Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Caveat Emptor ethics
Old 05-30-2009   #1
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
Caveat Emptor ethics

We here in the U.S. tend to want simple rules to trust our lives to, probably because since our lives are so complicated otherwise we want to simplify as much as possible. A couple of examples that come to mind are "Let the market determine the price" and "Caveat emptor" (Let the buyer beware).

I think we've all come to see that if the marketplace is left to its own devices, greed can muck things up to no small degree. Hence regulation.

"Caveat emptor" - I looked it up in the dictionary. It says "the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the suitability of goods before a purchase is made." So I'd like to offer up a couple of scenarios and let you puzzle out the ethics of this principle.

First scenario: Imagine you purchase a used car from a dealer and the dealer claims its in perfect running order. You drive it around the block a couple of times and it seens to be as the seller says. Then, a month later the transmission starts making serious growling noises and you take it into a shop. They find the transmission filled with a concoction of heavy grease and sawdust... the perfect recipe to keep a damaged transmission quiet for awhile. Now.. what would you do? I'd take it back to the seller and say "you sold me a defective car, I want my money back". The seller says "I don't know anything about that stuff in the transmission, and you've had the car too long to bring it back now. You could have been racing the car for all I know. Tough luck!"

So is the naive buyer to blame here? Why didn't the buyer have a thorough inspection done first? Or should the dealer have inspected the car first and then sold it under an honest description of its problems?

Second scenario: Buyer (me) buys a camera advertised here at RFF. Advertisement says "previous owner stuck a finger through the shutter curtains, but I had it repaired and the camera operates perfectly." Buyer (me) receives the camera about a week later. Buyer doesn't have a lens yet, so can't run film through it. However at that time buyer notices that every fourth or fifth time he cocks the shutter, he has to double-cock it to get the shutter to fire. Buyer doesn't think much about this, assuming he's either not advancing the lever properly or that with film in the camera, the tension will take care of it. (The naive buyer is still trusting that the seller's statements were true.) Now, a month later with lens mounted and film installed, buyer (me) notices that the cocking problem has in fact not gone away and he's concerned that this could deteriorate into something worse. He (I) contact a repairman familiar with this camera and he says it could indeed be a problem with the shutter requiring complete replacement of the shutter mechanism at a cost of as much as $350! (More than buyer paid for the camera!)

Now a month after the sale, buyer (me) contacts the seller and asks if camera can be returned for a refund. Seller responds with a flat no and suggests buyer (me) took too long to uncover the problem. So... does "caveat emptor" clearly apply? And what's too long of a trial period? Is the buyer (me) to blame here? Or did the seller have some responsibility?

What do you think?

P.S.: If you think PayPal protects you from such things, think again. They don't accept complaints if the seller/buyer conversation doesn't take place through eBay.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums

Last edited by Jamie Pillers : 05-30-2009 at 13:27.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #2
Al Kaplan
Registered User
 
Al Kaplan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 77
Posts: 4,466
I Think that you should have contacted the seller when you noticed that it wasn't cocking correctly rather than waiting to get a lens.
__________________
RIP

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #3
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
Hi Al,
Yep... should have. And I'll pay the price for that.

However, my post has to do with whether or not sellers have any responsibilities. Have we swallowed "caveat emptor" hook, line, and sinker? And if you had been the car owner, would you have asked the seller to take some responsibility?

Thanks for responding to the post.
Jamie
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #4
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,736
Well, had you followed the teaching of "caveat emptor", you wouldn't be in the mess you are in.

That said, if you are not happy with an item, the seller should take it back within a reasonable time. At least if they want to have a decent reputation as a seller.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #5
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,454
An axiom like "Let the market set the price" is a statement of intent or desire, not one that necessarily suggests the optimum approach. I.e., should we allow the market to set the price? I've concluded that we should, if and only if the market in question is a free market. By "free", I do not mean "free of government regulation." I mean a market that is not influenced by one entity or a group of entities. Markets tend to be dominated by one or a few players, whether sellers or buyers. Prices in these markets are not established by the unfettered hands of supply and demand.

Now...

Cavet emptor suggests the car buyer should have had the transmission inspected. Without evidence the dealer dumped sawdust in the gears, the buyer is out of luck. (That doesn't prevent him from hiring a lawyer and a detective to go after the evidence, but that isn't cost effective in what is an obvious small claims action.)

You and your camera: Immediately and thoroughly inspecting and testing an expensive new toy is something we should do every time we buy one. When we buy a new toy, the seller tells us what the time limit is for a return, etc. When we buy used toys, especially over the net from a stranger, we should ask the seller to establish a timeframe in which you can return the purchase should it prove counter to his descriptions. If something nefarious is discovered after that time expires, then the only recourse is through the courts.

I would fault you for waiting so long to do something about a camera with an obvious fault. Did you expect the addition of a lens to correct that problem?

So, no, we haven't "swallowed 'caveat emptor' hook, line, and sinker." The sellers have responsibilities. But, so do buyers. Waiting for a month to complain about a used and unwarranted product that showed a problem almost immediately upon purchase doesn't cut it in my book.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.

Last edited by wgerrard : 05-30-2009 at 14:58.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #6
35mmdelux
#Represent
 
35mmdelux's Avatar
 
35mmdelux is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,225
1) the seller knew there were problems.
2) yes you should have notified seller early, but see #1.
3) I understand scenario. I bought a Hexar RF from a friend of a well know photog that posts here. First, instead of $25 shipping from Canada I have to pay an additional $20 because the seller says his "shipping dept goofed." So now it costs me $45 ship from Canada instead of agreed upon $20...But more importantly, the Hexar shutter dial was busted and I did not realize this until 10 days later when I verified it. Seller doesnt respond to 6 emails over three days until I insult his manhood. Seller than says I broke the shutter dial. Here, we go from not responding to decent emails to blaming the buyer. Finally, the seller says he will cover 50% the repair costing $150. So now in addition to $45 ship, $1200 (Hexar RF & 50mm/2.0 Hexar), plus $150 repair Im into this sham for $1400. A real great guy. They call this "situational ethics." I call it cr-p.
__________________
M-E │ 21 asph │ 35 asph │ 75 asph

Last edited by 35mmdelux : 05-30-2009 at 15:10.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #7
Gumby
Registered User
 
Gumby is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Jenkinson View Post
Jamie, this does not sound like a theoretical scenario.

Have you been stiffed by a RFF member?

This sort of thing seems to be on the increase.
The OP indicates that this is not a theoretical siutation... it is a real-world experience. One has to read carefully through lots of philosophy and third-person references to self, i.e. "naive buyer (me)" to figure that out. The key quesiton, I think, is how long is a seller obligated to provide warrantee that the purchsed item is in the advertised condition. Seems to me that 1 month is a long time to have that expectation. It is quite expected that Jamie feels disappointed, if not "ripped off"... which is quite unfortunate.
__________________
With kind regards, ed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #8
bgb
Registered User
 
bgb is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Zealand
Age: 63
Posts: 974
I believe that as a buyer and a seller things should be described as they are or some sort of compensation made ... but not forever.
I guess a few weeks at most and after that i would be saying no way. You should have given it a good inspection when it arrived and contacted the seller ASAP, I believe you have waited to long.
I have been in the same place and it truly sucks, i was also very pi**ed off and angry... but it my MY error in trusting someone i had no reason to trust.
I have now decided on to buy online from people i trust or buy in person from people i trust ...
__________________
Brian
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #9
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,454
I don't think it's "situational ethics." I think you were ripped off. But, whether or not a seller knowingly ships faulty merchandise and keeps that a secret from the buyer is really pretty irelevant unless the buyer has recourse to some established remedy that can be enforced against the buyer. That's proven to be very, very difficult with online sales because a seller can simply ignore an unhappy buyer, short of court action or action by an involved third party like a credit card company or PayPal.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #10
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,978
There is no implied warranty with second hand goods, but at the same time there is no way to inspect the goods at the time of purchase when buying unseen. Therefore an amount of trust is involved. When I was buying stuff from evilbay 10 years ago, before they had all those buyer protection policies in place I had quite of few deals that went like as you described. Usually the seller blamed me for the damage and most often blamed the courier and then advised me to file a claim with the post office. What is still prevalent is some sellers' inability to properly distinguish "minty" from the actual "user" he is selling. I understand there is some risk in dealing with people you don't know and then not able to inspect the goods prior to purchase so I always have it in the back of my head that I won't spend more money this way then what I can comfortably lose.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #11
35mmdelux
#Represent
 
35mmdelux's Avatar
 
35mmdelux is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,225
There is no implied warranty unless the seller sells as mint or excellent condition. At this point one would expect the gear to be fully functional.
__________________
M-E │ 21 asph │ 35 asph │ 75 asph
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #12
Jerry Thirsty
Registered User
 
Jerry Thirsty is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 50
As far as a time frame for which the buyer might expect a refund, my personal expectation would be at least a week after receipt, but not more that two. If the problem existed when it arrived, IMO it's reasonable to expect that the buyer should be able to discover it in 7-14 days. It isn't reasonable to expect the seller to sit on the money for a month waiting to hear whether the buyer is satisfied or not. But the seller also needs to specify what that length of time is up-front.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #13
colyn
ישו משיח בנו של אלוהים
 
colyn's Avatar
 
colyn is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: CowTown, Texas
Age: 66
Posts: 4,462
I agree that the seller who sells knowing a problem exists should be required to refund but what about the seller who sells a 40+ year old camera that was working when he/she packaged it up and shipped?

Should the seller who gives an accurate description and ships a working camera with no faults that he/she is aware of be required to refund in full if the camera develops a problem after the buyer receives it and puts it to use??

Or what about the buyer that expects perfection from said 40+ year old camera when neither the seller or buyer knows the history of that camera??
__________________
Colyn

The Lone Star State....

Leica M2 | M3 x 2 | IIIa x 2 | IIIc | IIIf black dial | Kodak Retina IIIc | Kodak Retina IIIC |


Flickr

My website

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #14
rya
Registered User
 
rya is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 176
A famous economics paper written in 1970 by (then grad student) George Akerlof was titled "The Market for Lemons." Since then, the economist view of these situations is that when asymmetric information exists between buying and selling parties, the prices adjust to reflect this. If a used car is worth $2000 in good condition and $1000 in bad condition, but the conditions of such cars in the market is unknown to the buyer, the price will be somewhere in between. From this, I say that used car dealers are punished for selling good cars in an uncertain market and must rely on their reputation to get prices they deserve. But I would also say it is still unethical to sell a vehicle with undisclosed serious problems.

In the camera situation, I say it was obviously unethical and the camera should be returned if no terms of return were specified by the seller. He received payment for a "perfectly" working camera that was never delivered. For all you know, he sent you the wrong camera. I see the problem that you waited "too long," although if no terms were specified there can be no such thing as too long. Even if he said "no returns, period" from the start--he did not send you the described item. If he allowed a fair and certain amount of time (e.g 20 days), then your return could be refused since the camera could have broken in transit or during your first four shutter cocks.

That is just what I say.
__________________
r's camera obscura
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #15
kshapero
Starting to get it.
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 10,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35mmdelux View Post
1) the seller knew there were problems.
2) yes you should have notified seller early, but see #1.
3) I understand scenario. I bought a Hexar RF from a friend of a well know photog that posts here. First, instead of $25 shipping from Canada I have to pay an additional $20 because the seller says his "shipping dept goofed." So now it costs me $45 ship from Canada instead of agreed upon $20...But more importantly, the Hexar shutter dial was busted and I did not realize this until 10 days later when I verified it. Seller doesnt respond to 6 emails over three days until I insult his manhood. Seller than says I broke the shutter dial. Here, we go from not responding to decent emails to blaming the buyer. Finally, the seller says he will cover 50% the repair costing $150. So now in addition to $45 ship, $1200 (Hexar RF & 50mm/2.0 Hexar), plus $150 repair Im into this sham for $1400. A real great guy. They call this "situational ethics." I call it cr-p.
post his user name to protect the rest of us.
__________________
Akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #16
chris00nj
Young Luddite
 
chris00nj's Avatar
 
chris00nj is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Texas
Age: 41
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by rya View Post
A famous economics paper written in 1970 by (then grad student) George Akerlof was titled "The Market for Lemons." Since then, the economist view of these situations is that when asymmetric information exists between buying and selling parties, the prices adjust to reflect this. If a used car is worth $2000 in good condition and $1000 in bad condition, but the conditions of such cars in the market is unknown to the buyer, the price will be somewhere in between. From this, I say that used car dealers are punished for selling good cars in an uncertain market and must rely on their reputation to get prices they deserve. But I would also say it is still unethical to sell a vehicle with undisclosed serious problems.

In the camera situation, I say it was obviously unethical and the camera should be returned if no terms of return were specified by the seller. He received payment for a "perfectly" working camera that was never delivered. For all you know, he sent you the wrong camera. I see the problem that you waited "too long," although if no terms were specified there can be no such thing as too long. Even if he said "no returns, period" from the start--he did not send you the described item. If he allowed a fair and certain amount of time (e.g 20 days), then your return could be refused since the camera could have broken in transit or during your first four shutter cocks.

That is just what I say.
Indeed.

Possible lemons go for less in the camera market. On the bay, many used Leica screwmount bodies "inherited by father" go for much less when there are listed "as-is".

Now if he said, "as-is" that is the ultimate caveat emptor. If not, especially here on RFF, people should make a representation of the camera's quality. I doubt anyone selling here can claim that "they know nothing about cameras"
__________________
My Camera Family


Flickr

Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #17
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
Yes, Richard, I believe I was 'stiffed'. But I've 'let it go' now. However what I hate about this sort of thing is that it knocks one's 'trusting nature' around a bit. I've always tried to be scrupulous about things I sell here and on eBay. I think everyone should be that way. But they're not, and when I'm reminded of that, like now, I feel disappointed.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #18
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
Bill,
Thanks for the thorough reading of my post. Much appreciated. I agree with anyone here 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
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums

Last edited by Jamie Pillers : 05-31-2009 at 08:44.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #19
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
Exactly. So I wondering if anyone has figured out, or heard about, any kind of incentive that could encourage honesty in advertising? It seems like a topic well worth our society's consideration. I feel like "caveat emptor" is a trick that has been played on us... sort of the easy way out to avoid all the messiness of developing honest commerce.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #20
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
Yes... that's what happens to many of us in this situation. Its not right... having to narrow the world down to "people we trust". I'm not naive here... the world is that way and has always been that way. But the situation does get me to thinking about whether there might be some sort of incentive that could be build into the 'system' that encourages honesty. Probably not... but the idea intrigues me.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #21
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
And as I noted in my original post, PayPal is not a protection against this sort of thing when the sale occurs outside eBay.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #22
bob338
Registered User
 
bob338's Avatar
 
bob338 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sausalito, CA
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers View Post
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
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #23
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
Yeah... good advice. Just tough to take. :-/
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #24
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
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.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-30-2009   #25
Dave Wilkinson
Registered User
 
Dave Wilkinson's Avatar
 
Dave Wilkinson is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hull, Yorkshire, U.K
Posts: 2,281
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #26
Willy Elder
-
 
Willy Elder is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 20
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #27
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Wilkinson View Post
...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...
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.
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #28
colyn
ישו משיח בנו של אלוהים
 
colyn's Avatar
 
colyn is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: CowTown, Texas
Age: 66
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by wgerrard View Post
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.
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..
__________________
Colyn

The Lone Star State....

Leica M2 | M3 x 2 | IIIa x 2 | IIIc | IIIf black dial | Kodak Retina IIIc | Kodak Retina IIIC |


Flickr

My website

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #29
sjw617
Panoramist
 
sjw617 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers View Post
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.
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
__________________
Panoramist
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #30
__hh
-
 
__hh is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 790
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....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #31
oldoc
oldoc
 
oldoc's Avatar
 
oldoc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 395
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?
__________________
Michael

Leica M10P Lux 35 ASPH, Lux 50 ASPH AND Lux 75.


My Images:
www.pbase.com/meephoto
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #32
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,907
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #33
climbing_vine
-
 
climbing_vine's Avatar
 
climbing_vine is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Age: 42
Posts: 554
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".
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #34
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,907
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #35
35mmdelux
#Represent
 
35mmdelux's Avatar
 
35mmdelux is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,225
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."
__________________
M-E │ 21 asph │ 35 asph │ 75 asph
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #36
oldoc
oldoc
 
oldoc's Avatar
 
oldoc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 395
Sounds like the two of you guys need to address this by PM...this is personal, and apparently not resolved, even remotely.
__________________
Michael

Leica M10P Lux 35 ASPH, Lux 50 ASPH AND Lux 75.


My Images:
www.pbase.com/meephoto
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #37
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers View Post
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
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.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #38
oldoc
oldoc
 
oldoc's Avatar
 
oldoc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 395
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
__________________
Michael

Leica M10P Lux 35 ASPH, Lux 50 ASPH AND Lux 75.


My Images:
www.pbase.com/meephoto

Last edited by oldoc : 05-31-2009 at 06:14. Reason: typo
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #39
wgerrard
Registered User
 
wgerrard is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by colyn View Post
I had one buyer on eBay who wanted a full refund 2 years after buying the camera..
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...
__________________
Bill
-------------------------------------
This is my only legible signature.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-31-2009   #40
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
 
Disaster_Area's Avatar
 
Disaster_Area is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 880
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.
__________________
http://jbhildebrand.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:04.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.