drumma said:yah lar.. but not everyone is as rich as him ma.. because of $170, he would want to get a lawyer already..
$170 isn't much? oh.. then i'm not as rich as u..
PS: i don't mind u throwing $170 to me though..
Del_CtrlnoAlt said:tis guy... imho... just another troublemaker... if he really rich, y dun he get a new 1 instead? y buy a 2nd hand 1 den complain? and 170 isn't much imho... if i get tis... just throw lor... (i think somebody here might come & kick me about the 170 thingy now...)
Bro, money never a problem to me, its about integrity.
user12343 said:slim chance i would think. after all, it's caveat emptor thingy...
bigfatfish said:Contradicting guy. Money is not a problem yet he did not get a new monitor. Obviously money is a problem with this fella as you can see he is doing all he can to get back the refund. I think surely he knows that upholding the "integrity" by suing the seller will cost more than $170.
user12343 said:slim chance i would think. after all, it's caveat emptor thingy...
vince123123 said:Caveat emptor is not a rule of law - its an often used phrase which people throw around when deals go bad, saying that its the buyer's fault and that he has no recourse. Notwithstanding the fact that the buyer should be cautious, it may not always be 100% correct to say that the buyer has NO RECOURSE should a deal go bad - a lot depends on the situation and the facts of each case.
Why not say "caveat venditor" instead? Both are just latin sayings...
user12343 said:it's not a rule/law, but it makes prudent sense to check that the items purchased is in good working order before money is handed over.
also, not all pple provide after-sales service from whatever they sell 2nd hand, so if a deal goes sour, and the seller cannot be contacted, the poor buyer just have to sit there and suck thumb....