I Got Ripped Off So Bad!!!!

[bmattock]

In general in the US, an advertiser cannot misrepresent an item for sale. They cannot say that a car is black if it is white, for example. However, they can engage in what is called 'puffery'. That means they can say it is a 'great car' and who knows what that means?

A person can sue for redress if they believe that they were misled, of course. But it is not what one would call a fraud unless it was an outright lie.

Lots of grey areas, and I am no lawyer. But I do believe that the USA puts more of the onus on the buyer to look out for their own interests.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Paul T.]

Bill, your argument makes no sense. There is no PayPal Buyer Protection on this item! It is not eligible on this item! What happens is you will inform PayPal - who will then tell you that only Ebay's Standard Purchase Protection applies. There is a maximum claim of $175 for eBay Standard Protection, even if you win your claim. Apply to your credit card company and if you process the claim correctly, you should get it ALL back!

You therefore have two choices
1: email Paypal, who will bounce you to eBay, fill in several online forms, have problems getting thru to a human being, with a possibility of getting SOME of your money...
2: Phone your credit card issuer, speak to a human being, fax them the documentation, get the whole amount credited to you immediately.

I've done both of these approaches. The first one (where I had full PayPal Buyer Protection) I got my money back within around 90 days. The second scenario, I had my money back within 3 days. Maybe my credit card issuer was particularly good, but it was 10 times easier dealing with them than with Paypal/eBay's customer 'service'.

 

[back alley]

They would not know an f-stop from a g-string.

this somehow comforts and scares me at the same time🙂

joe

 

[Kevin]

is a maximum claim of $175 for eBay Standard Protection...

Wow, that's not much. It is around 400 Euro here in Germany. When I filed an ebay claim 2 years ago, I won. I had to cover 25 Euro myself, but I got to keep the item, for which I paid well over 130 Euro for. A similar situation happened just 12 months ago. Again, I got most of my money back and got to keep the item.

This is great news for you if the seller does not cooperate. When you get back all (or most) of your money, you will get to keep the camera !!!

I cant think of any better consumer situation to be in.

Have a glass of champagne dude.

Kevin

 

[bmattock]

Bill, your argument makes no sense. There is no PayPal Buyer Protection on this item! It is not eligible on this item!

I hear you saying that. I don't hear PayPal saying that. We have your word for it. That's not a good reason not to ask PayPal what they can or will do. If you are right - AND I BELIEVE YOU ARE - then the buyer can move on to the next option. You're not PayPal. I'm not PayPal. My advice to the seller is to get the information on refunds FROM PAYPAL.

I'm not calling you a liar or saying that your information is not correct. I'm saying that the seller has no way of knowing what your level of honest (or mine) is, and they should go hear it from the horse's mouth.

What happens is you will inform PayPal - who will then tell you that only Ebay's Standard Purchase Protection applies. There is a maximum claim of $175 for eBay Standard Protection, even if you win your claim.

Again, my advice to the seller is to get the information on this directly from PayPal, which you ain't.

Apply to your credit card company and if you process the claim correctly, you should get it ALL back!

We (both) presume that the buyer used a credit card. Assuming that he did, I agree that credit card challenge should result in a refund. But there is no guarantee of that - the credit is not automatic, the credit card company does an investigation first. The charge on the card is held in abeyance for the time that the charge is being disputed. You could still lose.

In any case, if I have a traffic ticket that I disagree with, I don't go straight to the Supreme Court. I go to the local court first and ask to speak to the DA and see if we can work something out. Save the big guns for last - they'll still be there if it comes to that.

You therefore have two choices
1: email Paypal, who will bounce you to eBay, fill in several online forms, have problems getting thru to a human being, with a possibility of getting SOME of your money...

I agree that if PayPal tells the seller that he is only going to get part of his money back, then he should investigate the next option. My only disagreement with your advice is that I think he should go find that out from PayPal and not from you or me.

2: Phone your credit card issuer, speak to a human being, fax them the documentation, get the whole amount credited to you immediately.

Absolutely incorrect. First, you can't get the dispute resolved via a phone call - that is absolutely incorrect. You *may* be able to initiate a claim, but it is NOT the same as resolving it. You have to put your statement in writing, and that's the actual law. If some credit card did this for you, I'm seriously surprised. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but it is not what the law requires, to the best of my knowledge.

In any case, having the debt held in abeyance (meaning they don't try to collect it from you) for the period of time that they investigate is not the same as having the debt wiped out or credited to you immediately. Yes, the charge does not appear on your statement and you don't have to pay it while they investigate, but if they decide against you, it will be back.

I've done both of these approaches. The first one (where I had full PayPal Buyer Protection) I got my money back within around 90 days. The second scenario, I had my money back within 3 days. Maybe my credit card issuer was particularly good, but it was 10 times easier dealing with them than with Paypal/eBay's customer 'service'.

I can't say you're not telling the truth, but I suspect that you were dealing with an unusual credit card company. Perhaps you had some sort of 'buyer guarantee' system in place - some credit cards do that, extend warrantees if you buy with their card and so on. But that's not how challenges to credit purchases normally work. Here's a link to the law:

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press/cons_advis/Feb04.cfm

This comes from the Attorney General of the US [NOTE - oops, correction AG of PA], so I'd place his advice before yours or mine on the subject.

"Always follow up a dispute you discussed over the telephone with a written dispute letter." - not faxed, not over the phone - written.

"The credit card company must acknowledge receipt of your letter within 30 days, and they must settle your dispute within 90 days after receiving your letter." - not instantly, not immediately, but within 90 days. Sooner is better, of course.

"You are not entitled to an extensive investigation of your disputed credit card charges; credit card companies need only “reasonably” investigate your dispute."

I think you had a really good result from disputing a charge on your credit card and hey, that's a great thing.

But I still believe your advice to the seller to ignore PayPal and go directly to the credit card company is incorrect - even foolhardy. No harm is done for them finding out directly from PayPal what the deal is.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Paul T.]

To be honest, if it were me, I would discuss sending the item back with my c/card company, and expect to do so. Actually, if this were eligible as a PayPal claim, and the item had not been sent tracked by the vendor, you would be able to reclaim your money and not send the item back. Whether this would be fair is another matter.

NB. PayPal's Buyer Protection Ceiling is UKP500, or circa $1000. It's the fact it's eBay's less comprehensive Standard Purchase Protection which means the maximum refund is lower.

 

[Paul T.]

bill, I totally agree you should inform eBay too - as I mentioned in this case PayPal will only pass the claim on to them.

And if there were PayPal Buyer Protection I would definitely approach PayPal first. But credit card companies are much more amenable than you'd think. They're very alert to scammers, because there's no much of it about, and in my experience they invariably freeze the funds while they do an investigation (something I am pretty sure that eBay legally can't do).

 

[bmattock]

bill, I totally agree you should inform eBay too - as I mentioned in this case PayPal will only pass the claim on to them.

How hard is it to believe that people should ask PayPal that for themselves and not take your word for it?

And if there were PayPal Buyer Protection I would definitely approach PayPal first.

Again - your word for it. I would advise a buyer to find out for themselves.

But credit card companies are much more amenable than you'd think.

Is there something in consumer law regarding the rights of the credit card companies that you don't understand? I agree that they can CHOOSE to be amenable. They are not required to - they are only required to obey the law.

They're very alert to scammers, because there's no much of it about, and in my experience they invariably freeze the funds while they do an investigation (something I am pretty sure that eBay legally can't do).

PayPal froze my account while they investigated a claim against me by a buyer. I could sell, but any fund that went into my account would be frozen as well. I could not buy at all. The investigation went on for 3 months - it was supposed to be resolved in 14 days. PayPal found against me and sucked the money out of my account. There was not enough there, so they dunned me for the rest and I was forced to deposit it, which they also sucked out of my account. The buyer was made whole, regardless of what I thought of the merit of his claim. eBay did not get involved in the dispute against me - so I do not know what their response would have been.

I'm not going to go on with this, because we're clearly not communicating. I say black, you say white. You may well be right that PayPal will not help this gentleman, but I say he should find that out for himself - you insist that he take your advice and bypass them. He can clearly do whatever he feels is best, regardless of what we think.

However, I will say this in closing. Your statement regarding what PayPal will and won't do may very well be correct. I don't dispute that. However, on some of this other stuff, you appear to be just making stuff up. Consumer protection law regarding credit cards is pretty clearly understood and it NOT what you say it is. Anyone who can Google can find out for themselves.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Just looked this up on Paypal. At first read, it looks like the seller can send defective merchandise or incorrect merchandise.

PAYPAL:

Q: Will sellers be held liable for disputes regarding defective/incorrect merchandise or buyer dissatisfaction?
A: "sellers will not be held liable for disputes regarding defective/incorrect merchandise or if a buyer is simply not satisfied with his or her purchase."

Q: Will PayPal ever take the money back from the seller?
A: PayPal will not take a reimbursement from the seller in cases of Buyer's Remorse or a dispute about the quality of the merchandise. However, sellers will continue to be bound by terms in the Seller Protection Policy regarding the non-receipt of goods.

Q: As a seller, what are the consequences of opting out of the Money Back Guarantee program?
A: There are no consequences to sellers who opt out of the program, except that they will be unable to offer their buyers the option to get a satisfaction guarantee on their purchases. No communication will be made to buyers that the seller has opted out, and all transactions will proceed as normal.

Pretty obvious that Paypal is free for buyers and take their cut from the sellers.

My Credit Card company holds the seller responsible for delivery of correct merchandise. Whether by law or policy, they will usually side with the credit card holder.

 

[Paul T.]

Bill, I'm sorry we can't deal with this amicably.

Perhaps a symptom of this is your assertion we 'only have my word' to go on whether the item is eligible for PayPal Buyer Protection. This is not a question of opinion. There is a logo and a statement of EXACTLY what guarantee applies on EVERY auctionon eBay.

This is the auction of teh dodgy Canon in question. There is no PayPal Buyer Protection logo

http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-7-35MM-RA...ryZ30027QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This is an item with PayPal Buyer protection. Click on the 'eligibility' line and you will find more about what refunds apply to buyers:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/LEICA-M6-35mm...538002758QQcategoryZ15234QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

As we can't seem to agree simply on whether a logo is present, plainly we won't agree on anything else, whether it's the refunds I've obtained from my credit card companies, or stories from other people who've obtained eBay refunds from their credit card company, for instance on photo.net. But any interested parties might want to look out Max Fun's p.net story of how he got a refund on a dodgy 24mm Elmarit.

So let's leave it here. Peace!

 

[bmattock]

Just looked this up on Paypal. At first read, it looks like the seller can send defective merchandise or incorrect merchandice.

http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/policy_buyer_complaint-outside

From PAYPAL: "and paid for through PayPal that the buyer receives but that are significantly not as described by the seller."

That's what bit me. I made the mistake of saying that an item I sold was 'just about perfect' aside from flaws that I had mentioned. Well, that left the door wide open. The buyer claimed that the item was substantially not as described because it was dirty - dusty - and the movements could not be locked up tight (it was a bellows for 35mm SLRs that had movements). It did not matter that the dust was simple to blow off or that the unit had never been capable of tight lockup even when new - the fact that I said it was 'nearly perfect' was all PayPal needed to hear. The seller won.

In the case we're describing, the buyer was shown a photo that was NOT the camera in question. Clearly, that is NOT AS DESCRIBED. I believe he'd have a good case for a refund with PayPal just on that basis. The verbiage was also a bit waffle-y for my taste - I suspect he could also make the point that when the seller said the shutter speeds all worked, one could reasonably assume the seller meant they were accurate as well. In fact, just about every statement made in this ad could be challenged as being 'substantially not as described'.

I suggest in any case that he check with them first - he can always go to the credit card company if he is not satisfied with the PayPal response and he has risked nothing. There is a time limit to dispute credit card charges, but it is at least 30 days as I recall, and it could be 60 or 90 - I can't recall offhand.

And before all of that - has the buyer tried to simply ask the seller for a refund?

And finally, PayPal says:

If you cancel your Buyer Complaint claim or it is denied or results in no refund, you may still be able to pursue credit card chargeback rights. In many cases, your credit card company will allow you to file a chargeback for 90 days or more after the date of the payment. If PayPal resolves a Buyer Complaint claim in the buyer’s favor but the buyer does not receive a full recovery of their payment, and if the time for processing of the claim results in the buyer’s loss of credit card chargeback rights, then PayPal will provide a full recovery to the buyer.

So why not ask PayPal first and THEN go to the credit card company if that fails? Seems like pure logic.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Sonnar Brian]

That is useful, certainly seems contrary to what is listed in the Paypal FAQ. If a seller transfers the money out of the Paypal account, the refund is not guaranteed.

"Eligibility. Buyer complaints must be filed within 45 days of the payment. Even if the buyer’s claim is justified, the buyer will receive a recovery only if there are funds in the seller’s account. RECOVERY OF YOUR CLAIM IS NOT GUARANTEED."

I know people that got "taken" by a seller who immediately transferred the funds from Paypal and closed up the account. Given an "honorable" seller that wants to continue selling, this Paypal remedy looks like a reasonable course. If it is a new seller, they may "clear out of town".

 

[justins7]

What happened when you contacted the seller?

What happened when you contacted the seller?

This seems like the most obvious question from the start. What did the seller say?

 

[agoglanian]

the seller responded to my questions saying "i did not think the description to be misleading, it looked ok to me" she asked me to contact her, and i am doing so as i write this.

hopefully ill just be able to deal with her directly and not worry about this.

i appreciate all the input guys, but to be honest, i think we got kind of carried away here, i dont want us to start arguing about ebay and paypal. things happen, such is the way of the world, not everyone is honest, and not everyone is as camera saavy as we are. mistakes can be made, and must be forgiven if the other party is willing to work with you to remedy the situation.

again, thanks for all the input

-abram goglanian

 

[Sam66]

This seems like the most obvious question from the start. What did the seller say?

I think it is a rule everywhere, that the seller/service provider/advertiser cannot present a prodcut that is different from graphic discription, it is like I bought a blue car with 4 wheels, it arrive as navy and okay this is arguable, but I am no way expecting a car with 6 wheels (or 3 wheels); or, I booked a hotel room saying its a 2-bed room with picture showing 2 beds and I am not expecting to be offered a double bed later, especailly when there are no small print on the page claiming that "picture shown as example" or "product may vary" bla bla bla... and since it is an auction rather than a sales of a certain goods from mass production, the items themselves are mean to be unique? Not a lawyer so I am not sure...

Yes, there are people using "generic" pictures in actions, but that is too obvious and not the case here. The seller seems to be using somone else picture (adoroma's?), before he or she is commiting a fraud, the seller is already in violation of copyright.

And here is what the seller said : "the rangefinder images line up correctly"
I remember from the first page that the RF is not lining up!

 

[Little Prince]

A few minor notes to Paul and BIll.

Paul, I can't help but disagree about your suggested method of pursuing things. Not to take sides or anything, but not having the 'Paypal buyer protection' does not mean no action is possible. It only means that when you have it, if you satisfy the conditions you will be compensated. They do have other clauses for cases without 'buyer protection'.

As mentioned before, there is a 'not as described' clause. I have used it before. I too had bought from a seller with maybe 2 or 3 previous transactions, no 'buyer protection' eligibility or any of that. I was sent the wrong item and after being unable to resolve with the seller (who simply said 'I thought I had sent the correct thing' so no can do..!) I approached Paypal with the 'not as described' claim. Of course Paypal said they wouldn't be able to do anything, but that doesn't mean don't ask them. If it were so, they would have no such clause.

Ultimately, I did a credit card chargeback. Also here, I must mention two things. I am quite sure I didn't submit any thing in writing. There might have been email, but that's as far as I was required to do. Second, I did have to return the item to Paypal as that was the conditions on which the chargeback operated.

Finally, I'll mention also that Paypal says you should contact them and try to resolve before resorting to chargebacks. This makes sense also because they are the intervening body in your transaction and if they can't work it out, only then should you go to the absolute powers. I am also given to understand that Paypal does not like it if you do blanket chargebacks without contacting them and may freeze your account. On the other hand, if they do not cooperate, you are free to go to your credit card company. No loss, except some time.

 

[agoglanian]

exactly. there are simple ways to address the issue, and apparently she really just doesnt know squat about cameras and assumed that this was in good working condition, and she most likely has never used a RF before, and just assumed it was working correctly. and PROBABLY found it easier to copy and paste adorama's ad ( despite how innacurately it represented her actual camera)

i have already contacted her, and waiting for a reply, and i bet i will be able to get a full refund, or at least a big portion of a refund if she wont take it back.

 

[djon]

Lots of rancor here, not necessary. All of the advice is well intended and reasonable, reflecting perhaps-differing strategies.

We ALL know that Ebay's a gamble, not a "store." If we play a lot we'll eventually pay hard.

I've had VERY good luck on several camera/lens buys on Ebay, and bad luck on two others (one was my carelessness, not the seller). In the end my bargains will have to pay for CLAs.

Bertram, I admire your restrained use (Gallery) of that 25 CV in Paris. I ordinarily hate lens effects, struggle to be careful with my own 25 and 24. I especially like your background essays, such as with Rue d' Annam.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A CLA on the Canon 7 will run $130, and a CLA on the lens will be about $70. I've bought a mint- Canon 7 with 50mm F1.4 for $400 from a reliable dealer on Ebay. If you can get a 50% refund, you are doing well in my opinion. It will CLA the camera and lens. The 50mm F1.4 Canon and F1.2 Canon go for about the same amount, all other things being equal.

Early on in EBay, I bought a Polaroid SLR680 for $75 described in Mint condition. It had an intermittent circuit board that had to be replaced. I asked for and received half the cost of the repair; figured a freshly CLA'd camera is better than what I bargained for initially.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear agphotography,

So it looks as if you have, in fact, got an honest but ignorant seller and you can get your money back from her. This is excellent news and bears out the oft-expressed view that most people are, in fact, honest. And fortunately (though not inevitably) she was one of them.

Bonne courage et bonne chance, comme on dit en France. The latter is literally 'good luck' while the former is literally 'good courage' but translates better as 'Best of luck; I'm sure you'll sort it but I'm glad it's you and not me that has to deal with it."

Cheers,

Roger