"Richard J Kinch" wrote:

(snipped self serving rationalization of rudeness)

I am sure Mrs. Vordos appreciates your "lesson" and is eternally grateful
you have volunteered your infinite wisdom in correcting her deficiencies.
You must be a popular fellow.

Mark

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in
:

snip
I'm at a loss to understand why you
feel it's better forgotten.
snip

a few words copied from http://www.truetex.com/ebayfraud.htm

Some Principles and Tips for Dealing on eBay and in Real Life

# In life in general, do not insist on absolute justice in small matters.
In the eternal perspective, the final day of judgment will even all books.
We should always be mindful of this as we order our temporal affairs. If
instead, you harbor a hard-bitten, worldly approach, you will ultimately be
unhappy, and constantly in fear of the next mishap. Business is ultimately
a spiritual exercise.

# A hallmark of professional conduct is confidence that you will make money
in the long run, but not necessarily in any given transaction. Be willing
to accept the occasional economic loss with good cheer. Perfectionism in
such details is not a virtue, and is a severe handicap with eBay. If your
feelings of success hinge on every single transaction working out
positively, then you will will often feel unsuccessful. I do not advocate a
mindless optimism, but it always helps to keep the long-term trends in
mind, rather than the crisis of the moment.
End copy

I think this is where the man is coming from, but I could be wrong.g

Phil

On Fri, 7 May 2004 16:59:29 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:


Case closed as far as I'm concerned. One can not be prosecuted for
telling the truth, no matter how damaging it may be to the offended party.

Um, I believe the term is "harassment" and you can be prosecuted for
it. For sure you will be thrown off eBay.

I have had people e-mail about stuff I bid on- I always consider the
sender to be some kind of crank just trying to scare away other
bidders.

Your defense is weak because the seller did offer to refund your money
and you refused.
You screwed up and made a cheap lesson into an expensive one.

-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:04:13 GMT, Carl Byrns wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2004 16:59:29 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:

Case closed as far as I'm concerned. One can not be prosecuted for
telling the truth, no matter how damaging it may be to the offended party.

Um, I believe the term is "harassment" and you can be prosecuted for
it. For sure you will be thrown off eBay.

Yeah, there are laws against cyberstalking in many states. Even though
Harold may be telling the truth, following the victim around in cyberspace
and repeating the claim over and over with the intent to do the victim
commercial harm would open him up to prosecution under those laws,
or the more traditional harrassment laws.

Harold may think that this is the same as an informational picket, but
even that has strict limits as to place and manner. This is a very tricky
legal area, more lucrative to lawyers than to the parties involved. Ebay
does provide a specific forum for this sort of thing, the feedback forum,
and Harold has already exercised that. Going beyond that puts him in
dangerous waters.

I have had people e-mail about stuff I bid on- I always consider the
sender to be some kind of crank just trying to scare away other
bidders.

Ebay considers it interfering with an auction, and will kick a person
off if they find out he's doing it.

Your defense is weak because the seller did offer to refund your money
and you refused.
You screwed up and made a cheap lesson into an expensive one.

I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying
by mail order.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.
Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an
item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense
you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.

The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an
informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim.
But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to
excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have
let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on
this).

What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both
of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look
at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".

Gary

Gary Coffman writes:

I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of
buying by mail order.

But that assumes that the seller fulfilled his end of the contract,
which was to deliver what was described. If the seller misrepresented
the goods, even innocently, then the burden shifts to the seller to
correct things at the seller's expense, not the buyer.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.

Nope. "Money back guarantees" are actually NON-guarantees. While this is
the
usual voluntary practice for retail sales, the law (which is to say, the
UCC) is even more protective on the side of buyer. In the case of
non-conforming goods (the UCC term for what is alleged in this case),
the seller is required to deliver what was promised, not just to refund
money ("specific performance"). If the seller won't comply, then the
buyer may cure by buying the correct item from another source, even at a
higher price if that is what a fair market requires, and charging any
difference in cost to the seller.

You cannot contract to sell a horse, deliver a mule, and then just offer
the buyer a refund less round-trip shipping when he complains.

Normally it is expedient for all concerned to simply unwind the deal
with a return/refund when the seller is at fault, and the seller might
even have a standing offer for "buyer satisfaction" refunds. But that
doesn't relieve the seller of his contractual duty to deliver conforming
goods, not just a refund, if the buyer should so demand.

Enforcement of the UCC against a reluctant seller is expensive, however,
so I still think it prudent in this case to forget it. In a perfect
world, sellers would willingly understand and deal on these principles
and wouldn't have to be forced into compliance.

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:04:13 GMT, Carl Byrns
wrote:
On Fri, 7 May 2004 16:59:29 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:

Case closed as far as I'm concerned. One can not be prosecuted for
telling the truth, no matter how damaging it may be to the offended
party.

Um, I believe the term is "harassment" and you can be prosecuted for
it. For sure you will be thrown off eBay.

Yeah, there are laws against cyberstalking in many states. Even though
Harold may be telling the truth, following the victim around in cyberspace
and repeating the claim over and over with the intent to do the victim
commercial harm would open him up to prosecution under those laws,
or the more traditional harrassment laws.

Harold may think that this is the same as an informational picket, but
even that has strict limits as to place and manner. This is a very tricky
legal area, more lucrative to lawyers than to the parties involved. Ebay
does provide a specific forum for this sort of thing, the feedback forum,
and Harold has already exercised that. Going beyond that puts him in
dangerous waters.

I have had people e-mail about stuff I bid on- I always consider the
sender to be some kind of crank just trying to scare away other
bidders.

Ebay considers it interfering with an auction, and will kick a person
off if they find out he's doing it.

Your defense is weak because the seller did offer to refund your money
and you refused.
You screwed up and made a cheap lesson into an expensive one.

I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying
by mail order.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.
Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an
item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense
you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.

The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an
informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim.
But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to
excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have
let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on
this).

What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both
of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look
at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".

Gary

From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook? The real victim, the one that got screwed, gets screwed again by
the legal system because he tries to notify others that they are subject to
the same type of treatment?

If you're right, and you certainly may be, someone else said about this
matter, that the system is broken. It is. No one should be allowed to
advertise with false information and prevail, and that's exactly what
happened in this instance. We not only trusted their listing, but made a
specific inquiry as to the condition and were further assured that it was in
good condition. That's called fraud, folks.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the offer to refund our money was
withdrawn the moment I talked about shipping charges that would not have
occurred had they not told us lies. While we don't have that in writing
because it was by telephone, they alluded to such in the comments on eBay.
"We sealed our fate" when we challenged their right to not disclose a
repair. We were told that they had no obligation to disclose the repair,
not even when we asked. Do take note that this isn't a minor defect, it
profoundly effects the desirability of the piece. I trust you did look
at the pics.

Once the ball got rolling regards some type of settlement, the only way
they'd refund any amount of money was if we discounted the $175 we were
awarded from eBay for their misleading ad, which did nothing more than pay
for our time and travel to verify that the item was defective. The
seller's also demanded the return of the item before paying for it, stating
to the mediator that "if they found it to be in the same condition that it
was sent" they would refund the partial amount, which was less than we paid,
even discounting shipping. Please keep in mind these are the same
people that lied to us about the condition of the piece in the first
instance. If they lied about the condition when it was offered, what
reason would they have to not lie again, only now they are in possession of
the item and we have nothing to show a judge.

Frankly, I think I'm beginning to see how this thing all works. Is it
called apathy? Is it that as long as it's not one's personal problem, so
what? Is every decent individual alive willing to stand by and watch
someone else get screwed, turning a blind eye, making the victim the
perpetrator because he demands justice? Does it become a valid matter
only when it involves you? If that's how society is now, it can kiss my
ass. My principles are high enough that I don't care to be surrounded by
such individuals, and my position is not based on religion. It's called
common decency, or the golden rule.

To the person, everyone that has been advised of what these people have done
should boycott them. That would either drive them out of business, or
cause them to cease doing what they've done and make things right. At
this point, they have been rewarded for lying. Once they know and
understand it's possible, don't you think it will happen again? I don't
give a damn that they had a great record, that's exactly what got us
involved. Great feedback, no smudges. Have you wondered how many others
may have had a similar outcome but hesitated to post negative feedback to
avoid receiving negative feedback in return?

Lesson learned for Harold: Society thinks that it's OK for you to be
told lies and sold goods that are worth a fraction of the price you have
paid. Society thinks that if you voice your concern that you have been
screwed that a judge will penalize you for voicing that concern. You're
supposed to suck it up and let the perp continue screwing others. To speak
out in an attempt to warn others, you are making a mistake.

I'm sure the law applies the same principles and concepts to those that
choose to rob banks. If they insist, and persist, the banks should quit
whining about it and get used to it. After all, that's what they do. Bank
robbers should be permitted the privilege of robbing banks. To speak out
about it would be wrong, harassment of the robbers? How is it that when
Babin was pulling his tricks it was different?

Yep! It's broke!! And I'm going to test the system to see just how "broke"
it is.

Thanks for your comments, all. I appreciate hearing the various views,
which is what I asked for.

Harold

On Fri, 7 May 2004 16:42:35 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
wrote:


"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

I have attached links that will take you to two photos of the vase in
question. I apologize for how the .txt was posted. I, somehow, ended up
with all the MS crud in spite of the fact that I composed the message with
the note pad. I assume it was in how I made the attachment. I'm not very
good at this computer stuff, sort of keeps me off balance most of the time.

http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase-txt.txt
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase01.JPG
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase02.JPG

In case the text is tough to read, 01 shows the vase lit from the side with
light passing through.
The other, 02, was taken with overhead lighting.

Nothing was done to the photos or the piece to enhance or otherwise change
the image, or the repaired area Our entire argument is that the seller did
not disclose the area in question, which resulted in our bidding way beyond
the true value of the piece. Accident? Oversight? I think not. Not
when they wouldn't do what any honest dealer would and make good their screw
up. All indications are that they tried to profit through fraudulently
representing the vase. I can't imagine a judge wouldn't see it the same
way.

I welcome your comments.

Harold



Ouch! That indeed is a nasty inclusion and indeed, the seller
misrepresented the piece intentionally. That area sticks out like a
sore thumb.

Ive some small knowledge of diamond grading..and what would be a SVG
would be an industrial G diamond with it. Big big difference in
value.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying
by mail order.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.
Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an
item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense
you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.

The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an
informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim.
But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to
excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have
let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on
this).

What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both
of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look
at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".

Gary

From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a
minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought.
You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used
merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by
screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping.
Get real, Harold.

Gary

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying
by mail order.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.
Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an
item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense
you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.

The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an
informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim.
But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to
excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have
let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on
this).

What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both
of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look
at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".

Gary

From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a
minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought.
You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used
merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by
screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping.
Get real, Harold.

Gary

I'm surprised, Gary, normally you supply comment in a
knowledgeable manner, but describing the fault as a
"small cosmetic defect", certainly disqualifies you
from any credence in the collectable art world, or for
that matter most any other collectable field. Condition
is everything. Try getting top dollar for a Colt Peacemaker
with a replacement screw.
As for the case in point, as I understand it, Harold was
never offered a full refund as that would have included
shipping charges.
Reputable dealers offer full refunds including freight if
the item is "not as described".

Tom

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:


From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Harold- you keep forgetting that you were offered a refund.
Which you refused.
The instant you refused the refund offer, the balance tipped in favor
of the seller because the seller can now claim that YOU acted in bad
faith- that because YOU bid to much for the glass YOU want YOUR money
back.
EBay is an auction: "Where-is, as-is" with no refunds promised.

Again, you screwed up and made a cheap lesson into an expensive one.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the offer to refund our money was
withdrawn the moment I talked about shipping charges that would not have
occurred had they not told us lies. While we don't have that in writing
because it was by telephone, they alluded to such in the comments on eBay.

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on" -Sam Goldwyn

You have lost this battle.

-Carl

"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

snip

http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase-txt.txt
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase01.JPG
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase02.JPG

Snip

That's an awful, huge defect, and certainly kills the value of the
(otherwise gorgeous) piece. It should have been disclosed by the seller.


~Dave

"Gunner" wrote

Ouch! That indeed is a nasty inclusion and indeed, the seller
misrepresented the piece intentionally. That area sticks out like a
sore thumb.

Ive some small knowledge of diamond grading..and what would be a SVG
would be an industrial G diamond with it. Big big difference in
value.


I agree. Go for it Harold. The guy cheated you. All these keyboard
philosophers would feel the same way you do if it happened to them. Even Mr.
Kinch was ****ed off when it happened to him over the sum of $150. Look at
all the time he spent going after the crook. When it happened to you, he
tries to make it look noble and high minded by saying his only intent was to
"educate" the public about ebay fraud. Not likely.

The armchair lawyers are here in abundance, also. Most of whom take the
position of "don't do anything, you might be sued" or "you made a wrong
move, you better forget it". I would do exactly what you are trying to
do.... nail him to the wall in any way I could. Let HIM suffer the
consequences of his actions. We have become a nation of cowards, unable or
unwilling to take a stand for what is right and wrong. If more people stood
up for what they believe, willing to take risks for justice, we might HAVE
more justice for all.

Mark

P.S. This is another reason I like Gunner.... he's a stand-up kind of guy.
Won't take any crap, and does his best to do the right thing, even at great
cost to himself. His political views don't mean much to me. What he is,
does.

On Sun, 09 May 2004 08:52:57 +1200, Tom wrote:

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying
by mail order.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.
Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an
item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense
you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.

The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an
informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim.
But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to
excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have
let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on
this).

What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both
of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look
at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".

Gary

From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a
minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought.
You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used
merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by
screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping.
Get real, Harold.

Gary

I'm surprised, Gary, normally you supply comment in a
knowledgeable manner, but describing the fault as a
"small cosmetic defect", certainly disqualifies you
from any credence in the collectable art world, or for
that matter most any other collectable field. Condition
is everything. Try getting top dollar for a Colt Peacemaker
with a replacement screw.
As for the case in point, as I understand it, Harold was
never offered a full refund as that would have included
shipping charges.
Reputable dealers offer full refunds including freight if
the item is "not as described".

Tom

Or try to get a first rate price for a diamond with a chunk of coal in
it.

I agree. Gary had a brain fart.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:


From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a
fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Harold- you keep forgetting that you were offered a refund.
Which you refused.
The instant you refused the refund offer, the balance tipped in favor
of the seller because the seller can now claim that YOU acted in bad
faith- that because YOU bid to much for the glass YOU want YOUR money
back.
EBay is an auction: "Where-is, as-is" with no refunds promised.

Again, you screwed up and made a cheap lesson into an expensive one.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the offer to refund our money was
withdrawn the moment I talked about shipping charges that would not have
occurred had they not told us lies. While we don't have that in
writing
because it was by telephone, they alluded to such in the comments on
eBay.

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on" -Sam Goldwyn

You have lost this battle.

-Carl

"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

The convoluted thinking displayed by both you and Gary leave me without
words. I didn't expect much from you, Carl, but I've always looked at Gary
as being of super intelligence. So much for that idea. He may be smart
as all hell, but I question his ethics at this point.

For the two of you, this can all be rendered down to a simple thing from all
appearances:

It doesn't matter that we were told lies to encourage a higher bid, or in
our case, any bid, and it is our fault for challenging someone that told us
lies once we received the item in question. . We should have sent the item
back at a loss when it was totally their fault we are unhappy because they
refused to disclose a real condition of the item in question. I gather
that the two of you feel the seller was well within his/her rights to
misrepresent the item, and we have no basis for complaining. The seller
is under no obligation to make us whole again, it's just tough luck for us
that they chose to tell lies.

Please be sure to let us know what name you use on eBay as a seller,
assuming you sell there, so we can avoid bidding on any of your items. If
you endorse that kind of business practice, I certainly don't want to do
business with you.

As much as Kinch has voiced his opinions, I've yet to see him endorse the
dishonesty on the part of the seller the way you and Gary have. I do
appreciate his brutal honesty in the cost of pursuing the matter, and the
philosophy that it's better to cut your losses. The book's not closed on
that matter yet, but right now I see a law suit, even at great expense.
One that involves punitive damages. Maybe the judge will tell us to grow
up.

Harold

On Sat, 8 May 2004 15:32:58 -0700, "M" mark@maxmachinedotcom wrote:


"Gunner" wrote

Ouch! That indeed is a nasty inclusion and indeed, the seller
misrepresented the piece intentionally. That area sticks out like a
sore thumb.

Ive some small knowledge of diamond grading..and what would be a SVG
would be an industrial G diamond with it. Big big difference in
value.


I agree. Go for it Harold. The guy cheated you. All these keyboard
philosophers would feel the same way you do if it happened to them. Even Mr.
Kinch was ****ed off when it happened to him over the sum of $150. Look at
all the time he spent going after the crook. When it happened to you, he
tries to make it look noble and high minded by saying his only intent was to
"educate" the public about ebay fraud. Not likely.

The armchair lawyers are here in abundance, also. Most of whom take the
position of "don't do anything, you might be sued" or "you made a wrong
move, you better forget it". I would do exactly what you are trying to
do.... nail him to the wall in any way I could. Let HIM suffer the
consequences of his actions. We have become a nation of cowards, unable or
unwilling to take a stand for what is right and wrong. If more people stood
up for what they believe, willing to take risks for justice, we might HAVE
more justice for all.

Mark

P.S. This is another reason I like Gunner.... he's a stand-up kind of guy.
Won't take any crap, and does his best to do the right thing, even at great
cost to himself. His political views don't mean much to me. What he is,
does.

A couple months ago I settled with an insurance company who
represented the guy who ran into me. The litigation went on for over
three years. Their first offer would not have even paid the medical
bills up to that point. This law suit had much more at stake than your
piece of art but I still think you should pursue it. Many nasty and
untrue things were said about me, "experts" lied, etc.. But, sticking
with it and not letting them grind me down (got close tho') paid off
in the end. So stick with it Harold. Once, when sitting in small
claims court and watching the action, I saw a judge award the
plaintiff the full amount and then, without a request from the
plaiintiff, award even more for other damages incurred but not
claimed. I think it was for interest and the cost of collection and
missing time from work. Apparently this is something the judge can do
when they want. At least in WA. Maybe a trip to the library to check
out a book about small claims may give you some tools to help you. I
think NO LO PRESS may have something. Not sure if it is Nolo or No Lo.
I'm sure it comes from "No lo contrende"which means "no contest".
Anyway, I don't know latin or law but I do know persistence pays off.
Cheers,
eric

"Dave" wrote in message
...


Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

snip

http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase-txt.txt
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase01.JPG
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase02.JPG

Snip

That's an awful, huge defect, and certainly kills the value of the
(otherwise gorgeous) piece. It should have been disclosed by the seller.


~Dave

I think the thing that has been most difficult for me is the gross sadness
that Susan has had to endure at the hands of these *******s, Dave. She has
shopped literally for years to find a piece of blue Webb, and has done her
homework endlessly in order to secure a nice piece, knowing that she could
buy only one. The money is gone, there is no prospect of buying another.
She was crushed when she received the piece in question. The very first
thing she noticed was the repair. It is impossible to ignore.

We are common folks with limited funds, living in retirement, and certainly
not in the lap of luxury. She has almost no hope of ever getting a piece
for her collection now, and if we try to sell it, it is likely to fetch only
a couple hundred dollars at best. The value is not there, and we can't,
and won't, be a part of fraud in selling to someone without disclosing the
real condition.

I thank you for your understanding. You have recognized, exactly, our
point. Too bad the seller didn't have your fine standards.

Harold

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 08:52:57 +1200, Tom wrote:

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying
by mail order.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.
Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an
item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense
you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.

The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an
informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim.
But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to
excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have
let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on
this).

What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both
of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look
at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".

Gary

From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a
minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought.
You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used
merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by
screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping.
Get real, Harold.

Gary

I'm surprised, Gary, normally you supply comment in a
knowledgeable manner, but describing the fault as a
"small cosmetic defect", certainly disqualifies you
from any credence in the collectable art world, or for
that matter most any other collectable field. Condition
is everything. Try getting top dollar for a Colt Peacemaker
with a replacement screw.
As for the case in point, as I understand it, Harold was
never offered a full refund as that would have included
shipping charges.
Reputable dealers offer full refunds including freight if
the item is "not as described".

Tom

Or try to get a first rate price for a diamond with a chunk of coal in
it.

I agree. Gary had a brain fart.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Gunner
Are you saying that there should be a Home Guard, and
the Government should provide the rifle?
Because the rifle referred to in the above quote, refers
to those supplied to members of the British Home Guard
at the time, which by memory was 1941. Democracy in Europe
was being threatened by Herr Hitler & Co, at the time..

Tom

In article , Gary Coffman says...

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect

I think that art glass is done differently. If it's perfect, it's
worth something. If it has one small cosmetic defect, it's basically
a jelly glass.

The analogy would be to selling a stud horse - who shoots blanks.

Perfect in every other way - but because he cannot do what he
was sold for, he's worth his weight in - dog food.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Hi,
-
Oh, there is recourse... In various forms... as to your imagination...
and I will let it go at that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've seen guys let stuff like this eat them up. Make sure to play check
with your health.
-
I would NEVER deal with e-Bay.
-
{:{
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

-

Any lawyers on the list?
-
Group: rec.crafts.metalworking Date: Wed, May 5, 2004, 8:10am (EDT-1)
From: (John=A0Hofstad-Parkhill)
-
It would be interesting to me to see what, if any, real actions can be
taken that provide any fruits.
I had a related experience with an outfit called "cyclone motors" for my
CNC mill/drill project. I have finally received most of the equipment,
literally all that he can deliver, and have to leave it at that.
My neighbor's situation is on topic as well. He purchased some furniture
from Pinecraft here in St. Louis Park, as he and I both believe in
trying to give the local business the shot. Paid for up front. Never
delivered. This was approximately a year ago. He went to court, won a
judgement. Done deal? Hardly. This guy knows how to play. He's even been
featured on the local TV channel 5 Investigates. Another lady, with the
same sad story. He gave the same song and dance, some bull about
"minimum orders". It was never clear, even after promises on TV that he
came through for her, and definately has not come through with my good
friend & neighbor. Once the judgement was handed down, you have to fill
out forms of discovery (where does he bank?) of course it's an empty
account. He can have the sheriff's office sieze his car, but it will
cost $500 to do that, that might be recoverable. He can have the sheriff
come in and sieze the cash drawer, but how much will be in the till?
Frankly, I'd rather picket the guy.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
It just seems a shame that the real, true & clear victims have no real
recourse.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
Something is broken.
Best of luck.

In article , Carl Byrns says...

The instant you refused the refund offer, the balance tipped in favor
of the seller because the seller can now claim that YOU acted in bad
faith-

I guess I don't understand something here, and it has not
been discussed up to this point.

The seller offered a refund, and then withdrew that offer.
Wouldn't a reputable seller make that refund offer unconditionally?

Here I am *not* discussing the shipping cost issue, but rather
the idea that if a business is on the up and up, they would
make the refund offer, and stick to it. That such a refund
(minus the shipping costs) has been offered and then retracted
does not speak well of the seller. One could even imagine
that if a seller was aware of the recalcitrant nature of the
purchaser, he might deliberately offer something with the
almost certain knowledge that it would be rejected.

Who is to say that such a refund would actually be sent, if
Harold were to return the piece at his own expense? If the
seller is willing to deliberately mis-represent the item
from the outset, it might be tough to actually *get* the
refund.

I think a reputable seller at this point would say, 'look,
we're sorry you don't like it. We'll refund the purchase
price and split the shipping with you.'

All of the reputable businesses I've ever delt with via
mail or phone or internet have never retracted an offer of
refund once it was made. That's one feature of this deal
that just plain rubs me the wrong way. Either it's a
refund offer, or it isn't. But it cannot be both, no matter
what the buyer said in response. Is Harold strong willed?
Yep. Can he rub folks the wrong way? Umm, uh hum. Well
mister vendor, welcome to the world of dealing with the
public. I suspect that in absolute terms, Harold probably
rates a six or a seven in the 'problem customer' catagory.

I wonder what that seller does if he hits a nine or a ten?
'Cause with photos like those two, that's gonna happen sooner
rather than later.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Gunner wrote:
snip



I agree. Gary had a brain fart.




Gary deserves a Mulligan on this one, I'd vote.

~Dave

On Sun, 09 May 2004 11:44:23 +1200, Tom wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 08:52:57 +1200, Tom wrote:

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying
by mail order.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.
Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an
item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense
you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.

The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an
informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim.
But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to
excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have
let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on
this).

What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both
of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look
at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".

Gary

From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a
minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought.
You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used
merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by
screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping.
Get real, Harold.

Gary

I'm surprised, Gary, normally you supply comment in a
knowledgeable manner, but describing the fault as a
"small cosmetic defect", certainly disqualifies you
from any credence in the collectable art world, or for
that matter most any other collectable field. Condition
is everything. Try getting top dollar for a Colt Peacemaker
with a replacement screw.
As for the case in point, as I understand it, Harold was
never offered a full refund as that would have included
shipping charges.
Reputable dealers offer full refunds including freight if
the item is "not as described".

Tom

Or try to get a first rate price for a diamond with a chunk of coal in
it.

I agree. Gary had a brain fart.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Gunner
Are you saying that there should be a Home Guard, and
the Government should provide the rifle?
Because the rifle referred to in the above quote, refers
to those supplied to members of the British Home Guard
at the time, which by memory was 1941. Democracy in Europe
was being threatened by Herr Hitler & Co, at the time..

Tom
http://www.orwelltoday.com/orwellguns.shtml

The USA already has such. Its called the Milita

United States Code
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
SUBTITLE A - GENERAL MILITARY LAW
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


If your people cannot afford their own arms..then by all means, the
Government should supply a military grade arm.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 11:44:23 +1200, Tom wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 08:52:57 +1200, Tom wrote:

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying
by mail order.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.
Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an
item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense
you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.

The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an
informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim.
But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to
excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have
let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on
this).

What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both
of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look
at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".

Gary

From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a
minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought.
You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used
merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by
screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping.
Get real, Harold.

Gary

I'm surprised, Gary, normally you supply comment in a
knowledgeable manner, but describing the fault as a
"small cosmetic defect", certainly disqualifies you
from any credence in the collectable art world, or for
that matter most any other collectable field. Condition
is everything. Try getting top dollar for a Colt Peacemaker
with a replacement screw.
As for the case in point, as I understand it, Harold was
never offered a full refund as that would have included
shipping charges.
Reputable dealers offer full refunds including freight if
the item is "not as described".

Tom

Or try to get a first rate price for a diamond with a chunk of coal in
it.

I agree. Gary had a brain fart.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Gunner
Are you saying that there should be a Home Guard, and
the Government should provide the rifle?
Because the rifle referred to in the above quote, refers
to those supplied to members of the British Home Guard
at the time, which by memory was 1941. Democracy in Europe
was being threatened by Herr Hitler & Co, at the time..

Tom
http://www.orwelltoday.com/orwellguns.shtml

The USA already has such. Its called the Milita

United States Code
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
SUBTITLE A - GENERAL MILITARY LAW
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


If your people cannot afford their own arms..then by all means, the
Government should supply a military grade arm.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Some how I don't think GO was referring to a US type militia or
its role..
How long have National Guardspeople (PC) taken their Govt.
supplied weapons home?

Tom

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Carl Byrns
says...

The instant you refused the refund offer, the balance tipped in favor
of the seller because the seller can now claim that YOU acted in bad
faith-

I guess I don't understand something here, and it has not
been discussed up to this point.

The seller offered a refund, and then withdrew that offer.
Wouldn't a reputable seller make that refund offer unconditionally?

Here I am *not* discussing the shipping cost issue, but rather
the idea that if a business is on the up and up, they would
make the refund offer, and stick to it. That such a refund
(minus the shipping costs) has been offered and then retracted
does not speak well of the seller.

Thank you. The interval of time from the offer to refund, minus shipping,
and the denial of a refund under any circumstance, was a period of only a
few minutes. I discussed the issue of non-disclosure with Mary Dowd, the
wife of the owner, as a reason they should refund shipping, to which she
replied that she was under NO obligation to disclose the repair, which she
proudly proclaimed to be an inclusion, which was her basis of
non-disclosure. She wanted me to believe that if I wasn't happy with the
fact that it had a flaw, that was my problem, not hers. It was at that
point that the discussion turned heated and the possibility of legal action
was raised. I don't recall the ensuing comments, but within a minute,
tops, we were off the phone. Within another minute the phone rang and we
were told by Michael J. Myers that because we had upset his wife he would
not take back the item, period. In other words, if we didn't agree that
the piece was not repaired, we were unreasonable, therefore he had no
obligation to rectify a wrong. Magically, his lies were suddenly valid,
and our legal complaint of non-disclosure were his basis for retracting his
offer.

One could even imagine
that if a seller was aware of the recalcitrant nature of the
purchaser, he might deliberately offer something with the
almost certain knowledge that it would be rejected.

Who is to say that such a refund would actually be sent, if
Harold were to return the piece at his own expense? If the
seller is willing to deliberately mis-represent the item
from the outset, it might be tough to actually *get* the
refund.

These people, and I use that term loosely, have refused to talk to us.
Only when they received documents from the AG of Washington State, did the
matter go to mediation at their request, but the only terms the seller would
accept would be that we discounted the refund by $175, and we sent the item
back to them before they refunded our money. They also dictated that if
they didn't find the item to be in the same condition that it was sent, they
may or may not make the refund. That condition of the piece was of no
concern to us because the vase is in the exact same condition as when
received, but, HELLO!! How many times should we trust the word of people
that have already lied to us a couple times? How many of you would have sent
back the evidence of having been screwed, at a reduced price, to the same
liars that sent you the problem in the first place? They already accused
us of manipulating the photos in some way. Simply not true. I've
already covered that with the posting of the pics. How hard would it be for
them to say once they had the item that it was returned in a different
condition than it was sent? Sorry, these *******s are nothing more than
crooks, and I want everyone to know it. If they were not, they would have
wanted a satisfied customer. They plain didn't care as long as they got
their hands on the money.

I think a reputable seller at this point would say, 'look,
we're sorry you don't like it. We'll refund the purchase
price and split the shipping with you.'

All of the reputable businesses I've ever delt with via
mail or phone or internet have never retracted an offer of
refund once it was made. That's one feature of this deal
that just plain rubs me the wrong way. Either it's a
refund offer, or it isn't. But it cannot be both, no matter
what the buyer said in response. Is Harold strong willed?
Yep. Can he rub folks the wrong way? Umm, uh hum. Well
mister vendor, welcome to the world of dealing with the
public. I suspect that in absolute terms, Harold probably
rates a six or a seven in the 'problem customer' catagory.

Actually, our feedback, minus theirs to us, is wonderful, full of
compliments about quick payment and friendly emails. I'm only a *******
when provoked, and then I'm the worst. Susan and I have a strange
philosophy. We try to treat people the way we'd like to be treated. We
really do. I am the first to confess to being very difficult when screwed
with, however. I don't think these *******s treated us fairly. Based on
our claims, with you assuming them to be true, do you?

I wonder what that seller does if he hits a nine or a ten?
'Cause with photos like those two, that's gonna happen sooner
rather than later.

Jim

I agree.

Harold

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Garrett Fulton says...

I recently had an insurance company attempt to cheat me on a damage claim
to
my home. They wanted to pay me $700, which was unacceptable considering
the
damage, and after I'd been paying their premiums for many years with nary
a
claim.. Before I took it to small claims court, I paid $25.00 to have a
subpoena issued against the representative of the ins. company that was
located in an adjacent state. They had to hire a local lawyer to show up
in
court, after unsuccessfully attempting to "quash" the subpoena. I had
several more independent appraisals done of the damage and stayed on top
of
the situation and generally made their life miserable. ...

Great story - but I would comment that even though you did "win"
they are still your insurance company. No doubt after the dust
settled, they probably dropped your coverage. And included a
not in your file (which you could not see) to the effect that
'insured is recalcitrant and sticks up for himself. Suggest
that any other insurance company stay away from him!'

Insurance companies. Don't get me started....

Jim



No, they didn't drop me and I expected them to. But about 3 months later my
ins. agent put me with a different company. The ins. co. that tried to rip
me off lost their license to operate in my state. I don't know the
particulars. Served 'em right, to my thinking.

Garrett




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sat, 8 May 2004 15:52:50 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:


"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
.. .


For the two of you, this can all be rendered down to a simple thing from all
appearances:

It doesn't matter that we were told lies to encourage a higher bid, or in
our case, any bid, and it is our fault for challenging someone that told us
lies once we received the item in question. . We should have sent the item
back at a loss when it was totally their fault we are unhappy because they
refused to disclose a real condition of the item in question. I gather
that the two of you feel the seller was well within his/her rights to
misrepresent the item, and we have no basis for complaining.

I want you to find where exactly I (or Gary) said that. Let me save
you some time: you cannot.

The seller is under no obligation to make us whole again,
it's just tough luck for us that they chose to tell lies.

Um, no.
Your "sent the item back at a loss" statement doesn't make sense. You
said the seller offered a refund for the item, less shipping. That's
entirely fair but you didn't want just a refund, you want some kind of
vengeance.

Please be sure to let us know what name you use on eBay as a seller,

Certainly. It's industrialstrengthbargains- do read my feedback,
especially the one from the guy who accidentally sent me too much
money and how I refunded it. I do have one negative- my daughter
bought a dollhouse and the crumb who sold it tried to triple the
shipping costs, so I refused to complete the sale.

The book's not closed on that matter yet, but right now
I see a law suit, even at great expense.

I don't. It's unlikely any judge would hear such a case (I've a few
relatives who are lawyers and federal prosecutors).

In any case, only an idiot throws good money after bad.
..
One that involves punitive damages.

Oh. please- you weren't physically hurt, the seller offered to return
your money, nor were you harmed in any other way. You want to sue
someone, go get a cup of coffee from a fast-food joint.

Maybe the judge will tell us to grow
up.

See above.

Get on with life.

-Carl

"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

On Sun, 09 May 2004 04:52:57 GMT, Carl Byrns
shouted from the rooftop:

OK- I'm not real sure how that attachment happened.

Maybe I should sue somebody.

-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

Carl Byrns writes:

EBay is an auction: "Where-is, as-is" with no refunds promised.

1. No, sellers, not eBay, specify the terms of sale as regards
warranties or non-warranties.

2. The UCC still overrides the typically idiotic seller's terms.

3. Virtually every seller who sez "as is" makes express warranties in
the listing that make the "as is" disclaimer meaningless.

4. The most reputable sellers (ahem) plainly offer warranties,
satisfaction guarantees, and/or returns.

5. Paying with a credit card makes it very difficult for the seller to
evade warranties and returns.

Not many people are aware that a storefront merchant must write on the
credit card receipt "no returns" or "as is", before the customer signs,
for such terms to apply. Otherwise the merchant agreement overrides
signs posted in the store, etc. This is a great way to test out iffy
merchandise in clearance bins. The card issuers force this on merchants
because the issuers don't want people having any hesitation to using
cards to buy stuff. Same reason they never make you pay the first $50
if your card gets stolen, and why they don't allow merchants to add fees
for using a credit card.

"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 May 2004 15:52:50 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
snip----

I want you to find where exactly I (or Gary) said that. Let me save
you some time: you cannot.

Right. You simply implied it through your *pearls of wisdom*.

The seller is under no obligation to make us whole again,
it's just tough luck for us that they chose to tell lies.

Um, no.
Your "sent the item back at a loss" statement doesn't make sense. You
said the seller offered a refund for the item, less shipping. That's
entirely fair but you didn't want just a refund, you want some kind of
vengeance.

Nope. You're taking out of the issue that which fits your twisted thinking.
Did you read the part where the seller immediately retracted their offer for
refund when I talked about shipping charges based on their lack of
disclosure, even when asked specifically before we bid? That's FRAUD, carl,
fraud. I'd be willing to take you to court just as fast as I'm willing to
take those thieves to court for the same reason. They should not be
permitted to fail to disclose an item's condition, in turn driving up the
price well beyond reason, then not be held accountable. FRAUD, carl,
FRAUD. Fraud is a criminal offense.

Please be sure to let us know what name you use on eBay as a seller,

Certainly. It's industrialstrengthbargains- do read my feedback,
especially the one from the guy who accidentally sent me too much
money and how I refunded it. I do have one negative- my daughter
bought a dollhouse and the crumb who sold it tried to triple the
shipping costs, so I refused to complete the sale.

Oh, yeah, now I see. When it's you getting screwed you want a cop, but when
it's my turn, buck up, sonny, it's only money: Get a life.

Thanks, though, I'll be damned sure to avoid anything you offer, secure in
the knowledge that you have similar feelings to those that already screwed
us.

The book's not closed on that matter yet, but right now
I see a law suit, even at great expense.

I don't. It's unlikely any judge would hear such a case (I've a few
relatives who are lawyers and federal prosecutors).

I hope they have a better sense of fair play and judgment than you're
displaying. You're clearly telling me that it's fine for someone to
misrepresent an item for sale. Sorry, I think your thinking sucks.

In any case, only an idiot throws good money after bad.

That would be me!
.
One that involves punitive damages.

Oh. please- you weren't physically hurt, the seller offered to return
your money, nor were you harmed in any other way. You want to sue
someone, go get a cup of coffee from a fast-food joint.

It's plain to see why you're selling things on eBay instead of holding a
real job. One does not have to be physically harmed to collect damages.
I'm sure you must be smarter than that, but you're doing your level best to
show us you're not. I'm beginning to believe it, carl.

Oh yeah, thanks for not pursuing a life of law. With your philosophy, it
wouldn't be long before the monkeys were running the zoo.

Harold

On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:11:00 +1200, Tom wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 11:44:23 +1200, Tom wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 08:52:57 +1200, Tom wrote:

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
I have to agree here also. It is a standard industry practice for the
buyer to bear shipping costs. It is one of the accepted risks of buying
by mail order.

As long as the business offered a full refund of the purchase price,
same as they would if you hand carried the item back to their store,
they've done all that normal business practice requires them to do.
Even Saks won't reimburse you for your travel expense to return an
item. With mail order, return shipping can be likened to the expense
you incur traveling back to a normal storefront to return an item.

The seller did assert that the item was free of defects, and that's an
informal statement of warranty, so Harold does have a warranty claim.
But they aren't required to pick up Harold's incidental expenses to
excercise that claim. By refusing their offer of a refund, he may have
let them off the hook on the warranty issue too (state laws vary on
this).

What this boils down to is a shouting match between two guys, both
of whom feel the other has insulted his wife. If a judge were to look
at this case, I suspect he'd tell both parties to "grow up".

Gary

From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a
minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought.
You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used
merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by
screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping.
Get real, Harold.

Gary

I'm surprised, Gary, normally you supply comment in a
knowledgeable manner, but describing the fault as a
"small cosmetic defect", certainly disqualifies you
from any credence in the collectable art world, or for
that matter most any other collectable field. Condition
is everything. Try getting top dollar for a Colt Peacemaker
with a replacement screw.
As for the case in point, as I understand it, Harold was
never offered a full refund as that would have included
shipping charges.
Reputable dealers offer full refunds including freight if
the item is "not as described".

Tom

Or try to get a first rate price for a diamond with a chunk of coal in
it.

I agree. Gary had a brain fart.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Gunner
Are you saying that there should be a Home Guard, and
the Government should provide the rifle?
Because the rifle referred to in the above quote, refers
to those supplied to members of the British Home Guard
at the time, which by memory was 1941. Democracy in Europe
was being threatened by Herr Hitler & Co, at the time..

Tom
http://www.orwelltoday.com/orwellguns.shtml

The USA already has such. Its called the Milita

United States Code
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
SUBTITLE A - GENERAL MILITARY LAW
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


If your people cannot afford their own arms..then by all means, the
Government should supply a military grade arm.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

Some how I don't think GO was referring to a US type militia or
its role..
How long have National Guardspeople (PC) taken their Govt.
supplied weapons home?

Tom

The National Guard is not part of the Militia.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 09 May 2004 08:52:57 +1200, Tom wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a
minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought.
You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used
merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by
screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping.
Get real, Harold.

Gary

I'm surprised, Gary, normally you supply comment in a
knowledgeable manner, but describing the fault as a
"small cosmetic defect", certainly disqualifies you
from any credence in the collectable art world, or for
that matter most any other collectable field. Condition
is everything. Try getting top dollar for a Colt Peacemaker
with a replacement screw.

I don't care whether Sam Colt hand filed the screw himself,
or if it came from Ace Hardware, as long as the gun shoots
properly. But you're correct that I'm not in the business of
operating a gallery or "investing" in art. When I buy a jelly jar,
I expect it to be filled with jelly.

That aside, I've bought a lot of things by mail order, including
used items on ebay. Without being able to inspect a used item
in person before buying it, I expect to occasionally find something
that's not exactly as pictured. I'm delighted when the seller is
willing to provide a full refund in those cases. But I don't expect
him to pay the return postage any more than I'd expect Sears
to pay for my gas to drive over there and return a wrench.

Doing business by mail means the post office gets paid as
substitute for my driving to the seller's location and doing
the purchase or return in person. As such, since it is my
gas that's being saved, I expect to be the one doing the
paying. It is just a normal cost of doing business by mail.

I'll repeat what I said before. What this boils down to is a
shouting match between two guys, both of whom feel the
other has insulted his wife. They both got mad, and neither
one has the stones to back down gracefully and settle this
matter in a civilized manner.

Gary

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2004 08:52:57 +1200, Tom wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote:
On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:30:47 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote:
From this I gather that you feel that it is perfectly acceptable that
someone advertises a car for sale, shows a picture of the car before a fire,
you bid, you win, you receive a burned out car, and the seller is off the
hook?

Are you *seriously* asserting that's what happened here? You received
a product with a small cosmetic defect roughly equivalent to finding a
minor collision damage repair had been done on a used car you bought.
You were offered a full refund, which is more than most sellers of used
merchandise would do, now you totally exaggerate the situation by
screaming fraud because the seller won't also pay for return shipping.
Get real, Harold.

Gary

I'm surprised, Gary, normally you supply comment in a
knowledgeable manner, but describing the fault as a
"small cosmetic defect", certainly disqualifies you
from any credence in the collectable art world, or for
that matter most any other collectable field. Condition
is everything. Try getting top dollar for a Colt Peacemaker
with a replacement screw.

I don't care whether Sam Colt hand filed the screw himself,
or if it came from Ace Hardware, as long as the gun shoots
properly. But you're correct that I'm not in the business of
operating a gallery or "investing" in art. ...........

Gary

So your opinion in this matter is irrelevant.
Tom

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
news big snip------

I'll repeat what I said before. What this boils down to is a
shouting match between two guys, both of whom feel the
other has insulted his wife. They both got mad, and neither
one has the stones to back down gracefully and settle this
matter in a civilized manner.

Gary

Nope. Not even close. If Susan was offered the price she paid and the
cost of returning the item she'd jump on it. That would include shipping,
which was overpriced anyway. The only demand we've ever made of these
folks is to be made whole again. They are the ones that did something
stupid, not us (unless you count doing business with them). The part
you're so conveniently overlooking is that the offer to refund the money was
withdrawn, and only a reduced offer has been made since, one where we accept
less than our investment, with NO guarantee of a return of the money if they
feel we didn't return the item in the same condition in which it was
received. These people expect to have sold something and take it back at
a profit. We dealt with one woman that had screwed up on the condition of
a piece, and in spite of the fact that she was very unhappy when we called
her on the poor description, she not only refunded our purchase price, but
insisted on refunding shipping, too. We didn't even ask for it. Just
goes to show that there are honest people in the world, but you can't add
these clowns to the list. They demand their right to lie to us and not
pay a price.

You also seem to be able to overlook the fact that we ASKED if the piece
had any issues before we bid. We were not told the truth. Frankly, I'm
surprised at your inability to see the injustice in this matter. It would
be no different than if someone described a lathe to you that was shiny, and
you received one that was totally rusted, or perhaps had a bent spindle.
The defect of which we speak destroyed the value of this item, as
authenticated by someone with credentials. Had Susan known of the repair,
she wouldn't have been interested in owning the piece even at a price of a
couple hundred dollars. She tries very hard to add only pieces in good
condition to her collection. She was denied that right when these people
lied to her.

Tell me, Gary, assuming you're a dog lover, if you bought a dog that died
before you got it home, would you expect the store to warrant the purchase
in some way? If so, why? You'd have a dog, dead or alive. What
difference, if any, would it make to you? If you would not contest the
dead dog, then I can understand your position. If you would expect the
store to make right that which you may feel was a wrongdoing on their part,
then your position makes no sense. Why would your dead dog be any
different from an item that we were told had no damage when the seller knew
all along that it did have, but chose to deny it so they could fetch a high
price? They admitted to knowing of the area in question once we had it,
they just deny any responsibility for the need to inform us. FRAUD. FRAUD
is a crime.

Harold

In article , Garrett Fulton says...

Insurance companies. Don't get me started....

No, they didn't drop me and I expected them to. But about 3 months later my
ins. agent put me with a different company. The ins. co. that tried to rip
me off lost their license to operate in my state. I don't know the
particulars. Served 'em right, to my thinking.

Good agent. Those are getting rarer and rarer.
Keep them!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 09 May 2004 00:28:33 -0500, Richard J Kinch
shouted from the rooftop:

Carl Byrns writes:

EBay is an auction: "Where-is, as-is" with no refunds promised.

1. No, sellers, not eBay, specify the terms of sale as regards
warranties or non-warranties.

2. The UCC still overrides the typically idiotic seller's terms.

3. Virtually every seller who sez "as is" makes express warranties in
the listing that make the "as is" disclaimer meaningless.

4. The most reputable sellers (ahem) plainly offer warranties,
satisfaction guarantees, and/or returns.

5. Paying with a credit card makes it very difficult for the seller to
evade warranties and returns.

Not many people are aware that a storefront merchant must write on the
credit card receipt "no returns" or "as is", before the customer signs,
for such terms to apply. Otherwise the merchant agreement overrides
signs posted in the store, etc. This is a great way to test out iffy
merchandise in clearance bins. The card issuers force this on merchants
because the issuers don't want people having any hesitation to using
cards to buy stuff. Same reason they never make you pay the first $50
if your card gets stolen, and why they don't allow merchants to add fees
for using a credit card.

I believe all of the above assumes the seller has a storefront, but
"Where-is, as-is" applies to the more typical casual sale- not unlike
a garage sale.

-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

On Sun, 09 May 2004 04:33:51 -0400, Gary Coffman
shouted from the rooftop:


I'll repeat what I said before. What this boils down to is a
shouting match between two guys, both of whom feel the
other has insulted his wife. They both got mad, and neither
one has the stones to back down gracefully and settle this
matter in a civilized manner.

Give up, Gary.
Harold won't be happy until he has the sellers still-beating heart in
his hands.

-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Garrett Fulton says...

Insurance companies. Don't get me started....

No, they didn't drop me and I expected them to. But about 3 months later
my
ins. agent put me with a different company. The ins. co. that tried to
rip
me off lost their license to operate in my state. I don't know the
particulars. Served 'em right, to my thinking.

Good agent. Those are getting rarer and rarer.
Keep them!


A good agent would have switched him before, not after, they lost their
license.

On Sat, 8 May 2004 22:41:59 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
shouted from the rooftop:


"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 8 May 2004 15:52:50 -0700, "Harold & Susan Vordos"
snip----

I want you to find where exactly I (or Gary) said that. Let me save
you some time: you cannot.

Right. You simply implied it through your *pearls of wisdom*.

Calm down, Harold, or your gonna have a stroke.

Oh, yeah, now I see. When it's you getting screwed you want a cop, but when
it's my turn, buck up, sonny, it's only money: Get a life.

Unlike your reasonable approach of e-mailing the seller's potential
buyers and threatening lawsuits you can't sustain.

Thanks, though, I'll be damned sure to avoid anything you offer

Fine by me- I like doing business with reasonable people.

I don't. It's unlikely any judge would hear such a case (I've a few
relatives who are lawyers and federal prosecutors).

I hope they have a better sense of fair play and judgment than you're
displaying. You're clearly telling me that it's fine for someone to
misrepresent an item for sale. Sorry, I think your thinking sucks.

No, I'm saying no court is going to hear a case for so little money,
especailly when the players are on opposite ends of the country.
It will cost more in airlines and hotels than you will ever recover.

In any case, only an idiot throws good money after bad.

That would be me!

No doubt.
Have you even talked to an attorney instead of a NG?
No? Why not?
If you're serious, then get that checkbook out and start spending the
retirement fund. Your first non-refundable check will probably equal
the cost of the glassware.
Have fun and keep us posted on how much of a financial drain this
whole sorry mess is.

-Carl
"An honest man doesn't need a long memory"- Jesse Ventura

"Harold & Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...


Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

snip

http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase-txt.txt
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase01.JPG
http://www.metalworking.com/dropbox/Vase02.JPG

Snip

That's an awful, huge defect, and certainly kills the value of the
(otherwise gorgeous) piece. It should have been disclosed by the seller.


~Dave

I think the thing that has been most difficult for me is the gross sadness
that Susan has had to endure at the hands of these *******s, Dave. She
has
shopped literally for years to find a piece of blue Webb, and has done her
homework endlessly in order to secure a nice piece, knowing that she could
buy only one. The money is gone, there is no prospect of buying another.
She was crushed when she received the piece in question. The very first
thing she noticed was the repair. It is impossible to ignore.

We are common folks with limited funds, living in retirement, and
certainly
not in the lap of luxury. She has almost no hope of ever getting a
piece
for her collection now, and if we try to sell it, it is likely to fetch
only
a couple hundred dollars at best. The value is not there, and we can't,
and won't, be a part of fraud in selling to someone without disclosing the
real condition.

I thank you for your understanding. You have recognized, exactly, our
point. Too bad the seller didn't have your fine standards.

Harold


I once had a partner who was a lawyer... Many times he told me... "the
courts expect you to mitigate your losses"... If you go to small claims
court, I would expect the Judge to tell you... "Mr Harold, your claim should
be for $50, the amount of the freight.... you should have taken the refund,
minimized your loss to $50 and if you felt it necessary, file the claim for
that amount"....
Pat Landy