend herself, but again, I don't feel I've stepped out of line. I certainly have not called her faith into question, and I would respectfully ask that you not accuse me of such, as well as you not call my faith into question. You have directed that accusation at me, and it was not me who has made comments about such.

 

Nope, I didn't question your faith at all. At all. I questioned something you said and did, just as you questioned something the seller said and did. That is not the same as questioning your faith... just as you did not question the seller's faith. Fact is, I don't question your faith at all, as I don't know you.

 

One can have faith and be a genuine Christian (or whatever), and still not do and say everything "right". That's human nature. ;)

[Kathryn]

Of course it isn't a business. If it were, it would be against board rules. But it definitely is a business transaction. My ds15 sells things on ebay and has since he was 12. He's selling his used goods (and computers he's refurbished). It isn't a business but he had better be conducting himself ethically and professionally or I would personally make sure that he corrected any mistakes in that regard. People buying things on this board and other boards depend on the sellers treating the transaction as if it were a business transaction. I realize that we all have circumstances in our life. But while we give hugs and advice to each other in that regard with all sincerity and good feeling, it shouldn't come into a business transaction. I don't mean that to sound cold, but I do think that should be the case. I would certainly hope that others would expect me to conduct business ethically and professionally whether I was buying or selling.

 

No, you don't sound cold. Life circumstances are not an excuse for behaving unethically towards another person. They might be an excuse for not getting things done in a timely manner (and I have "forgiven" poor communication and a package not getting mailed for over a month when the seller had a premature baby), but not for what has been outlined here: lying by omission and refusing to make it right. If the seller really thought that the books were worth what she got, there is no reason she shouldn't have refunded the OP her money and accepted the return.

[Donna A.]

I'm going to step out of this thread now, as I've shared my 2 cents and then some. :tongue_smilie: But before I go, I just want to explain why I got involved in the first place.

 

I do not know why the seller hasn't agreed to a refund, or even a partial one. I do not know either the seller or buyer personally. But I got involved in this thread because of the fact that I'd had communication with both the buyer and seller about this particular set of curriculum before or around the time that the transaction took place, so I wanted to share what I did know. The seller had reservations because the buyer is fairly new here and had NO feedback. (And as I found out later, the buyer also has very, very few posts that are actually curriculum or homeschool related.) I think the seller's concern was justified. I would have been wary, too.

 

I am not defending the seller JUST because she has her hands full with a preemie baby. Nor is it JUST because PP ruled in favor of the seller. It's a compilation of reasons. I'm defending her because:

 

-- She's a longtime member of this board with only positive feedback prior to this transaction.

 

-- She had a concern over selling to this newbie with no feedback.

 

-- Paypal ruled in favor of the seller in this case. Given how PP handled my personal friend's situation recently, and the buyer's own admission in this thread, PP had good reason to side with the seller. The buyer's complaint did not meet their criteria for a refund. Period.

 

-- Historically, this board has generally sided with the longtime member w/positive feedback. I am completely baffled as to the support this new member with NO feedback has received. Given the history of the seller on this board, I have to think that there's a great possibility that the seller has been misrepresented here.... that perhaps more occurred between them via PM than what the buyer has shared. And since the seller hasn't appeared to defend herself or explain (possibly because she has her hands full with a sick baby and she has enough stress to deal with right now?), we're only hearing one side of the story.

 

-- Given that BOTH the buyer and seller erred in this case, I feel that there's been a quick rush to judgment against the seller based on ONLY the buyer's (the new member w/no feedback) side of the story.

 

I'm baffled. :confused:

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm baffled. :confused:

 

And I'm afraid that this baffles me. I don't recognize the screen names of either the OP or the seller and am not sure why it would matter if I did. My opinions were based simply on the actual advertisement (I looked it up) and the actual pictures of the product. The comments I've seen from others on this thread were based on our opinions of those empirical facts, not on how many posts someone has.

[creekland]

And I'm afraid that this baffles me. I don't recognize the screen names of either the OP or the seller and am not sure why it would matter if I did. My opinions were based simply on the actual advertisement (I looked it up) and the actual pictures of the product. The comments I've seen from others on this thread were based on our opinions of those empirical facts, not on how many posts someone has.

 

:iagree: This is all I base my opinions on too. I really don't care how long someone has been on somewhere or what their other transactions were like. I prefer the facts of the case at hand and the pictures and text show this one pretty well.

 

I don't know either party involved, but I buy and sell online and don't like seeing people get ripped off - then blaming it on the buyer - when it isn't the buyer's fault. Life should not be Buyer Beware IMO - esp on the Hive.

[suzanne44]

I hate you had a bad experience. This is a good reminder to me -- I'm buying and selling used curriculum right now -- I need to be very clear about the condition of things I'm selling, and I need to ask questions about what I'm buying. Hope you are able to work this out.

[MommyK]

I hate you had a bad experience. This is a good reminder to me -- I'm buying and selling used curriculum right now -- I need to be very clear about the condition of things I'm selling, and I need to ask questions about what I'm buying. Hope you are able to work this out.

 

Bad experiences are just part of it all. I've been fortunate to rarely (well, this has been pretty much it) run into them. I think I might have been overdue;).

 

I listed some individual prices on the lot, so hopefully that will move some of the books. And I just bought from another member, and was sure to ask more questions. Chalking it up to an expensive learning experience.:D

[elegantlion]

I don't think that you've characterized her as a scammer. I think you've acted honorably through out. I agree that your view and hers of their value is different. .

 

No, you don't sound cold. Life circumstances are not an excuse for behaving unethically towards another person. They might be an excuse for not getting things done in a timely manner (and I have "forgiven" poor communication and a package not getting mailed for over a month when the seller had a premature baby), but not for what has been outlined here: lying by omission and refusing to make it right. If the seller really thought that the books were worth what she got, there is no reason she shouldn't have refunded the OP her money and accepted the return.

 

:iagree:

 

:iagree: This is all I base my opinions on too. I really don't care how long someone has been on somewhere or what their other transactions were like. I prefer the facts of the case at hand and the pictures and text show this one pretty well.

 

I don't know either party involved, but I buy and sell online and don't like seeing people get ripped off - then blaming it on the buyer - when it isn't the buyer's fault. Life should not be Buyer Beware IMO - esp on the Hive.

 

:iagree:

 

I would be upset to have received highlighted material when that wasn't stated. In one book, I might let it go and stew. In multiple items where it would affect my use of the product, I'd be upset.

 

the amount of time she has been here and her 1000 posts are pretty irrelevant to the transaction itself. I understand being hesitant to buy & sell from new posters. but having someone upset over the condition AND being willing to return it on their dime would show me their intent.

 

This may not be a business, but it's still a business transaction. I have an obligation to state the condition of my product as right and true. If I'm handing my friend stuff for free I might not state condition, but 170.00 is not free.

 

This is one of the reasons I no longer buy used from individuals unless I know them.

[Kathryn]

And I'm afraid that this baffles me. I don't recognize the screen names of either the OP or the seller and am not sure why it would matter if I did. My opinions were based simply on the actual advertisement (I looked it up) and the actual pictures of the product. The comments I've seen from others on this thread were based on our opinions of those empirical facts, not on how many posts someone has.

 

:iagree: This is all I base my opinions on too. I really don't care how long someone has been on somewhere or what their other transactions were like. I prefer the facts of the case at hand and the pictures and text show this one pretty well.

 

I don't know either party involved, but I buy and sell online and don't like seeing people get ripped off - then blaming it on the buyer - when it isn't the buyer's fault. Life should not be Buyer Beware IMO - esp on the Hive.

 

:iagree: I don't know or recognize either poster. The seller had TWO ratings previous to this transaction, one of which was as a buyer. That's hardly a long record of positive feedback. And as others stated, my opinions were based on the listing, the pictures, and the reported outcome.