Do you think such behavior is fair and ethical?
I kept all the seller's SMS as proof.
Short Version:
- Wanted to buy a lens.
- Price settled on $480.
- Assured in writing that lens functions perfectly.
- It was spoilt. Cannot reach MFD no matter what mode.
- Seller agreed to send lens for repair, and offer discount if the lens can be repaired. - I did the gentlemanly thing and promised to honor my end of the bargain if the lens can be repaired.
- Now lens back, wants to INCREASE price to $550, let alone don’t honor promise to give discount.
- Wait nearly one month is not the problem as I wanted to walk the talk and act honorably, but seller insists it’s seller’s RIGHT to charge more and told me to go elsewhere if I thought it was unreasonable.
Do you think this is a fair way to trade, and is it ethical behaviour?
Long version:
Scenario:
Wanted to buy a 2nd hand Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro lense (non-HSM) Serial number 3003880, slight cosmetic marks on cap from a CSer at the beginning of March.
Based on seller's assurance that the lens was in perfect working condition with no focusing problems, we agreed on a price of $480.
Met up and discovered that the lens was faulty. Doesn't go to the MFD.
At this point, seller calls and consults friend (advisor) and claims that advisor says that that is the MFD.
It's not and I pointed out that manufacturer's won't mark a scale more than the MFD and can always check the specs.
On the spot I called Sigma and was told something was wrong and to send the lens in.
Before we left, I asked for discount and seller agreed to give discount once the lens comes back. I assured seller that I would honor my side of the deal if the lens can be repaired.
Fast forward: today, I receive word that lens is back. I asked what price. Seller says can't remember. I have to admit, at this point, I wanted to test the seller so I say I think it was 4+, but that before we left the meeting, seller had agreed to give a discount, plus I waited so long.
I also mentioned that the lens was already faulty, and had to be repaired, and may not be as reliable as a non-faulty one (I have to bear this risk factor). This is not an L or Gold ED lense we're talking about, but 3rd party with known QC problems.
Seller replied that since seller had to shell out money to pay for the repair, seller felt it was fair to charge me $550.
I agree on seller's point that no one forced me to wait (see, what I get for trying to be honorable! No wonder dishonor is such a big practice on CS!) and that seller can't guarantee the future condition of the lens. OK, that's fair on the part of not knowing if the lens would give problems later on therefore it's A RISK I AM TAKING ON if I get the lens.
In reply, I mentioned that the faulty lens was no fault of mine and that lens was assured to work perfectly prior to meet-up, so why should I be held ransom and be forced to pay a price INCREASE, even though it was ABSOLUTELY NO FAULT OF MINE, PLUS SELLER HAD AGREED TO EXTEND A DISCOUNT after the lens is serviced?
I then forward seller the earlier SMSs where seller stated as fact that the lens was functioning perfectly, and the SMS where the price of $480 was agreed.
Seller replies again that I am not being forced to buy, and to look for another deal if I feel it was unreasonable, but seller still had to charge more because seller had to pay for the repair.
Do you think that is fair and ethical, SELLER WANTS TO INCREASE THE PRICE because the claimed ‘perfectly functioning’ lens was actually SPOILT, had to be repaired and seller had to pay for the repair and EVEN THOUGH seller agreed to OFFER A DISCOUNT after the lens is repaired?
I may be wrong, but according to further SMSs, I get the impression seller actually thinks it's perfectly fair and seller's "RIGHT".
What do you think?
I kept all the seller's SMS as proof.
Short Version:
- Wanted to buy a lens.
- Price settled on $480.
- Assured in writing that lens functions perfectly.
- It was spoilt. Cannot reach MFD no matter what mode.
- Seller agreed to send lens for repair, and offer discount if the lens can be repaired. - I did the gentlemanly thing and promised to honor my end of the bargain if the lens can be repaired.
- Now lens back, wants to INCREASE price to $550, let alone don’t honor promise to give discount.
- Wait nearly one month is not the problem as I wanted to walk the talk and act honorably, but seller insists it’s seller’s RIGHT to charge more and told me to go elsewhere if I thought it was unreasonable.
Do you think this is a fair way to trade, and is it ethical behaviour?
Long version:
Scenario:
Wanted to buy a 2nd hand Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro lense (non-HSM) Serial number 3003880, slight cosmetic marks on cap from a CSer at the beginning of March.
Based on seller's assurance that the lens was in perfect working condition with no focusing problems, we agreed on a price of $480.
Met up and discovered that the lens was faulty. Doesn't go to the MFD.
At this point, seller calls and consults friend (advisor) and claims that advisor says that that is the MFD.
It's not and I pointed out that manufacturer's won't mark a scale more than the MFD and can always check the specs.On the spot I called Sigma and was told something was wrong and to send the lens in.
Before we left, I asked for discount and seller agreed to give discount once the lens comes back. I assured seller that I would honor my side of the deal if the lens can be repaired.
Fast forward: today, I receive word that lens is back. I asked what price. Seller says can't remember. I have to admit, at this point, I wanted to test the seller so I say I think it was 4+, but that before we left the meeting, seller had agreed to give a discount, plus I waited so long.
I also mentioned that the lens was already faulty, and had to be repaired, and may not be as reliable as a non-faulty one (I have to bear this risk factor). This is not an L or Gold ED lense we're talking about, but 3rd party with known QC problems.
Seller replied that since seller had to shell out money to pay for the repair, seller felt it was fair to charge me $550.
I agree on seller's point that no one forced me to wait (see, what I get for trying to be honorable! No wonder dishonor is such a big practice on CS!) and that seller can't guarantee the future condition of the lens. OK, that's fair on the part of not knowing if the lens would give problems later on therefore it's A RISK I AM TAKING ON if I get the lens.
In reply, I mentioned that the faulty lens was no fault of mine and that lens was assured to work perfectly prior to meet-up, so why should I be held ransom and be forced to pay a price INCREASE, even though it was ABSOLUTELY NO FAULT OF MINE, PLUS SELLER HAD AGREED TO EXTEND A DISCOUNT after the lens is serviced?
I then forward seller the earlier SMSs where seller stated as fact that the lens was functioning perfectly, and the SMS where the price of $480 was agreed.
Seller replies again that I am not being forced to buy, and to look for another deal if I feel it was unreasonable, but seller still had to charge more because seller had to pay for the repair.
Do you think that is fair and ethical, SELLER WANTS TO INCREASE THE PRICE because the claimed ‘perfectly functioning’ lens was actually SPOILT, had to be repaired and seller had to pay for the repair and EVEN THOUGH seller agreed to OFFER A DISCOUNT after the lens is repaired?
I may be wrong, but according to further SMSs, I get the impression seller actually thinks it's perfectly fair and seller's "RIGHT".
What do you think?
Last edited:
