<< <i>zoins, your examples do not really match up here to me. the product was clearly described.
it appears the seller and the buyer were both wrong. the buyer takes all the risk at an auction. the product is not defective, fake, etc..
the buyer should have researched more. i guess i perfer personal responsibility when it comes to these things. >>
The product was clearly described incorrectly.
Ebay policies require correct auction descriptions as does general commerce in the United States.
The buyer should have researched more but the onus is on the seller avoid false advertising.
Since the seller violated eBay policies, if he does not take the item back, I'm wondering if he can be NARUed. I would rather not see this but is there a risk?
just keep the money and move on. your little blurb about FS was just trying to be helpful. To me, it has nothing to do with what you were selling since FS is just some made up fantasy marketing scheme.
You have the correct date on the box listed? That was enough information for an informed buyer to decide about this whacky FS concept.
If FS did not exist, there would be no problem. Since FS is some made up concept, it should not be included in determining if something gets a return.
<< <i>If FS did not exist, there would be no problem. Since FS is some made up concept, it should not be included in determining if something gets a return. >>
If FS did not exist or the seller correctly said that the box did not qualify, the bidder would not have bid. I don't see how you can think it is irrelevant when that is the key feature many bidders look and price for.
From a marketing standpoint™, the seller didn't let the coins sell themselves, rather attempted to add value that may or may not be there after TPG encapsulation. I contend that the COINS are what should have been embellished and not a third party grading company
Excuse me Dave, but I'm trying to be as gentle as possible with your error.
™ Moral of the Story #2:
avoid selling what someone else delivers until you have it in hand.
Sadly, I cannot use it as a defense on EBAY when I make an error in the description.
"No Returns" does not mean jack, IF the item sold is not fit for the purpose for which it was sold.
I too, have an absolutely "NO REFUNDS/RETURNS" policy, and anytime - almost never - somebody complains, I do the mutual-cancellation routine, get my FVFs back, get my item back, issue a refund, block the bidder, and move on. THAT is just how EBAY works; especially if you accept PayPal.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
refund the $, sell the coins for even more money 1 year from now... dont know what you sold them for but you will probably still come out way ahead down the road
Wait a minute, did you confirm that the 1st strike was unavailable?
It would be unavailable if the buyer OPENED THE MINT SEALED BOX, right? It should be qualified if the box was still sealed from the mint (or so I thought).
<< <i>Wait a minute, did you confirm that the 1st strike was unavailable?
It would be unavailable if the buyer OPENED THE MINT SEALED BOX, right? It should be qualified if the box was still sealed from the mint (or so I thought). >>
20th Anniversary only depends on the sealed box. For First Strike, the date is important.
Seller called PCGS. Got an answer. He cannot do anything more than that.
Seller has a no return policy. That means, no returns.
Looks like buyer didn't do anything. I'm not real sure what risk there was.
I'd still like to see a link to the auction. If the box is unopened, then the buyer can do his own verification. The seller has done all that he needs to do.
Plenty of sellers will state a value of X times real market value. If the buyer then tries to sell it and can't get what the seller said it's value is, can the buyer return it? NO!
<< Would smoeone please explain how only 2 of the 3 coins in a set would qualify for the FS designation. >>
The UNC version was released in the two coin set (silver/gold) before the full SAE set, so for the UNC version to qualify it had to have been shipped within 30 days of the two coin set release date. Now, I don't really understand how the regular proof qualifies at all using that logic since the regular proof had been our for 6 months before the set was sold. >>
The proof coin in the 20th anniversary sets has a different pedigree than the ASE that came out earler, altough they are the same coin, they are labeled different.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well here is a 3 piece First Strike set on eBay so I'm pretty sure that the 2 of 3 qualifying is a bunch of hooey. Looks like its an all or none deal.
<< <i><< Would smoeone please explain how only 2 of the 3 coins in a set would qualify for the FS designation. >>
The UNC version was released in the two coin set (silver/gold) before the full SAE set, so for the UNC version to qualify it had to have been shipped within 30 days of the two coin set release date. Now, I don't really understand how the regular proof qualifies at all using that logic since the regular proof had been our for 6 months before the set was sold. >>
The proof coin in the 20th anniversary sets has a different pedigree than the ASE that came out earler, altough they are the same coin, they are labeled different.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well here is a 3 piece First Strike set on eBay so I'm pretty sure that the 2 of 3 qualifying is a bunch of hooey. Looks like its an all or none deal. >>
<< <i>First Strike designation for 3pc Silver 20th Anniversary sets:
To get the 20th Anniversary First Strike designation, the sets must come to PCGS sealed in the original government boxes they were shipped in. The box must be unopened. The shipment date on the shipping label must be October 24th or earlier to get all 3 coins 20th Anniversary First Strike, or November 11th or earlier to get the Proof and Reverse Proof 20th Anniversary First Strike. Any opened boxes or sets shipped loose out of the government boxes DO NOT qualify for First Strike except for the Reverse Proof Silver Eagle which qualifies until November 11th, 2006 >>
The First Strike guidelines are posted on PCGS's website.
Never teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig
"Well here is a 3 piece First Strike set on eBay so I'm pretty sure that the 2 of 3 qualifying is a bunch of hooey. Looks like its an all or none deal. "
/////////////////////////////////
The seller says he built that combo himself.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>I believe you can do as you wish in this case. However, if it had been my auction and the buyer opened the box then I would not accept the return, but if the buyer kept the box sealed then I would accept the return. Such are the perils of coins that become special because of a shipping date stamped on their carton. >>
<< <i>If the seller makes a false claim, it is the seller's responsibility. It's called false advertising. >>
You are coming pretty close to an accusation of fraud. People on these boards have been sued for less. You may wish to be careful before you go where "angels fear to trod."
It sounds to me that the seller acted in good faith based on an error made by a PCGS employee. Since he acted in good faith, I don't see any reason for him to accept a return. And for all you people talking about the buyer filing a "significantly not as described claim," I wish you all had a bit of experience at filing such claims. I bought a clearly broken remote control Ornithopter, filed a SNAD claim, and was rejected. Why? Because there aren't any Ornithopter experts in my area! PayPal requires an "expert" to write them a letter certifying the extent to which the item is not as described. In point of fact, the ITEM was exactly as described--it's a three piece 20th Anniversary Silver Eagle Set. It was NOT eligible for a designation granted by a third party company. That has nothing to do with the NATURE of the item that was sold. He sold an unopened 3 peice set, and that's what the buyer got.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>Do we need an "expert" to tell PayPal the item isn't as described when we can just point to a PCGS webpage? >>
With PayPal, yes, you do.
In our industry, certain designations from third-party companies make a big difference in price. It's unlikely, however, that PayPal really cares about a third party's designation. I would imagine that they are going to say "he got the coins that were advertised--okay, next case." On a like note--imagine a jury trial over the difference between an MS69 and MS70 coin. We'd really have juror's scratching their heads!
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>Well... first off, I would try to rectify the situation where both parties get what they wanted - PCGS First Strike approval. So, being that you spoke to someone at PCGS that verified this, I hope you wrote down that persons name and can pass it along to the buyer. You also may want to call PCGS again and explain the situation and get full clarification. You may be able to get it resolved that way, but if not - I'd agree that a refund is in order if you receive the item in the same condition as you shipped it to the buyer. >>
I would have to concur with this most reasonable solution!
<< <i>In our industry, certain designations from third-party companies make a big difference in price. It's unlikely, however, that PayPal really cares about a third party's designation. >>
Does anyone have experience with PayPal and similar issues? As you say, designations (including many other than First Strike) can result in big differences in price in this industry. Not only that, it is the only reason people bid on certain items in the first place.
Forget about what eBay says or PayPal says or what your legal responsibility is or what the buyer's legal responsibility is. When you get right down to it, your auction advertised something- coins that could be graded as 1st strike 20th annivesary issues- did the buyer get that or not?
Seller incorrectly listed an item, not deliberately, but clearly incorrectly. Any ethical businessman would refund the item, irregardless of what his auction terms. This is assuming the box is unopened upon return.
<< <i>Do we need an "expert" to tell PayPal the item isn't as described when we can just point to a PCGS webpage?
<< <i>the ITEM was exactly as described >>
Umm, the item was described as being eligible for PCGS First Strike and it is not. Eligibility is a characteristic of the item. >>
6 of the 9 coins definately do qualify for the 1st strike designation.I was told by a Pcgs employee that all 9 coins qualified.I did not want to mislead anyone.I was misinformed and the buyer could've easily called Pcgs before bidding and I assumed he had when he bid $ 1914.89 for the 3 sets.I am going to call Pcgs tomorrow and try to find out why I was mis-informed and am having to deal with this problem.I will probably accept the return of the sets as long as they haven't been opened.But how will I be certain that the buyer couldn't have opened them and did whatever and then resealed them.That's my delimma about accepting a return.Thanks for all your imput on this matter.
<< <i>Do we need an "expert" to tell PayPal the item isn't as described when we can just point to a PCGS webpage?
<< <i>the ITEM was exactly as described >>
Umm, the item was described as being eligible for PCGS First Strike and it is not. Eligibility is a characteristic of the item. >>
6 of the 9 coins definately do qualify for the 1st strike designation.I was told by a Pcgs employee that all 9 coins qualified.I did not want to mislead anyone.I was misinformed and the buyer could've easily called Pcgs before bidding and I assumed he had when he bid $ 1914.89 for the 3 sets.I am going to call Pcgs tomorrow and try to find out why I was mis-informed and am having to deal with this problem.I will probably accept the return of the sets as long as they haven't been opened.But how will I be certain that the buyer couldn't have opened them and did whatever and then resealed them.That's my delimma about accepting a return.Thanks for all your imput on this matter. >>
If it was the clear tape, that can be heated with a blow dryer and it lifts right off. I guess you will have to rely on the integrity of the buyer not to do so.
Never teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig
<< I put in my ad that these sets qualify for 1st strike at Pcgs. >> Since they didn't, you should give him his money back.
but yet the buyer thought he was getting a great rip probably wondering why no one else was bidding as high as he was. now his mistake for not checking the date with PCGS accurately is the reason for the return. one would think when you spend 2000 dollars you know exactly what you are doing.
i guess not in this hobby! more money then brains.
"If it was the clear tape, that can be heated with a blow dryer and it lifts right off. I guess you will have to rely on the integrity of the buyer not to do so. "
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Maybe the buyer could ship the boxes directly to PCGS. When they say they like the looks of the tape, the refund could be issued.
I would not necessarily rely solely on "buyer integrity."
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< "Since he acted in good faith, I don't see any reason for him to accept a return. "
/////////////////////////////////////////////
WOW !!!! >>
Where does the WOW!!! come in? The seller posted an easily verifiable piece of information, in good faith. It was a PCGS' employee's error, not his. If the buyer had been all gung-ho on having them graded, he should have called PCGS to verify the information. Heck, the seller ENCOURAGED potential bidders to contact PCGS (but putting their phone number in there and telling them to feel free to verify his claim).
I just don't see where the seller is obligated to accept the return. If he wants to be a nice guy, then sure, I think it would be excellent customer service for him to take the coins back, as long as the package is still unopened. But I don't see any "obligation" for him to do so.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
It makes ZERO difference to EBAY/PayPal if the seller is "acting in good faith" (which he was).
One cannot impart false/untrue info in a listing. The fact that the misinformation came from a third-party is totally irrelevant to EBAY/PayPal. The listing seller is responsible for the content of ALL listings.
People who make unintentional mistakes or have accidents are NOT acting in "bad faith." That fact does not absolve them of liability that accrues from their "good faith errors."
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< People who make unintentional mistakes or have accidents are NOT acting in "bad faith." That fact does not absolve them of liability that accrues from their "good faith errors." >>
Eh, perhaps.
It is usually better to err on the side of customer service, anyway.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
Since I have sealed boxes left, I have called PCGS customer myself last week. I still haven't decided what to do with these. I asked what the cutoff date was. He replied that if the box was shipped by 11/11/2006 that ALL the coins qualified as First Srtike and 20th Aniversary. I asked to have him recheck it because I haerd a long time ago that the date was 10/24/2006. He said that was for the gold sets. Still have those too. Now I have to decide to gamble or not. Grades seem a LOT better now than when they first came out. Might be the best time to submit.
I agree with the seller that the buyer should abide by the rules of engagement. Clearly stated NO RETURNS. End of story. I have bought coins with that stipulation as a gamble. Sometimes I won, many I lost. Isn't sending most modern coins to PCGS a gamble? How many of us partake in this ritual of submitting, waiting to "strike it rich"? Just my opinion and there will be many to agree, many more to disagree. That's what discussionos are all about, different viewpoints. Ray
You only live life once, enjoy it like it's your last day. It just MIGHT be!
The auction transaction has never been completed. It is never the buyers responsibility to ascertain what is fact and fiction in an auction description. The seller is 100% responsible for the accuracy of the auction content. The item up for auction was a 20th Anniversary SAE set with 3 coins all meeting the qualifications for PCGS First Strike Submission and that set was not delivered. The qualification status was not written as an opinion, it was written as fact and that is the difference between this case and all the other smoke screen examples being used by others to justify not accepting the return. End of story. Buyer gets to return non qualifying set regardless of a no return policy.
Anyone who sees this differently doesn't understand the uniform commercial code and ethical business practices. What this thread has shown me is that this forum is filled with ethically challenged people.
This is not about who is at fault, this is about right and wrong in a very black and white circumstance. TennesseeDave has acted in good faith with bad information provided by PCGS. He too is a victim, but it does not absolve him from his obligation to provide the buyer with a 20th Anniversary ASE set in which all three coins qualify for First Strike Submission at PCGS. That is the product he sold in the auction, and until he provides such a set he has not met his obligation to the buyer. No written terms (no return policy) can supersede the transaction being completed as agreed.
<< <i>The auction transaction has never been completed. It is never the buyers responsibility to ascertain what is fact and fiction in an auction description. The seller is 100% responsible for the accuracy of the auction content. The item up for auction was a 20th Anniversary SAE set with 3 coins all meeting the qualifications for PCGS First Strike Submission and that set was not delivered. The qualification status was not written as an opinion, it was written as fact and that is the difference between this case and all the other smoke screen examples being used by others to justify not accepting the return. End of story. Buyer gets to return non qualifying set regardless of a no return policy.
Anyone who sees this differently doesn't understand the uniform commercial code and ethical business practices. What this thread has shown me is that this forum is filled with ethically challenged people.
This is not about who is at fault, this is about right and wrong in a very black and white circumstance. TennesseeDave has acted in good faith with bad information provided by PCGS. He too is a victim, but it does not resolve him from his obligation to provide the buyer with a 20th Anniversary ASE set in which all three coins qualify for First Strike Submission at PCGS. That is the product he sold in the auction, and until he provides such a set he has not met his obligation to the buyer. No written terms (no return policy) can supersede the transaction being completed as agreed. >>
Never teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig
<< <i>What this thread has shown me is that this forum is filled with ethically challenged people >>
Ah, yes. The obligatory "if you don't agree with me, you're slime" post. >>
Sorry I offended you. Should I include you on my list of those who do not understand the Uniform Commercial Code instead? There really is no room in this transaction to side with not honoring a return. Take your pick, it will be ebay, PayPal, or his credit card company that will get his funds returned if TennesseDave does not accept the return before they step in and handle it. This one is a slam dunk.
fc, this is not about approvals. It has nothing to do with coin grades or conditions. This has to do with stated fact that all three coins qualify for First Strike Submission status at PCGS. This is not subjective. It is, or it isn't. This is the same as selling a coin as PCGS certified MS65 and sending a PCGS MS64 instead. Nothing to do with approvals.
You did not offend me. Believe me, I'm used to people who believe that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
<< <i>Take your pick, it will be ebay, PayPal, or his credit card company that will get his funds returned if TennesseDave does not accept the return >>
Credit card company? Maybe.
PayPal and eBay? No.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
Comments
<< <i>zoins, your examples do not really match up here to me.
the product was clearly described.
it appears the seller and the buyer were both wrong.
the buyer takes all the risk at an auction. the product is
not defective, fake, etc..
the buyer should have researched more. i guess i perfer personal
responsibility when it comes to these things. >>
The product was clearly described incorrectly.
Ebay policies require correct auction descriptions as does general commerce in the United States.
The buyer should have researched more but the onus is on the seller avoid false advertising.
Since the seller violated eBay policies, if he does not take the item back, I'm wondering if he can be NARUed. I would rather not see this but is there a risk?
just keep the money and move on. your little blurb about FS
was just trying to be helpful. To me, it has nothing to do with
what you were selling since FS is just some made up fantasy
marketing scheme.
You have the correct date on the box listed? That was enough
information for an informed buyer to decide about this whacky
FS concept.
If FS did not exist, there would be no problem. Since FS is some
made up concept, it should not be included in determining if
something gets a return.
<< <i>If FS did not exist, there would be no problem. Since FS is some
made up concept, it should not be included in determining if
something gets a return. >>
If FS did not exist or the seller correctly said that the box did not qualify, the bidder would not have bid. I don't see how you can think it is irrelevant when that is the key feature many bidders look and price for.
I contend that the COINS are what should have been embellished and not a third party grading company
Excuse me Dave, but I'm trying to be as gentle as possible with your error.
™
Moral of the Story #2:
avoid selling what someone else delivers until you have it in hand.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
No; I get it.
Sadly, I cannot use it as a defense on EBAY when
I make an error in the description.
"No Returns" does not mean jack, IF the item sold is
not fit for the purpose for which it was sold.
I too, have an absolutely "NO REFUNDS/RETURNS" policy,
and anytime - almost never - somebody complains, I
do the mutual-cancellation routine, get my FVFs back,
get my item back, issue a refund, block the bidder, and
move on. THAT is just how EBAY works; especially if you
accept PayPal.
It would be unavailable if the buyer OPENED THE MINT SEALED BOX, right? It should be qualified if the box was still sealed from the mint (or so I thought).
<< <i>Wait a minute, did you confirm that the 1st strike was unavailable?
It would be unavailable if the buyer OPENED THE MINT SEALED BOX, right? It should be qualified if the box was still sealed from the mint (or so I thought). >>
20th Anniversary only depends on the sealed box. For First Strike, the date is important.
Seller has a no return policy. That means, no returns.
Looks like buyer didn't do anything. I'm not real sure what risk there was.
I'd still like to see a link to the auction. If the box is unopened, then the buyer can do his own verification. The seller has done all that he needs to do.
Plenty of sellers will state a value of X times real market value. If the buyer then tries to sell it and can't get what the seller said it's value is, can the buyer return it? NO!
<< <i>Seller called PCGS. Got an answer. He cannot do anything more than that. >>
Yes he can. He can take the box back when it turns out his information was incorrect
The UNC version was released in the two coin set (silver/gold) before the full SAE set, so for the UNC version to qualify it had to have been shipped within 30 days of the two coin set release date. Now, I don't really understand how the regular proof qualifies at all using that logic since the regular proof had been our for 6 months before the set was sold. >>
The proof coin in the 20th anniversary sets has a different pedigree than the ASE that came out earler, altough they are the same coin, they are labeled different.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well here is a 3 piece First Strike set on eBay so I'm pretty sure that the 2 of 3 qualifying is a bunch of hooey. Looks like its an all or none deal.
//////////////////////////////////////////////
That theory goes out the window when PayPal is involved.
Buyers seldom have to be "right;" they just have to complain.
Buyer relied on seller's mistaken information. Seller did nothing
"wrong," but he is responsible for ANY mistakes in his listing.
<< <i><< Would smoeone please explain how only 2 of the 3 coins in a set would qualify for the FS designation. >>
The UNC version was released in the two coin set (silver/gold) before the full SAE set, so for the UNC version to qualify it had to have been shipped within 30 days of the two coin set release date. Now, I don't really understand how the regular proof qualifies at all using that logic since the regular proof had been our for 6 months before the set was sold. >>
The proof coin in the 20th anniversary sets has a different pedigree than the ASE that came out earler, altough they are the same coin, they are labeled different.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well here is a 3 piece First Strike set on eBay so I'm pretty sure that the 2 of 3 qualifying is a bunch of hooey. Looks like its an all or none deal. >>
<< <i>First Strike designation for 3pc Silver 20th Anniversary sets:
To get the 20th Anniversary First Strike designation, the sets must come to PCGS sealed in the original government boxes they were shipped in.
The box must be unopened.
The shipment date on the shipping label must be October 24th or earlier to get all 3 coins 20th Anniversary First Strike, or November 11th or earlier to get the Proof and Reverse Proof 20th Anniversary First Strike.
Any opened boxes or sets shipped loose out of the government boxes DO NOT qualify for First Strike except for the Reverse Proof Silver Eagle which qualifies until November 11th, 2006 >>
The First Strike guidelines are posted on PCGS's website.
/////////////////////////////////
The seller says he built that combo himself.
<< <i>I believe you can do as you wish in this case. However, if it had been my auction and the buyer opened the box then I would not accept the return, but if the buyer kept the box sealed then I would accept the return. Such are the perils of coins that become special because of a shipping date stamped on their carton. >>
that's what I would do, too.
<< <i>If the seller makes a false claim, it is the seller's responsibility. It's called false advertising. >>
You are coming pretty close to an accusation of fraud. People on these boards have been sued for less. You may wish to be careful before you go where "angels fear to trod."
It sounds to me that the seller acted in good faith based on an error made by a PCGS employee. Since he acted in good faith, I don't see any reason for him to accept a return. And for all you people talking about the buyer filing a "significantly not as described claim," I wish you all had a bit of experience at filing such claims. I bought a clearly broken remote control Ornithopter, filed a SNAD claim, and was rejected. Why? Because there aren't any Ornithopter experts in my area! PayPal requires an "expert" to write them a letter certifying the extent to which the item is not as described. In point of fact, the ITEM was exactly as described--it's a three piece 20th Anniversary Silver Eagle Set. It was NOT eligible for a designation granted by a third party company. That has nothing to do with the NATURE of the item that was sold. He sold an unopened 3 peice set, and that's what the buyer got.
<< <i>the ITEM was exactly as described >>
Umm, the item was described as being eligible for PCGS First Strike and it is not. Eligibility is a characteristic of the item.
<< <i>Do we need an "expert" to tell PayPal the item isn't as described when we can just point to a PCGS webpage? >>
With PayPal, yes, you do.
In our industry, certain designations from third-party companies make a big difference in price. It's unlikely, however, that PayPal really cares about a third party's designation. I would imagine that they are going to say "he got the coins that were advertised--okay, next case." On a like note--imagine a jury trial over the difference between an MS69 and MS70 coin. We'd really have juror's scratching their heads!
<< <i>Well... first off, I would try to rectify the situation where both parties get what they wanted - PCGS First Strike approval.
So, being that you spoke to someone at PCGS that verified this, I hope you wrote down that persons name and can pass it along to the buyer. You also may want to call PCGS again and explain the situation and get full clarification. You may be able to get it resolved that way, but if not - I'd agree that a refund is in order if you receive the item in the same condition as you shipped it to the buyer. >>
I would have to concur with this most reasonable solution!
J Tim
<< <i>In our industry, certain designations from third-party companies make a big difference in price. It's unlikely, however, that PayPal really cares about a third party's designation. >>
Does anyone have experience with PayPal and similar issues? As you say, designations (including many other than First Strike) can result in big differences in price in this industry. Not only that, it is the only reason people bid on certain items in the first place.
<< <i>My question is:What should I do... >>
Forget about what eBay says or PayPal says or what your legal responsibility is or what the buyer's legal responsibility is. When you get right down to it, your auction advertised something- coins that could be graded as 1st strike 20th annivesary issues- did the buyer get that or not?
Seller incorrectly listed an item, not deliberately, but clearly incorrectly. Any ethical businessman would
refund the item, irregardless of what his auction terms. This is assuming the box is unopened upon return.
Bruce
<< <i>Do we need an "expert" to tell PayPal the item isn't as described when we can just point to a PCGS webpage?
<< <i>the ITEM was exactly as described >>
Umm, the item was described as being eligible for PCGS First Strike and it is not. Eligibility is a characteristic of the item. >>
6 of the 9 coins definately do qualify for the 1st strike designation.I was told by a Pcgs employee that all 9 coins qualified.I did not want to mislead anyone.I was misinformed and the buyer could've easily called Pcgs before bidding and I assumed he had when he bid $ 1914.89 for the 3 sets.I am going to call Pcgs tomorrow and try to find out why I was mis-informed and am having to deal with this problem.I will probably accept the return of the sets as long as they haven't been opened.But how will I be certain that the buyer couldn't have opened them and did whatever and then resealed them.That's my delimma about accepting a return.Thanks for all your imput on this matter.
<< <i>
<< <i>Do we need an "expert" to tell PayPal the item isn't as described when we can just point to a PCGS webpage?
<< <i>the ITEM was exactly as described >>
Umm, the item was described as being eligible for PCGS First Strike and it is not. Eligibility is a characteristic of the item. >>
6 of the 9 coins definately do qualify for the 1st strike designation.I was told by a Pcgs employee that all 9 coins qualified.I did not want to mislead anyone.I was misinformed and the buyer could've easily called Pcgs before bidding and I assumed he had when he bid $ 1914.89 for the 3 sets.I am going to call Pcgs tomorrow and try to find out why I was mis-informed and am having to deal with this problem.I will probably accept the return of the sets as long as they haven't been opened.But how will I be certain that the buyer couldn't have opened them and did whatever and then resealed them.That's my delimma about accepting a return.Thanks for all your imput on this matter. >>
If it was the clear tape, that can be heated with a blow dryer and it lifts right off. I guess you will have to rely on the integrity of the buyer not to do so.
<< <i>I put in my ad that these sets qualify for 1st strike at Pcgs. >>
Since they didn't, you should give him his money back.
Since they didn't, you should give him his money back.
but yet the buyer thought he was getting a great rip probably
wondering why no one else was bidding as high as he was. now
his mistake for not checking the date with PCGS accurately
is the reason for the return. one would think when you spend
2000 dollars you know exactly what you are doing.
i guess not in this hobby! more money then brains.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
WOW !!!!
I guess you will have to rely on the integrity of the buyer not to do so. "
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Maybe the buyer could ship the boxes directly to
PCGS. When they say they like the looks of the
tape, the refund could be issued.
I would not necessarily rely solely on "buyer integrity."
"Since he acted in good faith, I don't see any reason for him to accept a return. "
/////////////////////////////////////////////
WOW !!!!
>>
Where does the WOW!!! come in? The seller posted an easily verifiable piece of information, in good faith. It was a PCGS' employee's error, not his. If the buyer had been all gung-ho on having them graded, he should have called PCGS to verify the information. Heck, the seller ENCOURAGED potential bidders to contact PCGS (but putting their phone number in there and telling them to feel free to verify his claim).
I just don't see where the seller is obligated to accept the return. If he wants to be a nice guy, then sure, I think it would be excellent customer service for him to take the coins back, as long as the package is still unopened. But I don't see any "obligation" for him to do so.
Do not include: Anything that is not true.
It makes ZERO difference to EBAY/PayPal if the seller
is "acting in good faith" (which he was).
One cannot impart false/untrue info in a listing. The
fact that the misinformation came from a third-party
is totally irrelevant to EBAY/PayPal. The listing seller
is responsible for the content of ALL listings.
People who make unintentional mistakes or have accidents
are NOT acting in "bad faith." That fact does not absolve
them of liability that accrues from their "good faith errors."
People who make unintentional mistakes or have accidents
are NOT acting in "bad faith." That fact does not absolve
them of liability that accrues from their "good faith errors."
>>
Eh, perhaps.
It is usually better to err on the side of customer service, anyway.
I agree with the seller that the buyer should abide by the rules of engagement. Clearly stated NO RETURNS. End of story. I have bought coins with that stipulation as a gamble. Sometimes I won, many I lost. Isn't sending most modern coins to PCGS a gamble? How many of us partake in this ritual of submitting, waiting to "strike it rich"? Just my opinion and there will be many to agree, many more to disagree. That's what discussionos are all about, different viewpoints. Ray
<< <i>the buyer's complaint does not require any action on your part. Your auction terms, as you summarized, were very, very clear. >>
////////////////////////////////////////////
Sadly, there is no such thing as a PayPal transaction
(likely funded by a credit-card) which recognizes the
concept of "no returns."
Anyone who sees this differently doesn't understand the uniform commercial code and ethical business practices. What this thread has shown me is that this forum is filled with ethically challenged people.
This is not about who is at fault, this is about right and wrong in a very black and white circumstance. TennesseeDave has acted in good faith with bad information provided by PCGS. He too is a victim, but it does not absolve him from his obligation to provide the buyer with a 20th Anniversary ASE set in which all three coins qualify for First Strike Submission at PCGS. That is the product he sold in the auction, and until he provides such a set he has not met his obligation to the buyer. No written terms (no return policy) can supersede the transaction being completed as agreed.
<< <i>What this thread has shown me is that this forum is filled with ethically challenged people >>
Ah, yes. The obligatory "if you don't agree with me, you're slime" post.
<< <i>The auction transaction has never been completed. It is never the buyers responsibility to ascertain what is fact and fiction in an auction description. The seller is 100% responsible for the accuracy of the auction content. The item up for auction was a 20th Anniversary SAE set with 3 coins all meeting the qualifications for PCGS First Strike Submission and that set was not delivered. The qualification status was not written as an opinion, it was written as fact and that is the difference between this case and all the other smoke screen examples being used by others to justify not accepting the return. End of story. Buyer gets to return non qualifying set regardless of a no return policy.
Anyone who sees this differently doesn't understand the uniform commercial code and ethical business practices. What this thread has shown me is that this forum is filled with ethically challenged people.
This is not about who is at fault, this is about right and wrong in a very black and white circumstance. TennesseeDave has acted in good faith with bad information provided by PCGS. He too is a victim, but it does not resolve him from his obligation to provide the buyer with a 20th Anniversary ASE set in which all three coins qualify for First Strike Submission at PCGS. That is the product he sold in the auction, and until he provides such a set he has not met his obligation to the buyer. No written terms (no return policy) can supersede the transaction being completed as agreed. >>
and we have old fashioned views on what "no return" means.
<< <i>
<< <i>What this thread has shown me is that this forum is filled with ethically challenged people >>
Ah, yes. The obligatory "if you don't agree with me, you're slime" post. >>
Sorry I offended you. Should I include you on my list of those who do not understand the Uniform Commercial Code instead? There really is no room in this transaction to side with not honoring a return. Take your pick, it will be ebay, PayPal, or his credit card company that will get his funds returned if TennesseDave does not accept the return before they step in and handle it. This one is a slam dunk.
<< <i>Sorry I offended you. >>
.
You did not offend me. Believe me, I'm used to people who believe that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
<< <i>Take your pick, it will be ebay, PayPal, or his credit card company that will get his funds returned if TennesseDave does not accept the return >>
Credit card company? Maybe.
PayPal and eBay? No.
<< <i>
<< <i>If it was clear that you do not take returns, then he has to bite the bullet >>
Not if the item is determined by PayPal to be not as described. >>
I would hope that paypal would wonder why the buyer would leave positive feedback, if the item was not as described.......
<< <i>
<< <i>Seller called PCGS. Got an answer. He cannot do anything more than that. >>
Yes he can. He can take the box back when it turns out his information was incorrect
Has this claim by the buyer been confirmed with PCGS???? Or do they STILL maintain that the coins ARE eligible for FS designation????
...
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5