Bad Trading Experience in Buy & Sell

[hongsien]

zerstorer

"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.......
Good night!
Hong Sien

 

[hongsien]

Hi roy,

Sorry, took a long time for me to write my reply to zerstorer that I missed out on your posting.

"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. He agreed and even said I could take up to a week. That was the one and only condition of the trade."

Thats what I tried to convey here that because sandmans norm was not what is followed here by most people he should have told the seller upfront what he means by 'not satisfied with the results'......

Hong Sien

 

[roygoh]

Originally posted by hongsien
Hi roy,

Sorry, took a long time for me to write my reply to zerstorer that I missed out on your posting.

"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. He agreed and even said I could take up to a week. That was the one and only condition of the trade."

Thats what I tried to convey here that because sandmans norm was not what is followed here by most people he should have told the seller upfront what he means by 'not satisfied with the results'......

Hong Sien

Yeap. Seems like both buyer and seller failed to take into consideration that the terms are way out of the usual practise, thus did make it a point to clarify it as much as possible.

So even if "not satisfied with the results" can be very broard, it is not in anyway ambiguous, if one takes that literally.

Don't lose sleep over this...

 

[Parchiao]

'As I said before, if the item is not as described then it can be refunded. That's one of them......another way of saying is that a buyer can't just ask for a refund if there was nothing wrong with the lens mechanically. I have bought lenses with faults that were stated upfront and it is then up to the buyer to accept it or not and pay accordingly. These are guidelines that any reasonable person knows implicitly here and in other countries (just check eBay). It is in fact very simple, so if the unsharpness was due to any optical or mechanical fault of the lens (only if it was not stated upfront), then sandman can have his refund.'

Subjective, depends on what was agreed. e.g. money back guarantee if not satisfied


'so putting down the seller is ok here? We are trying to find out if sandman was objective enough in his lens test and in his judgement of the lens performance. Untill then you can't just put down the seller.'

Don't put words in my mouth. There is nothing here that suggests I am putting down the seller. Don't tell me it is impled either as nothing I said suggests so.

 

[sandman]

I do not want to repeat myself too much so I'm using quotes.
Quote Parchiao:
"What I do subscribe however is that if the seller did indeed express explicitly, even if he has meant it to be something else, that suggests that the lens can be refunded if the buyer is not satisfied with it, without further elaboration, without other considerations, I do think that the buyer was correct to assume that literally, and ask for a refund, and expect to get that refund.

However, if the seller said something like, the lens produces sharp pictures, without further elaboration, and that it does in reality produces sharp pictures but only at f8 and not at f whatever to f5.6, the buyer is screwed. I would like to know if this was that representation that prompted the buyer to make that purchase. If so, I would not want to buy from that seller as I would personally deem him as misleading."

There was no other elaboration. Can ask Xu if you like.

Quote Roy:
"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. He agreed and even said I could take up to a week. That was the one and only condition of the trade."

I highlighted the part that shows that the agreement was indeed very broad in scope if the seller actually agreed to that without any additional conditions. If the seller agreed that he will take the item back and give a full refund as long as sandman is "not satisfied with the results" within a week, I believe he has to honour that and be more careful in future deals.

sandman is not requesting for a refund based on his wrong interpretation of what is the norm. He based his request on a term that has been agreed on by the seller."

I'm just glad that some people understand where I am coming from. Norm or not norm, it has been agreed to.

As for Sin's question of returning back after one year, I stated to propose a transaction, ie we both agree on terms, return after 3 days is possible, 1 year no. Will not discount the fact that many wil try to try to test this out. For your information, will not release the lens for sale to prevent this situation.

 

[ahbeng]

judging from sandman's statement, i can assume that he is a man who follow strictly to mutual agreement. however, i believe its just a little miscommunication between the 2 of them that blown up this issue. Perhaps the 2 of them can voice out again stating clearly what was the actual "special agreement" in the trade; of course without any extra spice added.

 

[hongsien]

The thing is that because sandman's norm (of returning the lens when he is not satisified with the results despite that there is nothing wrong with the lens itself) is very unusual in dealing, he should be telling the seller upfront what he means exactly, instead of relying to the other person to understand what he meant with such a broad term. Somemore, it was a term that the buyer made and not the seller, so the buyer should explain it carefully.

But what excarbated the problem is that Sandman apparently didn't know what the usual norm was (as became clear during this thread and which was the main thing I tried to convince some of us here), therefore he didn't tell the seller upfront what he meant. It is like a vicious circle.

The seller agreed on the deal as he was accepting the sale according to the normal norms. This is clear from his posting here.

I hope the two of them can be friends again after realising this? Posting threads like what Sandman did was a bit too harsh when we found out now that what he assumed was in fact an unusual norm. I think sandman should give the seller the benefit of doubt here......unless he exactly understood what Sandman meant during the deal and tried to back out later and using the usual norm as an excuse, but that we can't find out......


Parchio:
"Don't put words in my mouth. There is nothing here that suggests I am putting down the seller. Don't tell me it is impled either as nothing I said suggests so."

Sorry if you think that when I use the word 'you' that you think it refers to you (Parchio).....I did not refer specifically to you, but in a general way, lah! In this case I mean off course sandman.....read between the lines........

Hong Sien

 

[cheechee]

Cease Fire, Cease Fire. Taking Cover.

(Runs and hide under the bunker :devil: )

 

[roygoh]

Originally posted by sandman
I do not want to repeat myself too much so I'm using quotes.
......

sandman,

While you were quick to quote statements that strenghten your case for requesting a refund, I see 2 issues here. Please take note also the following points raised against you:

- you did not consider the possibility that this is a miscommunication, and put all the blame on the seller.

- you did not recognised that the terms you set for the buyer is beyond common practise, and thus did not make the effort to clarify it with the seller at the time of the deal.

- your action and remarks towards the seller is overheated and reckless.

To close this isse I suggest that you:

- Acknowledge that you are partly responsible for the current situation.

- Appologize to powerxu for your misbehaviour.

- Work with powerxu to resolve this issue. Would you accept a partial refund?

Just my suggestion. I don't see the need for any further discussion on this matter.

Thanks,

Roy

 

[sriram]

Originally posted by roygoh
Sandman's statement in his original post is:

"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. He agreed and even said I could take up to a week. That was the one and only condition of the trade."

Unless the experiment is properly controlled, the results are meaningless. If the buyer makes 3R prints at a corner drugstore lab, we might as well be shooting with a coke bottle instead of a lens. Having been through such bad experiences myself, I'd only shoot slides and examine them under a strong loupe to test a lens. Shooting negs and looking at the prints (specially 3R) doesn't tell you anything about the lens. My L lenses have given me soft and terrible prints at a local lab (I cannot conclude that I'm dissatisfied with my L lenses with such a test), but exceptional results in other situations.

So... the onus is on the buyer to conduct a properly controlled test (tripod, slides, good loupe, check all apertures, etc) before concluding that a lens is bad.

 

[glchua]

I was reading this thread with bewilderment. I let people test the lens I'm selling on the spot and let them go home and think about it. I will, however, never agree to a total stranger bringing back a lens after buying, tell me its not sharp and demand a refund (questionable testing method aside). Worst is flaming and defaming someone openly in this manner.

I totally agree with roygoh, an apology is needed here.

 

[roygoh]

Originally posted by sriram
Unless the experiment is properly controlled, the results are meaningless. If the buyer makes 3R prints at a corner drugstore lab, we might as well be shooting with a coke bottle instead of a lens. Having been through such bad experiences myself, I'd only shoot slides and examine them under a strong loupe to test a lens. Shooting negs and looking at the prints (specially 3R) doesn't tell you anything about the lens. My L lenses have given me soft and terrible prints at a local lab (I cannot conclude that I'm dissatisfied with my L lenses with such a test), but exceptional results in other situations.

So... the onus is on the buyer to conduct a properly controlled test (tripod, slides, good loupe, check all apertures, etc) before concluding that a lens is bad.

How the buyer tested the lens and concluded that he is not satisfied with it is not relevant. I do agree with you totally how one should test a lens for sharpness.

However, from the information presented here the method of testing was not specified in the deal. In fact from the information presented here the buyer don't even need to explain why he was not satisfied. It may be sharpness, it may be colour rendering, it may be contrast or it may be bokeh. As long as he is not satisfied he will return it for a refund and seems like the seller actually agreed to that.

The onus is on both the buyer and seller to fully clarify and understand the terms of the deal, especially when the terms are obviously beyond common practise.

 

[hongsien]

Originally posted by roygoh
The onus is on both the buyer and seller to fully clarify and understand the terms of the deal, especially when the terms are obviously beyond common practise.

Like I said Roy:

The (very unusual) terms were made by the buyer so the onus is on the buyer........NOT on the seller (who unfortunately understood the terms to be as usual). It is BECAUSE the terms were unusual, the one who made the terms should be very clear about it......in this case the buyer.

Hong Sien

 

[Parchiao]

I don't think that sandman should apologise to powerxu.

There is nothing to suggest that sandman is definitely in the wrong, or that powerxu has not done any wrong, and in fact, if we cannot even determine who was in the wrong, why ask sandman to apologise???

Onus on this person or that person, I don't think so. As far as I can remember, from my very rusty contract law, I don't remember anything about 'onus'. The only 'onus' that should be applied is the onus of the parties to put their agreed terms in writing, so as to protect each other in case of any disgreement that may arise later. If this is not done, and something happens, someone will loose out as it becomes a situation of my word against yours. In this case, sandman seems to have more to loose than powerxu.

As for common practise, there is a possibility in applying it in certain circumstances, as far as I can recall. But nothing that has transpired between them suggests that common practice is an element that should be considered. I don't even think that any one of us can safely derive a good definition of 'common practice' that is applied for personal transactions such as that between sandman and powerxu. What is common to you may be unusual to me.

The most important element that is of importance here is the possibility that sandman has expressed his intention that he would like to have a refund if he is not satisfied with the lens, and that powerxu agreed to it. Read 'not satisfied', and the probability of no further considerations. This is based on what sandman said. Roy has rightfully pointed this out.

powerxu said little next to nothing.

If I were sandman, I would not bother to apologise, and I think that is a right thing to point out the disagreement as a forewarning of what we should do or not do in similar circumstances, for the benefit of everybody.

 

[roygoh]

Originally posted by hongsien
Like I said Roy:

The (very unusual) terms were made by the buyer so the onus is on the buyer........NOT on the seller (who unfortunately understood the terms to be as usual). It is BECAUSE the terms were unusual, the one who made the terms should be very clear about it......in this case the buyer.

Hong Sien

hongsien, I don't see why the seller does not have any responsibility to fully understand the terms brought up by the buyer before he accepts it. Is that what you are trying to bring accross, that the seller in this case is totally not at fault for not understanding the terms? Or did I misunderstand you?

"Return for full refund if not satisfied by the results within a week" is unusual (in SIngapore) but very clear. If you were the seller wouldn't you be alarmed by such a term and not agree with it lightly? Though the buyer did not clarify the terms any further, it seems like there is enough said to raise an alarm.

Terms are agreed by both parties, so it does not matter who made the terms.

This case is tricky because it is a verbal agreement between the 2 parties and there are no records of the agreement. In the first place this should be strictly between the 2 parties and not even brought up for discussion in the open. We can all state our views but our individual verdicts are all based on what has been presented here and no one will know how accurately they represent the actual happenings except powerxu and sandman.

I still maintain my stand:
- Both buyer and seller are responsible for the miscommunication.
- From the information provided the buyer seems to have a case for requesting for a refund, no matter how much the terms agreed upon were different from normal practise.
- Sandman should have handled this dispute in a more civil manner, and he owes powerxu an appology for his actions.

On top of that, I also want to say that we have spent waaaayyyy too much time discussing about this already.

 

[fruitybix]

Originally posted by roygoh
...On top of that, I also want to say that we have spent waaaayyyy too much time discussing about this already.

TOTALLY AGREED on this one, mod.

It is amazing, but this thread has generated more than 2000 views. And everyone can see plain as day it really is a matter of communications and expectations misplaced.

Really this is like a toothache gone really sour, so let's rest?

 

[roygoh]

Originally posted by Parchiao
I don't think that sandman should apologise to powerxu.

I agree with all your post except the above.

When I suggested that sandman appologize to powerxu, I was referring to sandman's act of poisoning powerxu's selling thread and referring to powerxu as "bane of society" and "person with no integrity" in his initial post.

You can see that I do agree that sandman has the right to ask for a refund if powerxu has indeed agreed to do so if sandman is "not satisfied with the results". He does not need to appologize for asking for a refund or warning other CS members to be careful in their future deals as there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[lavenderlilz]

Originally posted by fruitybix
TOTALLY AGREED on this one, mod.

It is amazing, but this thread has generated more than 2000 views. And everyone can see plain as day it really is a matter of communications and expectations misplaced.

Really this is like a toothache gone really sour, so let's rest?

totally agree with u here! can argue & debate till the cows come home & nothing will be resolved cos we weren't there in the first place.

 

[zekai]

Originally posted by Parchiao
I don't think that sandman should apologise to powerxu.

There is nothing to suggest that sandman is definitely in the wrong, or that powerxu has not done any wrong, and in fact, if we cannot even determine who was in the wrong, why ask sandman to apologise???

Onus on this person or that person, I don't think so. As far as I can remember, from my very rusty contract law, I don't remember anything about 'onus'. The only 'onus' that should be applied is the onus of the parties to put their agreed terms in writing, so as to protect each other in case of any disgreement that may arise later. If this is not done, and something happens, someone will loose out as it becomes a situation of my word against yours. In this case, sandman seems to have more to loose than powerxu.

As for common practise, there is a possibility in applying it in certain circumstances, as far as I can recall. But nothing that has transpired between them suggests that common practice is an element that should be considered. I don't even think that any one of us can safely derive a good definition of 'common practice' that is applied for personal transactions such as that between sandman and powerxu. What is common to you may be unusual to me.

The most important element that is of importance here is the possibility that sandman has expressed his intention that he would like to have a refund if he is not satisfied with the lens, and that powerxu agreed to it. Read 'not satisfied', and the probability of no further considerations. This is based on what sandman said. Roy has rightfully pointed this out.

powerxu said little next to nothing.

If I were sandman, I would not bother to apologise, and I think that is a right thing to point out the disagreement as a forewarning of what we should do or not do in similar circumstances, for the benefit of everybody.

well he should apologised for the simple fact that he hijack powerxu other sale thread to air his unhappiness.

It was unfair and incur considerable opportunity cost for powerxu.

maybe you did not see those posts.

 

[zekai]

Originally posted by lavenderlilz
totally agree with u here! can argue & debate till the cows come home & nothing will be resolved cos we weren't there in the first place.

sometime the arguement is the fun part... slowly watch the drama unfolding. maybe new facts comes out.