Bad Trading Experience in Buy & Sell

[hongsien]

'exchange back' I read as an exchange with something else or it could also be a refund depending if the seller is willing to. What do YOU mean by 'exchange back' then?

As for your last question on page one, can you post it here again? Your first post is rather long, and I will try my best to give my opinion on that later tonight.

Hong Sien

 

[sandman]

So you are saying even though such conditions were agreed upon initially, due to the conditions not meeting the usual norms, they are not valid?

As for the "irregardless" thing, perhaps I should have used "whatever" instead to prevent confusion. Meaning whatever was agreed upon stands.

I do not wish to discuss such technicalities any further. Some of you get my point and some dont. I have said what I want to say and that's it. Am writing this off as a bad experience. Period.

As for the experience gained in reflection of the prevailing market sentiments, I will take note. This does not imply in anyway that I am unsure of my stand.

 

[StreetShooter]

Originally posted by powerxu

StreetShooter
I am not the guy you met. I am Nikonian not Canonian. And never use/sell Canon lens.

Oops. :embrass: :embrass: :embrass:

 

[cyrilng]

Originally posted by sandman
Cyril's post:
"So then, maybe you could have taken some test shots with a DSLR or film SLR, tell the seller you'll analyze the results FIRST to see if they are up to your expectations, THEN get back to him to close the deal. Shouldn't take more than a day but if buyer & seller are keen, I'm sure both can wait."

That's exactly what I told him and even paid him the full amount on the spot.

What I meant was, take test photos with the lens without transacting any money or taking possesion of the lens first. Then if you were unhappy with the lens, you don't even have to bother with asking for refund or contacting the seller even.

You did not answer the issue of how you determined the quality of the lens was 'not sharp enough for you' just from the express 3R prints from the nearest lab. Like someone said, it's better to judge from transparencies/slides.

Finally, would you agree to such a condition as yours if you were to sell a lens to someone?

 

[hongsien]

Originally posted by sandman
So you are saying even though such conditions were agreed upon initially, due to the conditions not meeting the usual norms, they are not valid?

As for the "irregardless" thing, perhaps I should have used "whatever" instead to prevent confusion. Meaning whatever was agreed upon stands.

I do not wish to discuss such technicalities any further. Some of you get my point and some dont. I have said what I want to say and that's it. Am writing this off as a bad experience. Period.

As for the experience gained in reflection of the prevailing market sentiments, I will take note. This does not imply in anyway that I am unsure of my stand.

I am sorry to say, but it was only YOU who thought that 'such conditions' were agreed upon. Look, you seem not to understand that people sell and buy with the understanding that items can only be returned when it is not as described. Reasons as the lens doesn't perform as you expected, while there was nothing wrong with the lens itself, is not acceptable, and this was what you experienced.

Have you specifically said that you want the lens to be returned when it does not perform as you want it, EVEN when there was nothing wrong with the lens? If you did, yes you were right. But you likely didn't, so there is no reason for you to return/refund the lens. Or as you said, exchange the lens.

Because of this not clearly stated agreement by you (an agreement that factually nobody ever does and probably will ever accept!!) we had to go into technicalties, since defining what is sharp and what not is very much subjective (as someone here also said so clearly), this was also as a result of you not posting the pics here. Why are you very technical when testing the lens, but when we start to discuss about it here you don't want to be technical about it? You stated that the lens was not sharp........that's the very reason why we had to be technical.

you said:
"Why did the whole argument become so technical? The problem lies with a broken agreement between 2 individuals to trade. Irregardless of what conditions were set..........."

The problem arose because of the different conditions set without ever discussing it. So, the seller assumes that you were following the common guidelines/conditions which I stated above and in other postings. So, it is NOT 'irregardless' as you stated....... an agreement is always closed in regard to some guidelines/conditions....there is no such thing as an agreement without conditions!!

If you don't want to discuss this any further that is your choice, but what about the sellers reputation? You have made him a great suspect of wrongdoings! You just brush that away as if nothing has happened? Just because he, and nobody here understands or agreed YOUR set of rules when closing a deal? When somebody has done you wrong in your eyes, it is all right to put postings about this person telling how bad that guy is and so on, but when people start to question your side of the agreement you start to back out. That's not very nice of you. I can say that 99% of the people buying and selling here and worldwide will not exchange/refund for the reason you used.

You still haven't told us if the 'unsharpness' was due to the lens optically faulty or not?

Hong Sien

 

[liuhao]

wait. let's stop blaming sandman for a moment and hear what seller says. yes i know that so called "mutual agreement" is a bit too much but as far as seller agrees with it maybe for the reason of promoting sells or whatever, it should be followed.

let stop guessing and listen to what seller says. okie?

 

[Parchiao]

After reading this thread, all I can say is that there are two people out there who have been screwed.

One stuck with a Tokina 20-35mm lens, now trying to sell it off after declaring that it is a 'screwed up' lens.

The other tring to sell something else on clubsnap, whose real name is very well known and documented, and in all likelihood be approached with suspicion, be there none whatsoever, that the items on sale are possibly 'screwed up'.

Tell us sandman and powerxu, did any of you expressed out in explicit terms or similar words that 'the lens is sharp' like some form of guarantee or I/you have a 'refund if the lens test is not satisfactory'?

 

[hongsien]

Hello Liuhao,

How do you interpret pics sharpness not meeting his expectations? Have you seen the pics yourself? We are not entirely guessing, but since there is no pic of the lens test results (although it should be taken correctly), we have to go on his statements here that the lens didn't perform as he expects it.

The thing is that the seller agreed on something that was not a common agreement in the first place (and was not specified to him because he was assuming anagreement on common grounds) and should not be blamed for (if there was nothing wrong with the lens). It is just unfair to expect things from someone that nobody else will ever do.......

Btw, it is the buyer that wants to back out of this discussion.......

Hong Sien

 

[Zerstorer]

Originally posted by hongsien
Hello Liuhao,

How do you interpret pics sharpness not meeting his expectations? Have you seen the pics yourself? We are not entirely guessing, but since there is no pic of the lens test results (although it should be taken correctly), we have to go on his statements here that the lens didn't perform as he expects it.

The thing is that the seller agreed on something that was not a common agreement in the first place (and was not specified to him because he was assuming anagreement on common grounds) and should not be blamed for (if there was nothing wrong with the lens). It is just unfair to expect things from someone that nobody else will ever do.......

Btw, it is the buyer that wants to back out of this discussion.......

Hong Sien

In spite of whatever trading norms, this is simply an issue of a mutual buyer-seller agreement. Whatever transpired between the 2 of them can never be known so I don't think anyone should start being judgemental about it.

In my opinion, this is between the 2 of them and there is little need to debate on acceptable norms which should be pretty known to all.

 

[Parchiao]

'In my opinion, this is between the 2 of them and there is little need to debate on acceptable norms which should be pretty known to all.'

I like to contribute to this sentence. The last part on acceptable norms should not be known to all, in fact, it should be unclear unless there was some prior dealings between them that had similar norms of transacting!

From what I have read, it seems that the important questions have not been answered.

Now for the OT part.

powerxu mentioned that he tested the lens at f8 and mentioned that it was difficult to differentiate between what he got from it and what he got from his Nikkor. I beg to differ on what he is suggesting. The true test of lens should not be done only at one aperture, but along the range of apertures. Most lens are at their sharpest at f8 and I will be damned you can make any reasonable conclusions with just this aperture.

 

[hongsien]

Sorry to sound judgemental here, but this was quite a very serious posting where someone was made out to be a very bad guy. Yes, this was something between the two of them, untill it was put into the open here............

I don't agree that we don't know all the points between the two:

"That was the one and only condition of the trade."
Here (first posting) Sandman states what the agreement was about, that he could exchange it back if he wasn't satisfied with the results. Nothing else was apparently talked on.

The point is that here two people were dealing with each other with different agreements, one assuming that the deal was closed on common norms, while the other had his own norms, norms that was not what most people would follow, without being told about.

Unless Sandman shows the pics, I can only follow what he wrote in his first posting and others.

"The last part on acceptable norms should not be known to all, in fact, it should be unclear unless there was some prior dealings between them that had similar norms of transacting!"

Are you meaning that people should deal with each other without having an idea of the conditions? That's a difficult way of dealing you are proposing ........unless I didn't catch what you meant?

Hong Sien

 

[zekai]

with his logic, even a contract drafted by lawyer will not help.

you say we are techical?

i wonder how a many pages contract will be drafted for your next 2nd hand purchase.

 

[Parchiao]

"The last part on acceptable norms should not be known to all, in fact, it should be unclear unless there was some prior dealings between them that had similar norms of transacting!"

"Are you meaning that people should deal with each other without having an idea of the conditions? That's a difficult way of dealing you are proposing ........unless I didn't catch what you meant?"

Not that. Safely speaking, if you have regular transactions with someone else, and you continue to do so with the same implied rules, or with rules that you have implicitly or explictly communicated and built up with each other over time to reach a common understanding, you will at least have something that what we can say 'acceptable norms'. There cannot possibly be any thing that comes close to 'acceptable norms' when there is no common understanding about the rules of engagement, in this case, a simple buy and sell agreement between two people, who have never met before this!

I read about some people implying that there are implied rules to making private transactions, but I don't subscribe to this, not at all. If there is such a rule, would someone tell me what it is and where does it say that such a rule is part and parcel of our society?

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.

So what can we do when we make such transactions at such personal terms? Depending on the circumstances, nothing at all. But the magic stone is something else as it tantramounts to cheat.

Only sandman and powerxu knows what transpired, but I don't see them explcitly making representaions of what happened, hints of the exact words or words close to that said between them.

In any case, these are just my opinions. I thought of contributing something as I saw others putting down sandman, which I thought to be unusual.

 

[Zerstorer]

Agree with you on all points.

 

[Sin]

Originally posted by sandman

The lens is now up for grabs. I do not want to be reminded of such a bane to society. Different people have different needs, if this lens is sufficient for your use, propose a transaction.

So now u want to sell the lens.

Well, the buyer says "I will shoot with it and if I am not satisfied with the results, will contact him for an exchange back."

Then buyer calls back after one year and ask for an exchange back saying "I'm now not satisfied wth the results". Are u gonna honor it?

You have to. Because u agreed to that sentence above.

????????

 

[hongsien]

"I read about some people implying that there are implied rules to making private transactions, but I don't subscribe to this, not at all. If there is such a rule, would someone tell me what it is and where does it say that such a rule is part and parcel of our society?"

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.

Until Sandman shows the pics that shows the unsharpness of this lens (better when compared to another lens of the same type and brand), we are indeed assuming he was not happy with the lens lower quality as he expected it, even though it is a good lens, just not up to his standards. He has sofar not told us what he means with 'unsharp', was it slightly unsharp or very unsharp? Unsharp compared to what? He was looking at prints, it's better to look at the negs straight instead.

Zerstorer said:
"I'll answer this to spare Sandman the agony.

The tests were conducted after buying the lens. According to Sandman's understanding of the agreement, he was allowed to test it out and return it if not satisfied."

He mentioned two other persons who agreed with the unsharpness of the lens: was that you Zerstorer? Maybe you can elaborate to what extent the lens was unsharp as Sandman hasn't been forthcoming on that? Can you scan the negs for us? (or together with the prints, not just the prints alone as prints can be unsharp but not the negs)

As for the lens testing by the seller: yes it should off course be done at all aperture settings.


"I saw others putting down sandman, which I thought to be unusual."

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.

Hong Sien

 

[Zerstorer]

Originally posted by hongsien
[B
Zerstorer said:
"I'll answer this to spare Sandman the agony.

The tests were conducted after buying the lens. According to Sandman's understanding of the agreement, he was allowed to test it out and return it if not satisfied."

He mentioned two other persons who agreed with the unsharpness of the lens: was that you Zerstorer? Maybe you can elaborate to what extent the lens was unsharp as Sandman hasn't been forthcoming on that? Can you scan the negs for us? (or together with the prints, not just the prints alone as prints can be unsharp but not the negs)
[/b]

Perhaps you shouldn't be so presumptuos to assume thus. I replied to the above simply because I didn't like to see people jumping to conclusions without bothering to read the entire thread to see the full account. If you would be so kind to read the post that prompted my response, perhaps you would understand better.

Must it be that anyone who does not side with the seller be a fren of Sandman? Bear in mind that I have taken no sides here and have merely asked all parties to not be so hasty to judge.

"I saw others putting down sandman, which I thought to be unusual."

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.

Hong Sien

I don't see anyone else putting down the seller here, only Sandman himself. However, I do see a lot of people passing judgement on Sandman based on their own preconceived notions of what is acceptable and what isn't.

My point plainly has been stated before: It is not for anyone of us to judge given that the circumstances are still unclear as what was the actual agreement between the 2 parties. This matter should be given rest.

 

[hongsien]

Gosh! What are we sensitive here! I was just merely asking for your help in getting some more info, sorry if I was wrong in assuming that you were one of his friends that judged the prints together with sandman. From your posting you sounded like you were quite aware of how the deal was closed, and therefore I was assuming that you were maybe one of the two friends who looked at the pics. I never tried to make it look bad to be one of his friends, where do you have this idea from? If you read my posting I was merely asking if you could help explain the pics since sandman was not very clear about it. And till now he hasn't shown the negs......

I never said that those who did not side with the seller was a friend of sandman........this is your assumption

I also never said that anyone else was putting the seller down........just said: "so putting the seller is ok here?" and this did not refer to you, looks like you took it up that way.......I am sorry, but I hope you are clearer now?

"I do see a lot of people passing judgement on Sandman based on their own preconceived notions of what is acceptable and what isn't."
These are notions that are followed by most people here and on other buy and sell boards.....if you have other thoughts about this then you should tell that upfront, cause otherwise you would be facing some surprises. Whether you like it or not, what I said before is one of the main notions that people agree on implicitly. Yes, implicitly, cause it is quite a logical way of thinking and has been accepted by most. There are some sellers on eBay that state clearly that they will give refunds no matter what reason buyers may have.......this is actually implicitly saying 'that refunds no matter what' is not a norm, thats why they state it upfront, and it is a nice gesture indeed but clearly not the norm.


Hong Sien

 

[Zerstorer]

No I'm not sensitive, but I don't take kindly to being misconstrued.

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.

I also never said that anyone else was putting the seller down........just said: "so putting the seller down is ok here?" and this did not refer to you, looks like you took it up that way.......I am sorry, but I hope you are clearer now?

No I didn't think it was referring to me. However I found it a rather lame rebuttal of Parchiao's points as it had no bearing on the discussion. As I have said, I didn't see anyone else(besides the plaintiff) putting the seller down, so I did not see why you can ever use that as a reply to Parchiao.

To me, I saw some people intent on impressing their opinions of "norms of trading" on Sandman despite the fact that it isn't an issue in the first place. I don't see Sandman contesting what is the normal trading practice. All I see is that he is grumbling about the special agreement that was made.

In any case, lets all not be to eager to post and miss the key issues. I've said my piece and unless there are any new revelations to this, I doubt anymore discussion is of any use.

 

[roygoh]

I read this thread 3 times before I decided to post this reply.

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."

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.

The seller's only reply so far is that he is not agreeable with the way sandman judged the sharpness of the lens. Again, I feel that it has to be stated up front before he agreed to the terms. I stress again, if the seller has agreed to take the item back and provide a full refund as long as the buyer is not satisfied with the results (which does not have to be caused by a defect of the item), then sandman's request already met the terms of agreement. How the lens should be tested for its sharpness is irrelevant here.

Whether or not the terms portrayed by sandman is within the norms or not is not the issue here. If powerxu has agreed to that he has to honour that. If there was no such agreement at all then sandman would not have a case here as most people in Singapore would agree that when dealing in second hand goods, the seller only makes the full payment when he is fully satisfied with the item.

As Zerstorer has pointed out, this could very much be a miscommunication between the buyer and seller. In a PM to sandman I have already cautioned him that he should be well aware that his terms were not in line with the common practise in Singapore, and he should have clarified with the seller at the time of making the deal, to minimize all chances of future disputes.

While sandman claims that his intention of posting this is to warn other forum members and not to derive at any consensus on who's right and who's wrong, I feel that he has been overheated and reckless in his choice of words and his original post has very clear indications that he strongly believed that powerxu is at fault and made very damaging remarks towards him.

Calling him a "bane to society" as well as "person with no integrity" is totally uncalled for. sandman even went ot the extent of quoting another ad posted by powerxu and posted a "warning" post in powerxu's ad (that post has been removed by CS mod team).

Before we actually hear from powerxu on what he actually agreed to (what what he thought he agreed to) in this deal, let's no take this debate any further.

Whatever this debate may bring us, it is still between powerxu and sandman to work it out between themselves.

- Roy