Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Buyers beware!!!!
- Thread starter g4string
- Start date
Fair comment will33, we don't have those cabinets here so I did not make the connection. Probably best that you did post the name then, as I had come to a totally different (and erroneous/unfair) conclusion.
This is a thread that should never have been started IMO.
This is a thread that should never have been started IMO.
I got the exact opposite from it. I'd never want to do business with the unnamed vendor. To each his own I guess.
Thanks to g4string for his post and advice.
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.
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 have received cabinets shipped from said "vendor" and they were packaged just like yours, with no issues. I would most certainly buy from him again, and he tried pretty good to make it right with you before you threatened legal action.
You bought a cab right? He's in the cab business and assumed you "really" wanted the cab. He tried to send you an upgrade for a mistake that Fedex made. I really don't see your point. Having dealt with XXXX over the years, i am more than positive that cab left his shop in "new" condition.
Did you not want to spend the money in the first place?
You bought a cab right? He's in the cab business and assumed you "really" wanted the cab. He tried to send you an upgrade for a mistake that Fedex made. I really don't see your point. Having dealt with XXXX over the years, i am more than positive that cab left his shop in "new" condition.
Did you not want to spend the money in the first place?
11,295 posts on here and not one single transaction 0 feedback professional Tire Kicker and Bass Expert Huh !!!
Nah....no thanks. Me thinks I may've angered some people here already. It isn't really founded but I can feel it coming.
Look.....this thread is not a vent fest, a flame game, call out the builder, or have people pick sides on whose right/whose wrong. I never asked for anybodies opinion on how the matter was handled.....all I did was post a thread to warn the dangers of circumventing the paypal fee system. The email exchange was posted for proof of his words/my words so others can see how sticky things can get over a few bucks in fees.
Like I mentioned earlier, the last 4 transactions I have done on TB have all been fee-less transactions at the request of the sellers. I have always obliged....I got burnt this time. Never again. For those of you who dont see it my way, I dont care. My life will go on knowing that some dude behind a computer screen thinks I'm an a-hole for being firm and requesting nothing short of a refund. For others, if you read this thread and have chosen not to do biz with this particular builder, that was not my intent. Although, you are free to choose who you do biz with.....I know I will never do biz with this guy again. The point was pay the fees....sellers stop asking buyers to pay for the fees, its your responsibility to do so.
I have my personal opinion on the builder and his mode of operation, you have yours. If they are different so be it.
FWIW, the cost difference between the two cabs is $215 dollars retail, not $400. $1100 minus $885 is $215. $885 is the list-retail price of the 800w cab I intended to purchase. And keep in mind that's retail. I am certain the drivers between the two different cabs do not cost $400...let alone the $215. I just wanted to clear that up.
For those of you who think I have committed some sort of crime by defrauding paypal.....the builder solicited me 1st. Yes, as a paypal user I am to partially blame for this mess as should have just paid the fees associated with the transaction. However the seller should never ask a buyer to A) cover the fees....and B) send a non-fee payment. You're right, I should have raised a red flag when those things were asked of and I didn't. I see the non-fee payment request all of the time....and I am certain many of you have obliged and sent a non-fee payment or have requested one at some time or other. So please, stop the "criminal" act.....its a bit ridiculous. If I would have sent a money order or check I would be in the same boat. Actually I would be in a worse boat because I would have no recourse what so ever.
Like I mentioned earlier, the last 4 transactions I have done on TB have all been fee-less transactions at the request of the sellers. I have always obliged....I got burnt this time. Never again. For those of you who dont see it my way, I dont care. My life will go on knowing that some dude behind a computer screen thinks I'm an a-hole for being firm and requesting nothing short of a refund. For others, if you read this thread and have chosen not to do biz with this particular builder, that was not my intent. Although, you are free to choose who you do biz with.....I know I will never do biz with this guy again. The point was pay the fees....sellers stop asking buyers to pay for the fees, its your responsibility to do so.
I have my personal opinion on the builder and his mode of operation, you have yours. If they are different so be it.
FWIW, the cost difference between the two cabs is $215 dollars retail, not $400. $1100 minus $885 is $215. $885 is the list-retail price of the 800w cab I intended to purchase. And keep in mind that's retail. I am certain the drivers between the two different cabs do not cost $400...let alone the $215. I just wanted to clear that up.
For those of you who think I have committed some sort of crime by defrauding paypal.....the builder solicited me 1st. Yes, as a paypal user I am to partially blame for this mess as should have just paid the fees associated with the transaction. However the seller should never ask a buyer to A) cover the fees....and B) send a non-fee payment. You're right, I should have raised a red flag when those things were asked of and I didn't. I see the non-fee payment request all of the time....and I am certain many of you have obliged and sent a non-fee payment or have requested one at some time or other. So please, stop the "criminal" act.....its a bit ridiculous. If I would have sent a money order or check I would be in the same boat. Actually I would be in a worse boat because I would have no recourse what so ever.
OK, but Jorg's overall reputation seems to be good and, as I alluded previously, this seems like an outlier. If I were interested in Schroeder cabinets, I wouldn't let this post deter me. I still maintain that the best course of action would have been for Jorg to just refund the buyer's money. The OP got aggressive more quickly than I would have, but it doesn't change my opinion.
For those of you who feel as though you would never do biz with me...great!! Please do so. I have been on this board for over 10 years and have 74 documented transactions on this board.....prob another 10 or so that have never documented prior to TB's feedback system. I have prob bought and sold over $50K worth of gear on this board since I have been a member. I have had issues where gear was DOA (as a seller and buyer), not as described, etc...all of them were remedied by either a FULL refund, discount, or reimbursement for repair. This is the first transaction I have ever been involved in where a full refund was never an option.
Fair enough, but this is a singular experience and not necessarily a full picture of how he does business. In fact, of all the posts I've seen about Jorg and his cabinets, this is the only negative one I recall. I've met him and he seems like a straight-up guy. While I'm with you in general principle, I think you could have handled it differently for a more desirable outcome.
His rep. is good. Matter of fact, in the original thread I told the OP it looked like Schro was doing things right to correct the damaged cab deal and went so far as to tell the OP I thought he was whining.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I've never bought or sold a single thing on TB and may not ever, who knows. I've been able to find everything I've wanted locally, and, thanks to some folks here who are very generous with their expertise, every cab I play I designed and built myself. I'm no expert, but I do know a thing or 2.
1. Fraud is fraud, even if it's common. If you need to be told that it offers you no protection, maybe read the PayPal policy you agree to?
2. Item X is damaged in shipping, retailer's policy is items of that type are not eligible for refund, so instead he ships you a brand new Item X+1 which is the upgraded version of what you paid for. You could nitpick his communication of website design, but come on...
3. Threads like this are utter BS on every level. Making an attack against an "anonymous" retailer then dropping enough hints that he can be identified is wrong. Leaving it vague enough that people who are just skimming might think it's an entirely different vendor is doubly wrong. It's a cowardly and dishonorable act. Between throwing a fit about a retailer going above and beyond to help you (but not in the entirely unrealistic way you want) and this smear campaign you're running, I feel like your reputation is going to get a much worse hit that his will. I mean, demanding a refund because of the actions of the shipping company, then getting your panties in a wad because he offered you an entirely new cab?!?!?! Buyer's remorse masquerading as righteous indignation, pure and simple.
And I say that as a guy who's sole knowledge of Schroeder and his cabs is that I probably don't want one.
2. Item X is damaged in shipping, retailer's policy is items of that type are not eligible for refund, so instead he ships you a brand new Item X+1 which is the upgraded version of what you paid for. You could nitpick his communication of website design, but come on...
3. Threads like this are utter BS on every level. Making an attack against an "anonymous" retailer then dropping enough hints that he can be identified is wrong. Leaving it vague enough that people who are just skimming might think it's an entirely different vendor is doubly wrong. It's a cowardly and dishonorable act. Between throwing a fit about a retailer going above and beyond to help you (but not in the entirely unrealistic way you want) and this smear campaign you're running, I feel like your reputation is going to get a much worse hit that his will. I mean, demanding a refund because of the actions of the shipping company, then getting your panties in a wad because he offered you an entirely new cab?!?!?! Buyer's remorse masquerading as righteous indignation, pure and simple.
And I say that as a guy who's sole knowledge of Schroeder and his cabs is that I probably don't want one.
Someone posted a 41 page thread and I read it, thought it was crazy.
I was imagining a builder sneaking around dodging feds building amazing sounding cabs but only rewarding a select few.
I had a similar issue with a damaged active subwoofer once. I had ordered it specifically to supplement my sound system for an outside event (where bass frequencies are harder to generate). It arrived in a flawless box. But it must have been dropped because the toroid power transformer had separated from the bolt and the glue holding it in place. I fixed it myself (voiding the warranty).
Just goes to show you that "inspecting the packaging materials" isnt always sufficient. Besides, most fedex/UPS guys rush you through before you have time to inspect anyway.
I could care less about who the builder is. I think this is just a wake up call to be wary in every kind of transaction.
Just goes to show you that "inspecting the packaging materials" isnt always sufficient. Besides, most fedex/UPS guys rush you through before you have time to inspect anyway.
I could care less about who the builder is. I think this is just a wake up call to be wary in every kind of transaction.
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.
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.
