Ebay issue

I'll tell ya. You even have to be careful with stickers on there. I've seen sellers selling re-sealed records that get a store sticker or a promotional sticker that would have originally been on the shrink of said record onto the shrink. Of course, a big part of why they bother to do this is to win people like you over as well as draw people in that like original promotional stickers on sealed albums. There's one seller in particular, who of course has changed seller names here and there, and I'd love to list his username here, but I think that's against forum rules so I won't.

 

When I bought a sealed defective record at a store in 1979 and took it back, that dealer wasn't at fault, either, but he took the return and sucked it up if he wanted me to buy more records, which most everybody selling records did. It's the idea that eBay sellers somehow deserve a pass for selling merchandise unacceptable to the buyer for whatever reason the buyer found it unacceptable because that seller is "not a business" or they are selling "collectibles" or whatever their excuse might be for not acting like any other reasonable retailer and giving value for money received that bothers me.

 

eBay and Paypal do not feel the same as you. They determined 4 years ago that their business was being impacted by the bad experiences buyers were having and implemented polices to encourage repeat business. Research showed that buyers always remember bad experiences and they returned to eBay less often with each bad experience. They would rather NOT have sellers destroy goodwill created by the good experiences which requires eliminating bad experiences for the buyers. It's a business "best practice" which is working for them. It's hard to imagine that eBay would be well served if sellers randomly victimize the eBay buyers without proper recourse and recompense. Sellers need to be proficent at identifying proper goods for sale, and ready to make buyers content. There is no reason that anyone should expect an eBay buyers to suffer a loss because of a deficient seller.

 

But they are not retailers. They are people auctioning off items. Sealed items. I think you guys aren't being honest with yourselves here. First time this happened to me, I was initially bummed and felt I should get my money back...but after I cooled down and thought about it more...I came to the conclusion that I've been trying to convince you guys of. I must sound like a jerk to some of you. Sorry. Trying to help, really.

And in 1979, LP's were the main form of media for popular recordings, and dealers would get recourse on returns, correct?

 

You are arguing the policy. I'm not. I'm simply saying that people shouldn't be abusing the policy, which is what they are doing when they are not being reasonable (example: trying to get a refund from the seller of an auctioned sealed LP that's been opened by the buyer and now it is found that the record has some scratches, pressing defects, etc.). You guys need to accept the risk of buying sealed LP's. It's that simple. The sellers aren't "victimizing the eBay buyers". The sellers have nothing to do with it. And it has nothing to do with "the seller being proficient at identifying proper goods for sale". They can identify items just fine. It's sealed. Are they psychic?

If the sellers are psychic, then I agree with you.

 

I don't recall seeing "you need to accept the risk" specified in eBay's Buyer Protection policy.

 

Then based on your premise doesn't that mean the seller also has bought the lp so he should have to accept the risk? The question now becomes who takes full responsibility?

 

I don't understand what you mean.

 

I try...I try...and I try...and still...nothing.

 

I am honest with myself. And I think you are honest in your belief that because someone is not a retailer or because they are selling "collectible" items like sealed records that that is an excuse for delivering something the buyer is not happy with and then not needing to refund all of his money. I just don't think the same way.

 

Don't be sad. I will be happy even if you don't understand eBay's business practices.

Out of curiosity, have you READ the eBay Buyer Protection Policy?

 

Ok, again...I am not arguing what the policies say.

Now re-read that, maybe even a few times.



I am saying that people should use the policies responsibly and within reason. And by trying to get refunded for a sealed LP that you opened that had pressing defects, is wrong. You are basically saying it's ok to steal from someone to make up for the money you lost from the item you opened that didn't work out. It's like "Oh, hey, because I can take your money, I will. I mean, eBay's policies let me."

lame.

I can't even remember, have you actually come up with valid points towards this argument, or do you just keep saying I don't understand eBay's policies? I know that's been your thing lately anyway.

I think you must be stuck on this "I am the buyer and I should always be satisfied" thing or something. You need to start thinking outside of that and thinking about all parties involved and what your consequences your actions have.

If you opened a sealed Beatles Yesterday & Today "butcher" cover, and you opened it and played it and it skipped on a track, are you going to demand a full refund from the seller?

 

The difference there is, back in 1979, the dealer could send the record back to the distributor and immediately get a credit (or replacement). 30 years later, the distributor won't take it back.

To me, I think there's two issues here:

a) when you buy a sealed product, you take a risk that it may be defective inside and the seller isn't aware of it

b) it's up to the seller to offer or not offer a "satisfaction guaranteed" refund policy. In my case, I only occasionally sell stuff on eBay, but my policy is, if the item isn't exactly as described, I'll provide a refund. If I was selling something brand-spanking new, and it was sealed, I'd probably still provide a refund if it was defective and just chalk it up to the cost of doing business.

But I don't sell a lot of records. The few I do sell are always used (and open), and I grade them pretty conservatively.

 

So I finally received a full credit from ebay to my paypal account. All I had to do was send the defective record back to the seller with a postage paid mailing label ebay supplied. This seller still has 4 copies left 4 sale and they are now $190.00 a pop. It was $139.50 when I originally bought mine. Buyer's rule, bad seller's fade away !

 

Again, let me ask.....have you confused my issue with the OP's issue?

What part of "resealed" or "used" or "beat up" or "fraud" are not clear?

Please read this and understand: "This was fraudulently represented as an unplayed record in it's first seal. It was instead a damaged ruined record with the cutout hole covered by a reseal."

Did you look at the pictures of the Monitors LP? The record had been played hundreds of times, half-square inch areas were scratched as if someone was trying to fill in a box, and huge cracks were made and not by the post office. The cracks had grunge filling them so these were not recent breaks and the shipping box itself was perfectly intact with pleny of cushion. The cutout hole was sealed over. Clearly someone, possibly the seller, has tried to pass a worthless record off as an unused sealed record. And, even worse, the seller ripped off the post office by claiming that they caused the damage. Clearly the post office had nothing to do with it yet the taxpayers paid for it. I don't think that sellers should make their living off the taxpayer's back. Which part of this acceptable to you? Is it ok for a seller to rip off buyers selling fraudulent items? Or, is it ok that the neither the seller nor the buyer took a loss, only the post office and indirectly, everyone? I don't understand how anyone can condone anything about this transaction, and I suspect you would feel quite differently if you were sold the fraudulent item.

But I managed to force myself to leave glowing feedback for this seller. He will be able to continue to provide fine customer service and products at the post office's expense, and you have the opportunity to patronize him.

 

Belsnickel, obviously one should get refunded after being sold a fraudulent item.

I wasn't arguing that.