Re: Dodgy Ebay seller - what to do?

I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
in hot water, probaly more the seller.

Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.

It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
forum.

"Mr Biggus," <(E-Mail Removed)_removenoshitmail.> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
> report it to ebay.
>
> You know where he lives, drop round with several mates and visit him


John

I disagree .. the seller chose to identify himself.


"John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
> seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
> remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
> one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
> in hot water, probaly more the seller.
>
> Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
> post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.
>
> It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
> tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
> forum.
>

On 23 Jun 2003 22:57:47 -0700, in
<(E-Mail Removed) >, (E-Mail Removed)
(John) said:

>I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
>seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
>remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
>one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
>in hot water, probaly more the seller.
>
>Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
>post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.

Yes, because the seller responded to my original post with his name &
Ebay ID.

>It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
>tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
>forum.

I have tried, & I'm still trying.

Hey John...
The seller omitted to describe major faults with the lens and then expects
to just pocket the money and exonerate himself through this group. How the
hell is that going to do "a lot for the case of the buyer" for Christ sake?

The law isn't interested. The buyer will be breaking the law to get into a
punch up with the seller. The only show he's got in getting some (any)
satisfaction from the seller is to make it public. FWIW if it were me, my
next point of call would be a current affairs TV show. More people need to
be aware of the danger of buying off e-bay.

JT

"John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
> seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
> remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
> one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
> in hot water, probaly more the seller.
>
> Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
> post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.
>
> It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
> tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
> forum.
>
> "Mr Biggus," <(E-Mail Removed)_removenoshitmail.> wrote in message
news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
> > report it to ebay.
> >
> > You know where he lives, drop round with several mates and visit him

"Auspics" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snips]

> FWIW if it were me, my
> next point of call would be a current affairs TV show. More people need to
> be aware of the danger of buying off e-bay.

You're coming across to me as very pro-retail. Am I reading you wrong or is
that the crux of it?

KC

I don't quite understand the question but yes... After buying stuff
secondhand only to find it had faults which took some time to become
obvious, I beleive if I'd bought retail I'd at least have some legal
recourse. 3 cameras, 4 lenses and all frm E-bay, all duds. My car is another
fine example. An Ex Police car the 2nd owner sold at 100,000 klm. Looked
like new.

Drove pretty well to. RAC said it was OK. I bought it at Christmas. So far
it's cost me nearly $1000 in repairs AFTER the 3 months warranty expired. If
I'd bought a new one I might have paid a bit more for it but at least I'd
have a factory trained mechanic to attend to any repairs for a year instead
of some backyard bozo the car dealer used. The same applies to cameras and
the repairers secondhand camera dealers use.

I can honestly say the only time (except for a 10D quite recently) I've ever
had a problem with photographic gear I bought is when it was second hand. If
I'd bought it new I'd at least have the benefit of a manufacturer's warranty
and factory trained technicians. No such protection with secondhand gear...
Add to that the uncertaintity of an E-bay description and it's just not
worth the risk.
JT

"Ken Chandler" <news@_remove_.kenchandler.com> wrote in message
news:3ef8250b$0$30818$(E-Mail Removed) u...
> "Auspics" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> > FWIW if it were me, my
> > next point of call would be a current affairs TV show. More people need
to
> > be aware of the danger of buying off e-bay.
>
> You're coming across to me as very pro-retail. Am I reading you wrong or
is
> that the crux of it?
>
> KC
>
>

"Auspics" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news8XJa.1119$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I don't quite understand the question but yes... After buying stuff
> secondhand only to find it had faults which took some time to become
> obvious, I beleive if I'd bought retail I'd at least have some legal
> recourse. 3 cameras, 4 lenses and all frm E-bay, all duds. My car is
another
> fine example. An Ex Police car the 2nd owner sold at 100,000 klm. Looked
> like new.
>

<snip>

Im sorry, it seems that your opinion in this matter has been tainted by your
personal experiences, and shouldn't we all be somewhat dogmatic bigots given
our past shapes who we are. However far from achieving at any logical
conclusion, your extreme point of view is simply a matter of choir-preaching
futility. Have faith in the humanity thats so capable of tit-for-tat and
vigilantism, and if enough buyers get ripped off, ebay will tumple from the
bottm-up no doubt.

So why don't we all just take a deep breath to re-oxygenate those higher
cortical neurons and let the buyers get their bargains and the sellers
recuperate their mistakes for paying full retail back in those dark,
unmentionable pre-ebay days when the trade-in industry was still going
strong... (talk about caveat emptor in those days, at least now we cut out
the middle person!)

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:31:26 +1000, in
<3ef82880$0$26636$(E-Mail Removed)> , " Miro"
<(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>> Yes, because the seller responded to my original post with his name &
>> Ebay ID.
>
>
>There you go, you went and destroyed all the diplomatic avenues. How lomg
>did that take ? 6 emails ?

Funny you should say that, but I got a call from him this evening, &
we're making good progress on working out a compromise.

In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) (John) wrote:

> I think the biggest problem now is that the buyer has referred to the
> seller as the "Dodgy Ebay seller", this derogetry and slanderous
> remark has created legal problems for the buyer. A vague ebay add is
> one thing, but the subject the buyer used for his post could put him
> in hot water, probaly more the seller.
>
> Even though the buyer did not mention the sellers name in the original
> post, he has now admitted who he was reffering to.
>
> It would have done alot for the case of the buyer if he had have just
> tried to work this out with the seller and not bring it up in a public
> forum.
>


Not true: the seller chose to "out" himself within 10 minutes of the
original post. You watch too much American Courtroom TV Drama if you
think the buyers original post opens him up to legal allegations of
slander by the seller, or if you think anything said here amounts to
anything resembling legally admissable evidence.
I hope there is a happy ending for both parties.
N

> Drove pretty well to. RAC said it was OK. I bought it at Christmas. So far
> it's cost me nearly $1000 in repairs AFTER the 3 months warranty expired.
If
> I'd bought a new one I might have paid a bit more for it but at least I'd
> have a factory trained mechanic to attend to any repairs for a year
instead
> of some backyard bozo the car dealer used. The same applies to cameras and
> the repairers secondhand camera dealers use.
>

I buy almost everything off eBay. If they had fresh food I might buy that as
well. I dont know what your criteria for a seller might be but I suspect it
varies greatly from my own.

Some people have eyes bigger than their stomach and bid on the wrong items.