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

#106
poopsie2 said:
LOL and I am solidly on the side that this is NOT SNAD IMO

Oh, I was shopping in Neiman's last night (regular NM, not Last Call) and a woman sitting next to me was trying on a pair (of all things) Manolos. Fresh out of the box. I just had to grab my cell phone and take this picture

Pictureimportandroid251.jpg



Oh snap!!!! Look at that! The sole of this brand new in box shoe is damaged! They were full price btw, and she ended up buying them. She seemed so happy (they really did look cute on her) I didn't have the heart to tell her she was buying damaged goods. ;) :P :biggrin:

:peace:

Merry Christmas to all :santawave:
Click to expand...


Perhaps this buyer was not as choosy as some of us are and didn't mind
the scuff marks on the shoe... don't think they were "fresh out of the box "
since it would be most unlikely that they would have these kind of marks...
they might have been from a display and perhaps put back into the box
unknowingly.. or tried on...

We can all agree to disagree about this particular thread... but for me,
the seller misrepresented the shoes and the OP does not find that suitable
for her.... and that's really what counts, IMO....
 
#109
Wow, there's a lot of snark in this thread. I don't understand why it matters if the shoes are considered "damaged" or not? They are significantly not as described, regardless of whether you consider them damaged or enhanced by the lovely multicolour penmanship. They should have been listed as "New with defects" - they are not in their original condition, and have cosmetic imperfections. It's irrelevant whether those imperfections will be worn off over a period of time. (It looks like there's also a teeny scuff on the front of one of the shoes, but at least it's visible in the photos.) It all comes down to disclosure, and giving the buyer the chance to make a fully informed decision.

What "new" means

An item is considered "New" when it meets the following guidelines:
  • It's in the original condition from the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer.
  • It hasn't been refurbished or used for any purpose.
  • It has no known defects or damages
.

Clothing, Shoes & Accessories: Shoes
  • New with box
    A brand-new, unused, and unworn item (including handmade items) in the original packaging (such as the original box or bag) and/or with the original tags attached.
  • New without box
    A brand-new, unused, and unworn item (including handmade items) that is not in original packaging or may be missing original packaging materials (such as the original box or bag). The original tags may not be attached. For example, new shoes (with absolutely no signs of wear) that are no longer in their original box fall into this category.
  • New with defects
    A brand-new, unused, and unworn item. Possible cosmetic imperfections range from natural color variations to scuffs, cuts, or nicks, hanging threads or missing buttons that occasionally occur during the manufacturing or delivery process. The apparel may contain irregular or mismarked size tags. The item may be missing the original packaging materials (such as original box or tag). New factory seconds and/or new irregular items may fall into this category. The original tags may or may not be attached. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections.
  • Pre-owned
    An item that has been used or worn previously. Please see the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections.
Click to expand...
 
#110
Originally Posted by BeenBurned What we are questioning is the SNAD claim. According to ebay's definition of "significantly not as described," as valid claim must mean that the item cannot be used for its intended purpose. Thus, the question is whether marks on the walking surface of a shoe will detract from the wearer's ability to use the shoes.

Since there seems to be no implication that the uppers of the shoes are damaged or marked in any way, ebay could conceivably argue that the seller's description of NIB is accurate.



Jenna_Behr said:
BB, I have a lot of respect for you, but I don't understand the logic here.

I've seen women file SNAD (and been encouraged to do so here on TPF) for a bag that has stains or marks on the lining, and that clearly doesn't detract from the ability to use the bag for its intended purpose, and when the bag is closed, the exterior is exactly as described.

I've never seen anyone say that a marker slash through a label on an interior pocket, or lipstick or unknown stains on the lining of a bag that weren't disclosed were anything other than SNAD, even if the exterior of the bag is fine.

How is this different? That's where I'm having a disconnect.
Click to expand...
IrisCole said:
I can't speak for BB, but if there are marks or stains on the inside of a bag, it typically means that the bag has been used (so if it were sold as BNWT, it wouldn't be that). The marker on the bottom of shoe soles doesn't mean that the shoes have been used - they're still BNIB - they were just sold as not returnable.
Click to expand...
^^^ This!

The way I see it is that the difference lies in the fact that shoes are meant to be worn and soles get marked up and scuffed when used in the manner in which they are intended. No matter how careful one is, when they wear shoes, the soles scuff.

Purses on the other hand don't necessarily get marker slashes on the inside pockets or labels or lipstick or ink stains on the lining, especially if new and unused.

IMO, there's a big difference.

-------------

Another thing that was sort of glossed over is the fact that some people might buy shoes to "collect" and display and it's important for them to be in mint and unmarked condition.

If that's the case with the OP, I do understand her unhappiness with marks.

But also if that's the case, I don't see how $40 to replace the soles will make the shoes the collector's item she's looking for. Although the newly replaced soles will be unscathed, they aren't MB soles, therefore, wouldn't the value of the shoes be reduced? ---- I'm thinking along the lines of a collector's item car. If someone has a 1965 Mustang and needs to replace an integral part, isn't important that it be replaced with OEM equipemnt and not a generic part?
 
#111
BeenBurned said:
Originally Posted by BeenBurned What we are questioning is the SNAD claim. According to ebay's definition of "significantly not as described," as valid claim must mean that the item cannot be used for its intended purpose. Thus, the question is whether marks on the walking surface of a shoe will detract from the wearer's ability to use the shoes.

Since there seems to be no implication that the uppers of the shoes are damaged or marked in any way, ebay could conceivably argue that the seller's description of NIB is accurate.




^^^ This!

The way I see it is that the difference lies in the fact that shoes are meant to be worn and soles get marked up and scuffed when used in the manner in which they are intended. No matter how careful one is, when they wear shoes, the soles scuff.

Purses on the other hand don't necessarily get marker slashes on the inside pockets or labels or lipstick or ink stains on the lining, especially if new and unused.

IMO, there's a big difference.

-------------

Another thing that was sort of glossed over is the fact that some people might buy shoes to "collect" and display and it's important for them to be in mint and unmarked condition.

If that's the case with the OP, I do understand her unhappiness with marks.

But also if that's the case, I don't see how $40 to replace the soles will make the shoes the collector's item she's looking for. Although the newly replaced soles will be unscathed, they aren't MB soles, therefore, wouldn't the value of the shoes be reduced? ---- I'm thinking along the lines of a collector's item car. If someone has a 1965 Mustang and needs to replace an integral part, isn't important that it be replaced with OEM equipemnt and not a generic part?
Click to expand...
Perfect explanation as always!!:tup:
Yes, warranty are void as soon as product has been altered.
 
#112
LouiseyPeasey said:
Wow, there's a lot of snark in this thread. I don't understand why it matters if the shoes are considered "damaged" or not? They are significantly not as described, regardless of whether you consider them damaged or enhanced by the lovely multicolour penmanship. They should have been listed as "New with defects" - they are not in their original condition, and have cosmetic imperfections. It's irrelevant whether those imperfections will be worn off over a period of time. (It looks like there's also a teeny scuff on the front of one of the shoes, but at least it's visible in the photos.) It all comes down to disclosure, and giving the buyer the chance to make a fully informed decision.
Click to expand...


Yes, This is how they should of been listed and how any decent seller would of listed them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back