Selling dispute. Please comment.

Rrog:

I must take exception to the points you make in your post.

First, you state that "... the first thing that may enter the buyer's mind is, what else is the seller lying about." In order for a lie to occur there must be a misrepresentation of the facts AND a purposeful attempt to deceive. Although the seller did misrepresent the facts, I truly do not believe he was trying to be deceptive. I do not for one minute think that when he checked that Audiogon box he thought to himself, "I'm really going to screw this guy!". Also, absent a severe psychological condition, I don't belive a buyer would assume that a fraud had been perpetrated based soley on a missing manual! You, however, have no problem in suggesting that is exactly what the buyer may have thought.

Secondly, you state that "The real problem here is Jax misrepresented what he was selling." Again, I beg to differ. Although the seller's action was clearly the ORIGIN of the problem, the "real problem" (to use your words) is the buyers unreasonable response to the sellers well intentioned, bend-over-backwards attempts to rectify the situation. While the seller is obviously trying to accomodate, the words from the buyer's emails convey the message he will have to be dragged to a compromise kicking and screaming. That, my friend, is THE REAL PROBLEM!

Finally, if this dispute was heard in a court of law I would find immediately for the buyer. I would then award him $1.00 in damages and tell him to consider himself lucky that the law does not allow a lesser award.

On the otherhand, if this case was tried in the court of public opinion the seller wins hands down. In fact, if that court was convened in Wyoming or Montana the official transcript reads, "The buyer acted like a horses a$$, case dismissed!".

Shoff, you make some good points, but I would add that if this were Wyoming or Montana (or a lot of other places), the seller would have worked this out with the buyer and been done with it without subjecting the whole pitiful experience to the court of public opinion.

IMO, the real problem is that both buyer and seller would rather throw nuts at each other than own up and move on. Jaxwired's original talk about

various papers from the manufacturer in the boxes

and especially his more recent post

So when I checked the "manual included" box I really meant was that the buyer would get whatever paper docs were originally in the box. Not so much that they would specifically be a manual.

is absolute BS, and simply a justification to himself (and to us) that he didn't "actually" screw up by not verifying the original manual was in the box before listing the ad or shipping the amps. I get it, we all screw up sometimes, but quit whining about it and resolve it.

A review of the Audiogon "Seller's Checklist" shows "Do you have the owner's manual?" being one of the questions to answer. In this case the seller did not, but checked that he did. Regardless that 99 out of 100 of us would have happily accepted the pdf manual, and regardless that the buyer comes off as an ass-wipe from his e-mails, the fact remains that the seller did not complete his commitment. Therefore, this boils down to either the buyer accepting the proposed solution (pdf manual), or the seller accepting the return of the amps.

BTW, when you post an ad, the seller's checkbox reads "Owner's Manual Included" but the actual ad lists the manual under "Original Accessories." The absence of the word "original" in the ad posting checkbox and the inclusion of "original" in the listing is a discrepancy that Audiogon should fix, especially after this thread.

Further and further down the rabbit hole we go. It gets strange down here. It's here that we find...

∀F(Fx ↔ Fy) → x=y
F = discernable characteristics
x = original manual
y = replacement manual

If the seller provides a replacement manual whose discernable characteristics are equivalent to those of the original manual, then he has, quite literally, provided an *identical* manual. This is the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles, first described by W.G. Leibniz, German philosopher and mathematician who, among other things, co-invented calculus.

What makes one manual identical to another is not that it has the same trajectory through space and time. It's that it contains the same INFORMATION. It is for this reason that we can say that, when I watch a TV program in Los Angeles, and you watch it in Helena Montana, we have seen the same program, even though I saw it several seconds before you did, while in a different location, and as a result of a different radio wave trajectory. What makes it the "same" program is the INFORMATION it contains. Same information. Same program.

What goes for TV programs goes for movies, books, photographs, albums, manuals, or any other entity whose discernible characteristics are overwhelmingly defined by the INFORMATION they contain. Otherwise, we would find ourselves in a world where you say "We're reading the same book," and I say, "That's impossible. It hasn't left my bedstand for weeks!" Or, as Alice said...

"I wonder if I've been changed in the night? Let me think: was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if I'm not the same, the next question is 'Who in the world am I?' Ah, that's the great puzzle!"

This thread has sounded a little like Wonderland.

IMO, of course.

Bryon

The buyer simply meant to include the manual.

It was a logical implication, of sorts, on his part.

His point of reference was the papers in the envelopes included in the boxes.

The reference of that's all that was included from the manufacturer should be enough, in hindsight, to quell the matter.

Going the lengths to make better 'copies' of a manual that may had never come with the amps is going beyond what would be considered accommodating,

This type of behavior, on the buyers part, can be observed in life. One time I had to have a broken windshield replaced on my car. I wanted an original to be used as it has green tinting in it to reduce heat but my adjuster refused. I pointed out that it is clearly stated in the car's description, which could be referenced online, but he demanded I produce the original dealers invoice that appears on the window, stating the equipment, features, and extras and that legally, he was under no obligation to use original factory parts unless I had that stupid window sticker.

It took three replacement windows before I got one that I could see out of, undistorted. The adjuster would have saved money had he just went out and got a proper window.

It works both ways and serves no one when being stubborn beyond what is reasonable.

All the best,
Nonoise

Jaxwired,

How about an update.....

Was the buyer satisfied with the manuals you sent him?
.