2. misc-audio
  3. 136498-4976

what can reasonably be expected of a seller?

Let's get the obvious out of the way.  If the seller posts the item "as-is" & "untested" then that's that and you get what you get.  Right?  But if neither of these is indicated and the item is listed as practically new or unused or immaculate....  or has been in ideal storage for years, then is it perfectly reasonable to ask the seller about functionality, to request the seller test the item to confirm proper functioning?  If the price is really good, is it reasonable to ask about functionality?    I've had 2 situations lately where this has come up.   In the first instance, the seller was willing to accommodate and I did pay for the item and was awaiting confirmation that the item worked properly but was unexpectedly told that he sold to another who didn't need confirmation and my money was refunded.  And in the second instance, I asked the seller to connect the cdp he was selling to a system to confirm that if worked properly as it could be a decade old and had "probably" never been used.  He responded that he wasn't connecting it to anything and didn't have time to sit and play it and that it was already packed.   So, am I just being unreasonable and expecting to much?  What do you think is reasonable?  Thanks.
lcherepkai
jahatl513
119 posts
 
tweak1- 
 I hate to contradict your thoughts but you are 180 degrees on the other side of my belief as both a seller of high dollar mid market equipment and as a buyer. If you provide the pick up slip and there is an issue; then you have the broken, now junk, and have to chase insurance. You in effect have taken the problem of a seller and taken it on yourself. If it is broke, the seller has no power to chase the insurance if you provide the slip, therefore he/she is indemnified as you took away the sellers responsibility. If the seller pays and it arrives broke; its his/her problem and all you get is your money back. 
basement
245 posts
 
I'm a little confused too. 

If the buyer takes full responsibility for the shipping, who then is liable and what control is there over what was bought or represented? 
uberwaltz's avatar
uberwaltz
13,381 posts
 
I think they were trying to infer that there experience is that some sellers have "not had the time/inclination" to follow up on an insurance claim.
This is of course nonsense as every seller should make it their job to act expeditiously on such matters if they value their reputation and have any wherewithal!

I think the thought process was that if the buyer provides the shipping and pays the shipping company direct then they have control if there is a problem and make their own insurance claim if there is a subsequent issue.

This is of course also open to abuse as the seller will now have no say in the matter if the buyer "claims" it was damaged in transit and may indeed end up with some old substituted junk shipped back to him if the shipping company goes that route.

Cynical yes, has it happened before, most assuredly.
basement
245 posts
 
Still don't see how that helps. 

If I am a buyer, and something arrives broke/not working/not as described, I don't want to deal with anything at all...not the shipper, not the buyer, just money returned or withheld and not paid. 

Don't want a "delay" in that either. I don't see any reason why I should have to wait for a refund while the seller sorts out getting paid back from the shipper. That's unethical. 
uberwaltz's avatar
uberwaltz
13,381 posts
 
I am not saying it does help at all, just giving my thoughts as to what I perceive as some other members thought process!

Personally if any buyer asks me to let them pay for shipping and organise it I politely tell them no.

As a seller I have also seen way too many attempted buyer scams to fall prey to immediate claims of instant money back at the very first mention of an issue and need good solid communication and details before I would proceed.

It works both ways.....
More to discover