Buyers beware!!!!

[runmikeyrun]

I used to have people like you come to my skate shop and try to return shoes that were worn, decks that were skated, etc and they would always say "well, WALMART would take it back!" You know what i'd say?

Go shop at wal-mart next time!

 

[B-string]

I feel no different towards the builder or poster. It says to me only DO NOT work around protections given or available by a transfer service or instrument. Seller should not have asked, buyer should not have agreed. Now we see the sad result. Anything else is just arm chair quarterbacking. IMHO

 

[g4string]

I used to have people like you come to my skate shop and try to return shoes that were worn, decks that were skated, etc and they would always say "well, WALMART would take it back!" You know what i'd say?

Go shop at wal-mart next time!

Cab was returned in the condition it was shipped....and shipped back out 12 hours after I took possession. How is that even the same thing your analogy is referring to?

 

[otherclef]

I don't believe he was implying anything. You were complicit in cheating Paypal out of it's rightfully due fees when you lied about the type of transaction you were involved in.

You knew you were buying merchandise from a vendor, not sending money to a family member or sending a gift to a friend. You said right up-front that you knew you were doing it to help the vendor avoid fees.

The vendor was wrong to ask you to do it. You were wrong to have done it.

This is a pretty broadly known no-no. It's also something that could and probably should have caused you pause as you were filling out the transaction information.

IMO, it's a fine community service to make this Paypal gift transaction caveat even more broadly known, but the transaction type isn't really the basis of your issue. You obviously wouldn't have cared a lick about it if you had wanted/accepted an exchange as resolution to the situation…which was your personal timing needs and how you had handled the contingencies surrounding your purchase. You miscalculated and believed there was only one solution.

^^^^^
THIS

 

[vin*tone]

IANAL, but this is the way it looks to me...

The buyer and seller entered into a contract where the buyer agrees to pay $700 and the seller agrees to deliver a new speaker cabinet of a specified model '212PL' to the buyer. The seller contracted with the delivery firm to arrange shipping, to meet the seller's obligation to the buyer to deliver the speaker. Both the buyer and the seller agreed to have another contract for transferring the money (PayPal), and both agreed to terms that have specific terms related to that transfer. In this case, the terms do not offer recourse to the buyer via PayPal.

The buyer met their obligation to submit payment. The payment agent met their obligation to deliver the funds. The seller met their obligation to arrange for shipment. So far so good.

As it turns out, the cabinet was apparently damaged during shipping. Either the seller was negligent in packing it, or the shipping company was negligent in handling it, but which of those is the case is between the seller and the shipping company. The buyer should not be burdened with dealing with this problem because it is the seller's responsibility to deliver the speaker.

Upon receipt of the cabinet, the buyer noticed that the cabinet was damaged, and contacted the seller, and even provided a photo as evidence of the damage. At this point, the buyer has met their obligation to pay, and the seller still has not delivered a speaker model '212PL' in new condition, but the original contract to exchange payment for a delivered speaker still applies. If there are explicit conditions in the contract that account for another outcome, they will be relevant, but it appears that these details were not explicitly discussed. The seller points to their website as stating there are no refunds for discounted items, but regardless of that, I don't see a reason at this point why the buyer could unilaterally end the contract.

Upon hearing that their obligation to deliver the cabinet was not yet met, it appears that he seller 1) shipped a new "upgraded" cabinet, and 2) arranged for FedEx to pick up the damaged cabinet. It also appears that the seller is taking responsibility for working with the shipping company to solve the problem of the damages. This is consistent with their obligation under the contract.

At this point, it appears that he seller is still working to meet their end of the contract. Sending an "upgraded" cabinet introduces a wrinkle, however. If the item they sent were materially different, it would no longer be sufficient to meet their obligation under the contract. In this case, however, the contract was for a particular model '212PL', and in spite of the fact that they almost certainly agreed on the lower wattage version, I don't think it voids the contract for the seller to have delivered the higher wattage version with the same model designation. If it can be shown that the contract were for a particular version, then that might be different. But based on what I saw in the email chain, I don't see any mention of a particular version, just the model number. I think the seller is still meeting their obligation under the contract with the buyer.

So given the particulars as presented so far, I don't see that the buyer has a case for why they should be allowed out of the contract, unless the seller also agrees (and the email shows that they do not).



Alternately...

Other sellers offer certain terms about refunds for items they sell. If a buyer prefers those terms, those sellers are happy to make the sale. I don't see that as relevant in this particular case.

If the buyer and seller had agreed to a different method of payment, i.e. PayPal transaction with fees, and associated rights for refunds, I think those terms would also apply to this transaction. But they didn't, so I also don't see that as relevant in this particular case.

I'd agree with this.

Having gone through the USPS insurance claim path before I can tell you that the option of having a refund "NOW" was NEVER an option. The money for the damaged item comes from the shipper's insurance company, NOT the seller. Had the seller gone through the appropriate channels you would have had to wait until the shipping company has assessed the claim, insurance company assessed the claim, insurance company paid up, THEN 6 weeks later you get a check for a refund.

The seller in this case did their darnedest to shield you from this tedious process.

 

[g4string]

I'd agree with this.

Having gone through the USPS insurance claim path before I can tell you that the option of having a refund "NOW" was NEVER an option. The money for the damaged item comes from the shipper's insurance company, NOT the seller. Had the seller gone through the appropriate channels you would have had to wait until the shipping company has assessed the claim, insurance company assessed the claim, insurance company paid up, THEN 6 weeks later you get a check for a refund.

The seller in this case did their darnedest to shield you from this tedious process.

This is where I disagree.....I would have been cool waiting for a refund until he received the original cab back. He got the cab back this week. The seller is responsible for making sure the package is properly boxed and padded....not the buyer. Why should any buyer have to wait for a claim to be settled between the shipping company and XYZ business, or any other business for that matter. If you improperly package a shipment and it is damaged due to your negligence, that is between the biz and the shipper....not the buyer. What if the shipper refuses to pay the claim because the damage was caused due to improper packaging. Is the the buyer out a refund because the manufacturer didn't get reimbursed for his damaged product. Any biz making any buyer wait 6 weeks for a refund or replacement product while a shipping claim investigation is ongoing is ridiculous.

In this case, I think the seller knew his claim with FedEx was going to be denied due to his inadequate packing job. I mean, if you were FedEx; would you reimburse the seller for his damaged merchandise after realizing how it was packed? See page one for the pack job. A refund would have meant no sale and a damaged cab for the seller....the seller looses. I think if the cab wasn't damaged and I merely didn't like the cab, I could have received a refund if I called and said and I didn't like the cab. Not fact....just a hunch.

 

[MetroBass]

Since this is full of personal opinions - I think the buyer is wrong and the seller is wrong. There, problem solved! Buy your Schroeder cabs used and avoid these problems!!!

BTW: A Schroeder 212PL is frickn fantastic sounding cab.

 

[vin*tone]

This is where I disagree.....I would have been cool waiting for a refund until he received the original cab back. He got the cab back this week. The seller is responsible for making sure the package is properly boxed and padded....not the buyer. Why should any buyer have to wait for a claim to be settled between the shipping company and XYZ business, or any other business for that matter. If you improperly package a shipment and it is damaged due to your negligence, that is between the biz and the shipper....not the buyer.

Correct. Part of the claims process is sending packing images and images of the damage to determine whether the damage is due to the shipper or the vendor. If the vendor loses then the refund comes out of their pocket. If not it is paid by the freight insurance company. The seller should not need to pay just in case their claim fails.

What if the shipper refuses to pay the claim because the damage was caused due to improper packaging. Is the the buyer out a refund because the manufacturer didn't get reimbursed for his damaged product. Any biz making any buyer wait 6 weeks for a refund or replacement product while a shipping claim investigation is ongoing is ridiculous.

Well that's how the system works. If the shipping company says it's their fault then they have to pay up. OR they should send you a replacement. This still takes time.

In this case, I think the seller knew his claim with FedEx was going to be denied due to his inadequate packing job. I mean, if you were FedEx; would you reimburse the seller for his damaged merchandise after realizing how it was packed? See page one for the pack job. A refund would have meant no sale and a damaged cab for the seller....the seller looses. I think if the cab wasn't damaged and I merely didn't like the cab, I could have received a refund if I called and said and I didn't like the cab. Not fact....just a hunch.

IME freight or insurance companies generally just "process it". The cab still would have needed to have been dropped - it would be very unlikely that they would reject the claim - but it's all beside the point. Hypothetically the decision on who pays still takes weeks.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

honestly, in today's business climate with todays economy, small businesses need to go the extra mile. There is a skill that every small business needs to master.
DE-ESCALATION.
When a customer has a problem, you don't let it turn into an argument. Give them a lollipop to make them happy. If an order is screwed up, fix it, AND send them a free t shirt. Make them happy. It's cheaper to eat what it takes to make one customer happy than pay for a week of advertising.

 

[Munjibunga]

honestly, in today's business climate with todays economy, small businesses need to go the extra mile. There is a skill that every small business needs to master.
DE-ESCALATION.
When a customer has a problem, you don't let it turn into an argument. Give them a lollipop to make them happy. If an order is screwed up, fix it, AND send them a free t shirt. Make them happy. It's cheaper to eat what it takes to make one customer happy than pay for a week of advertising.

My company did that even when we were rolling in dough. You keep clients and get good karma.

 

[Inverse Kinetix]

Don't know how relevant this is for the country you are located in but, when you buy something online in Europe, you are entitled to a full refund for any reason whatsoever.

It is a "cooling off " period.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/returning-goods-your-legal-rights/your-rights/


Perhaps there is a similar thing where you are?

 

[g4string]

Don't know how relevant this is for the country you are located in but, when you buy something online in Europe, you are entitled to a full refund for any reason whatsoever.

It is a "cooling off " period.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/returning-goods-your-legal-rights/your-rights/


Perhaps there is a similar thing where you are?

I think thought there was/is a similar law/rule governing commerce/goods shipped through the USPS that stated merchants had to offer a return policy. But since the vendor shipped FedEx, even if such a rule existed it wouldn't apply since he did not use the USPS

 

[Inverse Kinetix]

I think thought there was/is a similar law/rule governing commerce/goods shipped through the USPS that stated merchants had to offer a return policy. But since the vendor shipped FedEx, even if such a rule existed it wouldn't apply since he did not use the USPS

If it is a physical store, they must display the returns policy conspicuously, is there some kind of governmental consumer rights agency you can contact?

 

[lfmn16]

I'm wondering why you felt it appropriate to name the vendor.

Just my opinion, but I think that the whole point of this thread was to bash the seller. If the point of the thread actually was about being careful when buying equipment online, or lying to paypal about the nature of your purchase, we didn't need all of the excruciating details. The way this was done, the OP pretended to not want to name the seller, but left in enough details that it was easy to figure out and when someone else identified the seller, the OP could say it wasn't his fault. Just my opinion.

 

[NKUSigEp]

Let me get this straight...

You bought a cab for a discounted price.
Vendor asked for a no-fee form of payment which you agreed too.
Cab was shipped but arrived damaged.
Vendor acknowledged your concerns and immediately sent an upgraded cab at no extra charge to replace it AND arranged to ship the other back at no cost to you.
You complain about the service/situation.
Vendor places hold/return on upgraded cab and is waiting for everything to be returned before issuing refund.

Regardless of whether or not he has a site to order from or handles transactions by phone/email; if you don't like it, don't mess with it. I don't see where the vendor did anything wrong and actually think he went above and beyond. At some point you're going to have to take the foot out of your mouth. We all have moments like this...learn from it and next time you'll have a sweet 1000 watt cab for cheap instead of nothing and sitting around waiting for money to be refunded.

 

[NKUSigEp]

^^^^^
THIS

How was PayPal cheated? He used a money order.

 

[drpepper]

This thread is really sad. I'm sorry now that I even became involved.
If I needed a cabinet, I'd consider giving my business to Jorg. You need to read the correspondence a few times to get the jist of the whole deal.
The seller SELLS the cabinet that the OP AGREES TO BUY. Then when he gets the 212PL it has some damage. Notice that the seller said that the cabinet was definitely NOT UNPLAYABLE. The buyer could have used the cabinet to get by for the weekend and could have STILL gotten another cabinet. What I mean is, given the circumstances, if the OP would have been more polite, I'm sure the seller would have let him use it. The seller tried to duplicate the buzzing but was unable to. I really believe the seller on this one.
I don't believe the Paypal is relevent in this case. It's too cut and dry to consider Paypal. The seller did MORE than bend over backwards. The seller is also right in saying the buyer could have gotten/borrowed/rented a cab for the weekend. It wasn't the seller's fault that Fedex mishandled the cabinet. I seriously believe there was no acoustical damage.
Read the OP's post. You'll see that HE'S the one who escalated it and I mean RIGHT AWAY! The seller had no alternative to reply in kind after he went the extra TWO miles to please this buyer.
Who started this fight? The OP. This is so wrong to drag the seller under the bus this way.
It's just too sad. Shame on the OP for attempting to slander Jorg this way. Yeah, wasn't it obvious as the thread progressed that we'd put two and two together?
The OP is a hot-tempered whiner, IMO. Jorg has nothing to be ashamed of. He tried to please the customer. Why would ANYBODY say 'I don't want a better cabinet, I want my money back'? He wants his money back RIGHT NOW, even before the seller gets his merchandise back? Why is Jorg responsible for the poor planning of the OP and Fedex's rough handling? Do you mean to tell me the OP is right when clearly it was Fedex's fault? Please.
+1 to Jorg. Heck, if I was economically secure, I'd buy a cab from him just BECAUSE.

All well and good, but it's pretty lame of him to use the Paypal personal transaction. Dealing with transaction fees is part of doing business.

For most people wanting and buying a Schroeder cabinet, nothing in this scenario would have been unacceptable. Damage wasn't a reason to no longer want a Schroeder cabinet.

Strictly speaking, the OP didn't primarily want a Schroeder cabinet, he wanted a cabinet "right now."

 

[drpepper]

How was PayPal cheated? He used a money order.

It's a long thread, but this has been covered. If you read more carefully, you'll see that he did not use a money order.

 

[BurningSkies]

I've bought a cab from Jorg, and he has awesome customer service.

He even replaced both speakers sight unseen, sending them 2 day to me at no additional cost and not waiting for me to return the faulty ones (at least one of them was distorting after break-in, not upon original receipt)...no questions asked. Even did Saturday FedEx delivery to my door.

I'd have no problem recommending his work to others.

 

[Peepaleep]

And after things like this happen a few times small builders who make quality products at low prices decide that the headaches of dealing with the public are not worth the return. Ask Dan Atkinson.