used when promised new

Finding this thread intriguing, I just looked at the ad by Trancehits, as well as the mutual negative feedback involved. Unless the ad has since been changed, it merely states a scale rating of 10/10, with no descriptive language used about the condition.

However, what none of us posters here know for sure, is what was contained in the negotiation correspondence Warrenh refers to. If Warren merely assumed that the cables must have been represented as being literally "New" because of their AGS rating, then he is in error and should either contact Audiogon about the possibility of correcting the feedback situation, or post a followup feedback making amends.

OTOH, it's important to realize that even if the emails between Warrenh and Trancehits did in fact describe the cables as being "new" rather than "like new", the possibility nevertheless still exists that the two of them were just getting crossed up over an honest semantics problem, rather than anyone attempting intentional misrepresentation. There does exist an AGS rating of "NEW" sans any number scale, and it would have been reasonable (and correct) for Trancehits to assume that Warrenh knew that 10/10 implied the cables had been opened and used some. If Warrenh was ignorant of this fact, it would have been reasonable (if incorrect) for him to assume that the cables were unopened and unused. If they both proceeded on these assumptions, then they could well have done all their negotiations and consumated the deal without either one ever realizing that each of them was assuming things not apparent to the other, and they could therefore have been operating under different contextual notions about the meaning of the word "new".

So (and assuming the ad was the same at the time of the transaction), only if their correspondence contained clearly explicit language stating that the cables were never opened, never used, or some such equivalent, rather than just referring to them somewhat ambiguously as "new" or even "brand new" - which may very well have been an appropriate description if Trancehits had bought them as the original owner mere days or weeks before offering them for sale *and* was proceeding on the assumption that Warrenh knew he had tried them out - only then does Warrenh IMHO have nothing to apologize for (and Trancehits would have some explaining to do). Otherwise, I think Warrenh should recognize the possibility of some error on his part concerning the AGS scale, and that the possibility exists that this all could have gone down exactly the way he thought it did, yet Trancehits could have been perfectly honest all along - as well as that this situation should have been worked out in private between the two of them with a little more effort before going negative on a fellow member. As usual, quality, careful, and detailed communication is everything when it comes to transaction satisfaction!

based upon this newly revealed information I retract my previous comment regarding neutral feedback & now in fact side with the seller, who should if anything have received POSITIVE feedback. The buyer can still post a positive followup, although not completely within the guidelines of one feedback per transaction, that could be overlooked & in this case would probably be the right thing to do.

Warrenh, why didn't you submit this to Audiogon for its standard dispute resolution process. It's not at all fair (to the seller and to your fellow Audiogoners) to hear just one side of the story.

Warrenh, thanks for your follow-up reply. This clarifies that your understanding of the transaction had nothing to do with the original ad. This is good to know. It's also comforting to know that you have received an apology from Trancehits. That was good of him since it was he who made the mistake. It's nice to have all of the facts assembled.

(BTW, Zaikesman, the ad that you see now is not the same one that Jmcgrogan2 referred to and that I had seen prior to its disappearance)

If I could summarize, the ad that some of us latched onto mentioned that Trancehits sells both 1) "like new" (what we now know as "demo" per Warrenth's most recent post) and 2) "brand new" cables. In that ad, which was the basis of my lengthy objections, the item for sale was of the "like new" variety. Per Warrenh's most recent post, however, their agreement via email was clearly for "new" cables by which both parties understood as "brand new" and thus the apology from Trancehits for mistakenly sending demos. Fair enough, Trancehits has lots of postiive feedback and we all make mistakes. I suspect his was an honest one.

It's too bad that this thread drew in so much speculation about what the facts really were. It's also too bad that the issues couldn't be resolved privately or through the dispute resolution process. Yet, it provides some great points that we all should learn from: negative feedback is a serious thing; a seller needs to have an opportunity to address any issues that that buyer has with his or her performance; clear communication is the key to successful transactions; and everyone here wants this to site to continue to be the best place to buy and sell!

I think we can all be friends again...

Obviously, my last post was composed before Warrenh posted the third time. There's definitely something to be said for talking things out in private, especially via phone if necessary, before jumping to conclusions. I think we're all getting along fine now, amen to the peace brother...
:-)