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

#31
The shoes are NEW. Nobody wore them. Stickers and marker stains are not damage IMHO. Should the seller have disclosed this info? Of course. Did she alter the pics so you wouldn't see the markings on the sole? Who knows!!!!! What was the seller suppose to put to described the condition of the shoe? She couldn't put Pre Owned!!! I mean this is hardly a crisis. I'm with Poopsie2, and BeenBurned on this!!
 
#32
so by the argument that many people are giving here, if you bought what was advertised as a brand new purse, and it had marker stains on it that were not a part of the bag, and the seller went out of their way to not disclose them in the pictures, you would not be unhappy and not consider this a SNAD?

why is it any different just because they're on the bottom of the shoe? it's still a part of the shoe.
 
#33
No one is saying that the seller shouldn't have disclosed permanent markings and stickers on the soles. Look at the responses!! We all agree that the marks should have been disclosed, but lack of disclosure of marks on the sole do NOT constitute damage and do not make the shoes not new.

merriweather said:
so by the argument that many people are giving here, if you bought what was advertised as a brand new purse, and it had marker stains on it that were not a part of the bag, and the seller went out of their way to not disclose them in the pictures, you would not be unhappy and not consider this a SNAD?

why is it any different just because they're on the bottom of the shoe? it's still a part of the shoe.
Click to expand...
You're comparing apples and oranges. Soles of shoes are made to be walked on and by virtue of the very use, those marks would disappear upon wearing them the first time as the marks would be rubbed off and replaced by normal scuffing from use.

If those same marks were on the uppers of the shoes, there'd be no discussion that there was damage. But soles are a different story.

And to compare marks on the sole of a shoe to marks on a bag is completely irrelevant. There's no comparison.

Again, when there are permanent marks, labeling, codes, stickers, etc. on the soles, they should (at the very least) be pictured and/or described. No one is arguing that fact. And with disclosure, the buyer can decide whether it's something that's acceptable.

The argument is whether the marks are damage, and I do not consider it to be damage.
 
#34
Soles of shoes are going to be altered when you walk on them. That lovely pristine sueded bottom is not going to look the way it did the first time you wear them. After a few jaunts they are going to be scuffed and scratched......... it is inevitable. That is what they are for-----to be walked on. Doesn't compare to marks on a purse.............IMO that is.
Oh, and when I try on shoes in a store I walk around in them. And not just on the carpeted shoe salon area. I make sure I walk on the hard surface too because that is a truer test of the comfort of the shoe. There is nothing that irks me more than buying a pair of shoes that are comfortable when I walk around on carpet, but change into implements of torture on hard surfaces. A lot of times the shoes don't pass that test and I choose not to buy them. While they are still new, they have been worn on a hard surface. Their soles might not be in pristine condition even though they are being sold in so-and-so's boutique. I am quite sure that the vast majority of shoes I have purchased have been tried on in this fashion. The only way to prevent being deeply disappointed in their condition would be to limit buying shoes directly from the store where the condition can be seen first hand.
Of course, they most likely won't be on sale and you will have to pay full price. That can be the trade off you get when you shop on Ebay
 
#35
BeenBurned said:
No one is saying that the seller shouldn't have disclosed permanent markings and stickers on the soles. Look at the responses!! We all agree that the marks should have been disclosed, but lack of disclosure of marks on the sole do NOT constitute damage and do not make the shoes not new.


You're comparing apples and oranges. Soles of shoes are made to be walked on and by virtue of the very use, those marks would disappear upon wearing them the first time as the marks would be rubbed off and replaced by normal scuffing from use.

If those same marks were on the uppers of the shoes, there'd be no discussion that there was damage. But soles are a different story.

And to compare marks on the sole of a shoe to marks on a bag is completely irrelevant. There's no comparison.

Again, when there are permanent marks, labeling, codes, stickers, etc. on the soles, they should (at the very least) be pictured and/or described. No one is arguing that fact. And with disclosure, the buyer can decide whether it's something that's acceptable.

The argument is whether the marks are damage, and I do not consider it to be damage.
Click to expand...

I never denied that everybody agreed that it should be disclosed. I guess i'm just a little confused as to why people are making out like these markings are not that big of a deal because of the assumption that they'll just disappear eventually. I guess that rests in the definition and the actual extent of the markings.

I personally don't think she should have to wear the shoes around for a few days to a week with the red, black, and silver marker to see if they will come off. In the event that the markings don't come off that easily she would just be stuck with the shoes. I suppose pictures would help to actually discern how noticeable/significant the markings are.

I know for me, as an average student, I'd probably live with it because I hate hassels and don't really need to worry that meticulously about things. But since the OP has expressed that appearances are scrutinized closely at her work I can understand why the current state of the shoes serves no purpose for her.
 
#36
merriweather said:
so by the argument that many people are giving here, if you bought what was advertised as a brand new purse, and it had marker stains on it that were not a part of the bag, and the seller went out of their way to not disclose them in the pictures, you would not be unhappy and not consider this a SNAD?

why is it any different just because they're on the bottom of the shoe? it's still a part of the shoe.
Click to expand...


Why are you even bringing up a comparison of a shoe sole to a handbag? Come on!!! Stickers can be removed, marker stains will disappear with normal wear and tear from pavement. I could see if the sole of the shoe was sliced and diced, or the shoes were already worn and burned out and the seller advertised them as BNIB. But that's not the case here.
 
#37
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?
 

Attachments

  • shoes 004.jpg
    shoes 004.jpg
    185.8 KB · Views: 275
#39
I reread the listing over and over. No mention of the bottoms. ALso wanted to add they were listed New in Box, not brand new in box. Same thing. IMO.

As for the bag issue. Most decent sellers will say item was a display item or as such . It should of been in the listing how the shoes had clearance wear and markings.
 
#40
Stardust25 said:
The shoes are NEW. Nobody wore them. Stickers and marker stains are not damage IMHO. Should the seller have disclosed this info? Of course. Did she alter the pics so you wouldn't see the markings on the sole? Who knows!!!!! What was the seller suppose to put to described the condition of the shoe? She couldn't put Pre Owned!!! I mean this is hardly a crisis. I'm with Poopsie2, and BeenBurned on this!!
Click to expand...


Hi. No this is not a crisis at all. Odd choice of words you used.
Yes , they are new shoes. But the bottom part is flawed. What should the seller of put?
How about ' markings on bottom of shoes' and a full pic?
 
#41
sjunky13 said:
Hi. No this is not a crisis at all. Odd choice of words you used.
Yes , they are new shoes. But the bottom part is flawed. What should the seller of put?
How about ' markings on bottom of shoes' and a full pic?
Click to expand...

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:
 
#42
Okay I'll bite again.

There are meticulous people in the world and maybe OP is one of them. Even if the marks bother her, no one can change her opinion about it.

Since a case has already been opened, OP, IMHO, you should just return the shoes if the marks bother you that much. Now that I think about it, the shoes aren't damaged really. NM and Saks, etc are known to mark the soles of shoes with serial numbers and prices, punch vampire bites, etc. This pair of shoes could be a display, or not. No one will know for sure. Indeed they aren't described and the marks aren't mentioned but really not worth the $40 to replace unworn, unused soles.

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.
 
#43
poopsie2 said:
Color me crazy, but unless you go around walking on your hands aren't the bottoms of the shoes going to get worn anyway? I have a few dozen shoes from NM Last Call and Nordie Rack--- all with the dread stickers and/or pen marks. I peel the stickers off and after a few times of shoe leather meeting pavement the marks have all gone away too. Even my CLs lose that oh-so-valuable red sole after I have worn them a few times.
Sorry, but IMO stickers and markers on the sole don't equal damage. Apparently you do and that is fine. But, if as you say, and I quote "I do care about the bottoms. Very much so." why on earth wouldn't you ask for photos of the entire bottoms?
While I do show the soles of the shoes I list in their entirety I can certainly understand a seller being perplexed at a buyer being so upset over stickers on the bottoms of the shoes. That does not excuse her unprofessional correspondence. Why she needs the money is not the issue.
Click to expand...
Great post. My thoughts exactly.

If I were that sensitive I would not buy from ebay (which I hardly do anyway), and I would make sure to ask ALL questions prior to buying.

Of course I agree that this should have been mentioned by the seller. I do NOT equal markings to damages.
 
#45
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back