Actually, it's a LOT of my business. It's my business because I PAID FOR IT. Actually, according to both eBay, Paypal and a LOT of sellers, it is more for the buyer than the seller.
Wrong. The following is directly from ebay's site: Under Federal Trade Commission Laws, and eBay and PayPal rules, the Seller is responsible for getting the item to the customer in the condition in which it was advertised. Insurance is for the protection of the Seller. Many sellers believe otherwise, but that doesn't make it untrue.
Bah, I meant to put it is more for the seller than the buyer...I just woke up not too long before I replied to this.
Either way, what you pulled from eBay's site is 100% correct:
'the Seller is responsible for getting the item to the customer in the condition in which it was advertised.'
However, if I paid for insurance, and the seller refuses to file a claim on an item that is damaged (like what happened to Michael in his transaction with Red Frog), then it is quite obvious that the seller is hiding something in most situations, like not purchasing it (if the item didn't show up that is). This was not the case in my situation necessarily, but none the less; if I pay for insurance, it better damn well be purchased. Paypal doesn't enforce this, and it's crap. I would never think about not purchasing insurance when it has been paid for; apparently other sellers don't have the same ethics or standards in this category as I do, and they should be noted as such.
Actually, you know what, I have been ATTEMPTED to be ripped off by someone with 100% feedback. It's all the same. What you are saying is that you should basically just ignore their feedback %...I think not. If someone has low feedback percentage, or several negatives, obviously the percentage of you getting ripped off or not getting your item in the same condition as stated (the 2 go hand in hand), reflects that. If you don't see the correlation there, then your logic is definitely flawed.
You're making too many blind assumptions. M.H. posited that the seller's feedback was proof of his guilt, which Bonknuts disputed. Nowhere did mal assert that feedback is useless and best ignored.
Exactly, and I was agreeing with Michael. I basically reinforced what he said. I was replying back to what Mal said about all of it though. The way he put it, makes it sound like the % does not matter.
Good point, but the thing is anyone that knows an item was working before they sent it off, would know to file if they knew it was not from a result of their packing or how the item was before hand.
My initial thought if someone said something I sold was not 100% working, would be to ask about the box or packaging I shipped the item in. If the packaging was not damaged, I would then look at what type of item it was. If it was me, and I shipped this as actually being in the condition it was stated as, and the laser showed up not working after, I would be damn sure filing a claim.
To put it bluntly here: Lasers don't die partially and act like they have been run for several hundred hours due to poor package handling at the post office.
That is exactly my point; the seller knew that he would be unable to collect on the insurance, since the package showed no signs of mishandling. This doesn't prove that the seller knew of the laser's problem beforehand, as he may blame his inadequate packing for the failure or may believe that you're lying. Whatever point you're trying to make regarding an insurance claim is pointless.
Eh, I think the only way he didn't know about the laser's problem beforehand, would be if he was naive about the whole situation, which that still doesn't excuse it. But yeah, you are probably right, the package showed no signs of mishandling, so that would be the only explanation as to why he didn't try to file. I wouldn't say my point is pointless, just given the whole circumstance it speaks for itself.
