Having a problem with an ebay seller over damaged shoes. Please help

#46
limom said:
Oh the audacity!

Non, non, non. Those shoes are damaged and the listing is not honest.
The seller even write: read the description carefully!!!?
BUT never disclose the defects? WRONG!

It is not a question of opinion, those shoe while new are damaged.
$275 is too much money for a pair of defective shoes.
How can the seller even argue????:P
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you. I do not see anything dishonest in her listing. She should have mentioned the marks but that I do not consider damage. Where do you see the damage?

I want to point out that I strongly disagrees with the seller not declaring the markings!
 
#47
lovely64 said:
I have to disagree with you. I do not see anything dishonest in her listing. She should have mentioned the marks but that I do not consider damage. Where do you see the damage?

I want to point out that I strongly disagrees with the seller not declaring the markings!
Click to expand...

Withdrawing the details and cropping the picture is an act of dishonesty, imo.
The seller was being deceptive. Not fair.
I guess the old adage," buyer beware" applies here.
 
#48
sjunky13 said:
Well here is a pic of the bottoms.
Looks horrible.
Let me ask those that would not be bothered by this. If it were a pair of CL's and they were listed BNIB and the shoes were new, but the bottom red sole was chipped off in places or marker on them. Would that bother you?
Click to expand...

sjunky13 said:
Also here is her pic of the bottom of the shoes.
Click to expand...
While I do agree with the "soles are ment to walk on" discussion, I also have to agree with OP, that both the listing and the pics were created so that the damage stayed "invisible". So, even if OP would be overreacting about this "damage" (which I really don't think she is doing), that is not the point IMHO.
Point is that, these markings should have been disclosed in the listing, thus perhaps allowing OP to change her mind and deciding not to buy.
I agree the flats might still be new, but I personally would also 've liked to know about the markings and the seller should have put it in the listing or showed it in the pictures!
 
#49
marie-lou said:
While I do agree with the "soles are ment to walk on" discussion, I also have to agree with OP, that both the listing and the pics were created so that the damage stayed "invisible". So, even if OP would be overreacting about this "damage" (which I really don't think she is doing), that is not the point IMHO.
Point is that, these markings should have been disclosed in the listing, thus perhaps allowing OP to change her mind and deciding not to buy.
I agree the flats might still be new, but I personally would also 've liked to know about the markings and the seller should have put it in the listing or showed it in the pictures!
Click to expand...

I second marie-lou.:tup:
I'm very picky. If I know the shoes has those kind of marking, I would just pass. Even if a price is great, it bothers me. I understand other people think differently. Anyway, the seller should have disclosed that part.
 
#50
sjunky13 said:
Well here is a pic of the bottoms.
Looks horrible.
Let me ask those that would not be bothered by this. If it were a pair of CL's and they were listed BNIB and the shoes were new, but the bottom red sole was chipped off in places or marker on them. Would that bother you?
Click to expand...

As a person who buys cl's i know i wouldnt be happy if i order what i thought to be new red soles and they came all marked up. I think that the seller should have disclosed the markings in the listing and whats probably part of the problem is that she deliberately hid them. Its like waiting forever for a pair of shoes and they dont fit. The op was probably excited to receive her new shoes and seeing the bottom is a let down, what if these were supposed to be wedding shoes or something? My photographer took a pic of my new red soles for my pics, these arent cls but i think that when you pay for new manolos you want new manolo soles too JMO
 
#51
Im a new seller on eBay and I totally agree with sjunky the seller is 100 percent dishonest. Case n point u would of not purchased the shoes If the seller has accurately described the item ...she would not be able to collect 300 bucks for this...she only collected 300 bc she showed the item in new in box condition. Flame me if u want I'd be filing a dispute bc I would nt pay even 100 bux for those. And I am a regular at the manolo private smaple sale and routinely buy manolos for cheap and they r truly new in box. If she doesn't want to ruin her holidays she should take the shoe back and correct her listing or find another victim who is ok with it.
 
#52
on a side note sjunky
have you read her detailed feedback? the prices of the shoes??
she is making bank...I wouldn't feel bad for holidays / single mom thing. another dishonest tactic.
she should instantly take these back ...she could easily dump them on someone else.
 
#53
boston said:
on a side note sjunky
have you read her detailed feedback? the prices of the shoes??
she is making bank...I wouldn't feel bad for holidays / single mom thing. another dishonest tactic.
she should instantly take these back ...she could easily dump them on someone else.
Click to expand...

If it is indeed, the right listing, the Toolhaus feedback doesn't lie.
She has done it before in April2011.
OP, pursue carefully as she won some cases.
 
#54
Thanks everyone. No , I def would not of purchased the shoes if I had seen the bottoms of them at all.
I have bags I have purchased and never used. I do take them out and look at them, sometimes shoes. But that is not the point here. The seller was indeed dishonest about the conditon.
Whatever the reason. These shoes are not up to par. that and the private emails of woe.
I would like to just return the shoes.
 
#56
lpaigenyc said:
Wow, what a debate this thread has turned into!
That being said, the seller should of mentioned that the shoes were marked (to prevent returns?) and disclosed a picture a picture of the markings.
True story but I once had a roommate who LOVED shoes. She would buy them but rarely, if ever, wear them. She was a nurse so couldn't wear them when working and worked so much she never went out. What she loved to do was look at them and show them off to her friends. No kidding when I say she had hundreds upon hundreds of pairs of choos, cl, mb, etc. We lived in a three bedroom and one room had been turned into a virtual closet. Anyone ever see the movie SATC and Carries closet in the apt where her and Big were going to live? Picture this but at least three times bigger. When I read this thread I thought about how freaked she would of been had she bought these shoes, made me laugh. For her if the shoes weren't perfect, soles and all, they would of been returned immediately. I wonder what ever happened to her and her shoes? :smile:
Click to expand...


LOL! I have once displayed a shoe. Yes I have. It was a gorgeous shoe. This was in my Warhol phase. I have a TPFer friend that is a shoe fiend. She knows my personality. She also loves shoes. I had a high heel on display. It was very cool. LOL. I love your nurse story.
Yes , I do not buy the bottoms will get marked up at all. Doesn't sit right with me at all. Still a part of the shoe and ugly!
 
#58
mizsunshyne said:
Since a case has already been opened, OP, IMHO, you should just return the shoes if the marks bother you that much.

The seller will fight you with this issue you have and you may just end up returning it. If I was the seller, I wouldn't give you a partial to replace the soles. I'd ask you to return them for a refund.
Click to expand...
I agree. Return the shoes and the seller should issue a full refund based on the NON-DISCLOSURE and NOT on a defect.

Since the "original new condition" is what seems to be important to the buyer/OP, a partial refund for replacement of the soles isn't going to be satisfactory since the new soles won't be "original equipment."

limom said:
Oh the audacity!

Non, non, non. Those shoes are damaged and the listing is not honest.
The seller even write: read the description carefully!!!?
BUT never disclose the defects? WRONG!

It is not a question of opinion, those shoe while new are damaged.
$275 is too much money for a pair of defective shoes.
How can the seller even argue????:P
Click to expand...
Not damage!! Yes, non-disclosure!
limom said:
Withdrawing the details and cropping the picture is an act of dishonesty, imo.
The seller was being deceptive. Not fair.
I guess the old adage," buyer beware" applies here.
Click to expand...
Not dishonest!! Yes, non-disclosure!
sjunky13 said:
Thanks everyone. No , I def would not of purchased the shoes if I had seen the bottoms of them at all.
I have bags I have purchased and never used. I do take them out and look at them, sometimes shoes. But that is not the point here. The seller was indeed dishonest about the conditon.
Whatever the reason. These shoes are not up to par. that and the private emails of woe.
I would like to just return the shoes.
Click to expand...
Okay, OP. If you collect and display shoes, I guess I can understand the need for perfection in the soles. But if you wear the shoes, those marks are on the bottom and in fact, are on the walking surface where they'd quickly be replaced by scuffs.

Again, I do not consider the markings as "damage," but what the seller did would be "error by omission." (Use of "error" is part of the terminology for what happened and I don't believe for a second that the seller made an "honest" mistake in not disclosing the marks. She knew what she was doing since others of her listings show the full soles, but again, I still don't call it "damage.")
 
#60
sjunky13 said:
Well here is a pic of the bottoms.
Looks horrible.
Let me ask those that would not be bothered by this. If it were a pair of CL's and they were listed BNIB and the shoes were new, but the bottom red sole was chipped off in places or marker on them. Would that bother you?
Click to expand...


BNIB to me means brand new... if the seller disclosed that the shoes

had never been worn but they did have store markings, stickers, etc.

that would be a differrent story ... but the seller did not disclose that..

Everyone has different standards about what they like and what they

don't... I for one, do agree with the OP, I too would not be happy

with all of this on the bottom of my sole...and do think that in these

circumstances the seller did intentionally misrepresent the item and

to bring in that she is a single mom & this is ruining her holidays,

is ludicrious......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back