"As I've stately plainly, it doesn't matter what are the norms of trading. A gentlement's agreement is that which must be abided upon. However, we are unable to ascertain whether there was miscommunication or did such an agreement ever took place.
The way I see it is that many people are arguing based on the norms and not seeing the key point of the issue which is whether such a promise was made."
True, an agreement should be abided to, but not unlimited, there are norms to any agreements. If not, anyone can just change agreements, thats why they are called 'agreements', you agree on something, on some norms.......
The agreement that was used here were in fact not stated clearly by both.
I really believe the main issue is here that there were assumptions made by both during the deal regarding to the norms used for the deal:
The seller norm were that there will be a refund/exchange if the lens is faulty optically or mechanically, he was willing to honour that according to his post.
Sandman asked if there will be a exchange/refund if he was not happy with the lens, if it didn't meet his expectations. The point is that up sofar he made people believe that the pics were not sharp in his and his friends opinion, but this could be due to so many factors.
In Sandman's first posting he said "The prints came out and I found that the lens was not sharp enough for me." Is this an objective way of looking at sharpness? You tell me.
"I told him that I will shoot with it and if I am not satisfied with the results, will contact him for an exchange back."
In the next paragraph he said: "I was rudely shocked and insisted we had an agreement to exchange back if I am not satisfied with the results."
This can be read in two ways I think:
1. The lens is really no good,very unsharp at full aperture or even closed down, and can be obviously seen on the prints. There is an optically or mechanical reason for the lens being a bad performer.
2. Sandman has very high expectations of sharpness and this lens due to its design may not be giving that level of sharpness as expected by him (and there is nothing wrong with the lens), and he now wants a refund. Most of us here agree that the norm is that no refunds will be given for this kind of complaint.
Since sandman did not explain to us here how unsharp the lens was, and also not showing us the negatives (yet), most of us here assume that he wasn't happy with the level of sharpness of the lens, being it not a prime lens and also a cheaper design......but unsharpness not due to optical fault of the lens.
Sandman did say somewhere that:"If such a problem exists, it is a physical defect, which should be declared beforehand.", a lens can be unsharp without having any defects, there are many lenses that way, even Nikon has some of these......
In this case most of us do think that point no 2 above applies, but again until he shows us the negs..........maybe tomorrow?
I am sleepy now.......