Caveat Emptor ethics

Jamie Pillers said:
Bill,
Thanks for the thorough reading of my post. Much appreciated. I agree with anyone her that wants to make the point that a month is too much. But a day, a week, 8 days? What does it matter if the seller has not been honest.

The reason for my post was not to argue my position in this matter. I've clearly shown why I was a "knucklehead". The point of the post was simply to get a conversation going about honesty, and how honesty somehow gets pushed off the stage by shouts of "caveat emptor".
Jamie
Click to expand...

i don't buy it jamie. i think you're waiting to be goaded into revealing the seller to get back at him.
when you and i traded lenses last year, you wanted to reverse the trade. i said i didn't want to trade back and you accused me of being 'not friendly' and ended your email with something like 'another lesson learned.'
i think you are trying to come across as a victim because you bought something for less than it's worth but now the repair will nullify any 'deal' you might have gotten.
you should have dealt with it as soon as you noticed the shutter problem, not three weeks later...

bob
 
Thanks everyone for the thought you've given to my post. Much appreciated. And if anyone comes up with the incentive that encourages honesty... you'll be able to sell it for millions! 🙂

And if the seller reads this thread, send me the name of the repairman and his phone number who did the bad job of repairing the shutter; I'll take this matter up with him/her.
 
In private deals over the internet, it is difficult to know what a reasonable time scale is, and what are reasonable grounds for the return of used items. Two years back I sold my Nikon F5 body - to the best of my knowledge in pristine condition, and working flawlessly, nearly three months later the buyer mailed me, very upset that the camera had been sent in for repair, with an estimate of £200! - and would I be willing to contribute, I told him I would not, even though I had great sympathy with his predicament, was I wrong? - I believe not. The only other unsatisfactory transaction - from many in recent years - was regarding a Jupiter 12 lens, again - to the best of my knowledge in good condition, and sold for a very reasonable price. Several weeks after the deal, on enquiring, I was told the lens was not what he had expected, but he was not 'bothering' to return it for refund, and would just 'put it down to experience'. Overall my deals on Ebay etc. have been very satisfactory, but I do thoroughly check and test things, on arrival, and if buying a body - be sure I have a lens to test it with, or vice versa.
Cheers, Dave.
 
It's impossible to judge these things without hearing both sides of the story.

One person posts a tale of woe, and then 10 others jump in commiserating without really knowing the truth of the transaction.

Some people have to face up to the reality that they do not have the knowledge or temperament for transactions over the internet. You usually hear the same people complaining about their bad deals over and over and over again.

Others seem to never have problems.

There are people who are never happy, and are better off buying retail from a store with a long return policy and a long warranty.

I don't think I ever read a post where someone said "I got this camera for a fraction of what it was worth, so I'm sending an additional $500 to the seller."

But you read hundreds of posts where the poster says "I got this $2000 camera for $500, but one month later it needed a minor repair, and I'm outraged the seller cheated me and won't give me back $200 to fix it!"

There's a risk/reward ratio for seeking out bargains, and if you're a big boy you learn to deal with them and take your chances.

I'm not saying that there should be no recourse in a case of real misrepresentation and/or outright theft, but some people need to examine their skewed ethics.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
...I sold my Nikon F5 body - to the best of my knowledge in pristine condition, and working flawlessly, nearly three months later the buyer mailed me, very upset that the camera had been sent in for repair...a Jupiter 12 lens, again - to the best of my knowledge in good condition, and sold for a very reasonable price. Several weeks after the deal, on enquiring, I was told the lens was not what he had expected...
Click to expand...

Buyers have no reason to expect that the return period for used equipment should exceed that of new equipment. If I buy a new camera, I'm not going to be able to return it two or three months later.

Now, the new camera likely came with a warranty so I could go that route. Obviously, though, sending a camera back for repairs under warranty is completely different than returning a camera for a refund. A warranty is a form of insurance whose cost is factored into the purchase price.

Perhaps people who sell used equipment need to outline their return policy. E.g., "You can return this purchase, at your cost, for a full refund anytime during the first seven days after delivery." That won't solve every problem (some guy will ship something back on day 8) but its something.
 
wgerrard said:
Perhaps people who sell used equipment need to outline their return policy. E.g., "You can return this purchase, at your cost, for a full refund anytime during the first seven days after delivery." That won't solve every problem (some guy will ship something back on day 8) but its something.
Click to expand...

I've tried this. It doesn't work.. Buyers expect an old used camera to be better than a new one and when it gives them problems months after the sale they expect a full refund.

I had one buyer on eBay who wanted a full refund 2 years after buying the camera..
 
Jamie Pillers said:
And if the seller reads this thread, send me the name of the repairman and his phone number who did the bad job of repairing the shutter; I'll take this matter up with him/her.
Click to expand...
You were not the repairman's customer and I doubt they will deal with you. I think all sales of used equiptment are "as is / final sale" unless advetised as such by the seller in the ad. Telling someone about a problem after a month is unaceptable - day 1 or 2 OK. Does the seller really know that you didn't have a lens? How are they to know you did not run 30 rolls though it and treat it roughly?

Steve
 
Every story has 3 versions... yours, mine, and the truth....

Please don't be offended by the above statement... I really think that this is a case of your word against the seller's... and I don't think that there is a way to resolve it here/now....
 
Well, let's look at the issue from an entirely different, or at least, oblique direction.
What responsibility does the buyer have?
I am personally dealing with a situation which demonstrates this. I recently sold a very NICE version 1 Summilux 50 I had purchased a few months ago from a RFF member. He told me at the time that there was a small defect in the coating in the center of the front element, but that he had not seen any negative effects, as you would think, from a 2.5 mm coating defect. He was right, and my photos reflected this as well. Further, DAG thought this would be the case.
A version 2 Lux falls into my lap, and I choose to sell version 1 on auction hell rather than RFF. Buyer is a person who DEALS, goes by open road photography, name is David Evans. Auction start price plus buy it now option is there. Description clearly states "small coating in front element, not affecting photos, felt OK by DAG at time of CLA". Buyer, the dealer, makes bid late at night, day before Memorial Day. At 0600 next morning, he cancels bid (has done this 39 time in recent past) then executes a buy it now, and pays for the item.
He then, next morning, after I send him a note that payment is received, says that I can cancel the auction and refund the total price if the coating defect is visible, as he is "pretty picky" and will want a refund if there is a coating defect. By this time, the busy holiday ebay selling time is gone, he owns the lens, and I ship it.
He now wants to return, because of the coating defect. Besides being an idiot, how much responsibility does this dealer/purchaser have?
 
Most Camera Shops that I deal with allow a 14-day return on used and consignment equipment. That's long enough to test the camera. A Month or longer, a lot can be done to render a camera as inoperative.

I do things differently, but I do not have to rely on the funds from a camera sale.
 
I'll disagree with a few people on one point. "As-is" is NOT a get out of jail free card for sellers. Yes, a smart buyer will treat it as a red flag. But inherent in "as-is" is that the "is" part must be accurately communicated. I bought a Spotmatic once that "because of its age is being sold as-is". Turns out, the battery door was corroded shut, the mirror and prism were so dysfunctional that you couldn't see through the viewfinder, and the film advance was broken. I consider it fraud, personally, to not disclose such obvious flaws, even--no, especially--on an item sold "as-is".
 
On Ebay, best to treat a camera that is "as-is" as if it were for parts only.

I've had cameras repaired, only to lock up a few months afterwards. Worked fine for a few rolls of film. I had a camera bought on RFF that had been recently serviced, locked up after the first roll of film, about a month after I bought it. I found the part that required some extra flood-cleaning. It's been fine ever since. Should I have returned it? Was the seller dishonest? Of course not. It worked when I received it, broke when using it, and it was after a "works out of the box" inspection.
 
Nothing is sold "as is" unless stated. In which case its a harder sell.

I provide a three day return policy but extend it if I have misstated the description. I often state, "if you do not know what your buying or super picky or use a microscope to examine item DO NOT buy from me."
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Bill,
Thanks for the thorough reading of my post. Much appreciated. I agree with anyone her that wants to make the point that a month is too much. But a day, a week, 8 days? What does it matter if the seller has not been honest.

The reason for my post was not to argue my position in this matter. I've clearly shown why I was a "knucklehead". The point of the post was simply to get a conversation going about honesty, and how honesty somehow gets pushed off the stage by shouts of "caveat emptor".
Jamie
Click to expand...

I don't believe you are either naive or a "knucklehead". You may have just made an honest mistake. I once bought a lemon camera on eBay, and I consider that a lesson. In my case losing $100 to teach me not to buy on eBay was relatively cheap as tuition goes. So I guess you should fix the item, and enjoy it.

Had you been less honest, you could have not started this thread and passed the item on to the next buyer... 😉

OTOH, you may have been deceived by a seller who found a sucker to take a lemon HE acquired elsewhere. And if he misrepresented the item, it doesn't matter whether you find out the day you open the box or a month later. The seller should own up to it and make it right.

But hey, I'm not succeeding all that well in this culture, so maybe I'm just too honest for my own good.
 
35, this guy will block info on the original BIN price by making a bid, then he waits to the wee hours to cabcel bid, being the only one who knows the buy it now price, then immediately does the BIN. He is just a orofiteer. He never communicates his follow up comments through ebay, not wanting to keave a trail they can see. He just didn't read the ad. There is no problem with the lens, except that the small coating bkemish makes it more difficult to be an immediate profiteer by turning it around.
Open Road Photography, Arlington, VA.
David Evans
Handles used Leica and luxes almost exclusively.
No ethics
Buy from someone reputable.
I wouldn't sell anything to him
 
Last edited:
colyn said:
I had one buyer on eBay who wanted a full refund 2 years after buying the camera..
Click to expand...

Amazing. I suppose retailers put up with the same sort of thing. At least, if you specify "no returns or refunds after such and such..." you should win the argument. I think...
 
My personal philosophy is that I won't buy anything old or vintage off ebay if it's more money than I'd be comfortable loosing if it turns out the camera gets lost with no insurance or is a complete lemon... basically is the price attractive enough to risk it. I leave all major purchases to RFF or FM or in person deals like Craigslist etc. I bought a Rolleicord Vb for a VERY nice price a while ago off the Bay and it was described as in user condition but everything working fine. I used it for almost six months happily untill I found out that the aperture was never actually closing down, it was stuck at 3.5, I had just never noticed it as I shoot mainly wide open and the few overexposed frames here and there I put down to my bad metering. My bad... I probably should have done a full inspection when I bought it... or more to the point, I should have read up on the item because I noticed that the aperture wasnt closing when I first got it but thought it was normal, like on an SLR the blades don't close down till you snap a pic. I didn't even bother to contact the seller, after that much time I think it was my bullet to bite... and who knows maybe he didn't even realize.. if something is selling for $150 I wouldn't expect him to pay for an expert inspection of the item before selling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rumbliegeos
Advice sought on a lens sale misfortune
Replies
1
Views
401
oldwino
oldwino
LeicaFoReVer
Departing with my Contax G2
Replies
1
Views
467
Godfrey
Godfrey
C
Is There A Way To Rate Buyers/Sellers On RFF
Replies
2
Views
590
chuckroast
C
S
Classifieds: feedback to buyer?
Replies
1
Views
1K
splitimageview
splitimageview
CameraQuest
My first Nikon ONE
Replies
11
Views
974
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
Back
Top Bottom