I've been using ebay for like, a year... I guess that makes me a newer eBayer...
but still. for me, if the item isn't that costly, I don't wanna hassle with paypal/ebay claims and all that stress. lol I'm sure the buyer assuming risk idea isn't an option for the more expensive things, like Gucci or Louis Vuitton of course.
No, I understand what you mean, no one wants to have to open disputes all the time, as it's complicated, stressful and time-consuming.
However, if we all let sellers get away with lying, all the time, just because the item isn't costly and disputes are hard work, they will just think they can take advantage of buyers even more.
But still, the seller these days (particularly me) is like on their toes throughout the entire transaction. Like, "is the buyer gonna be happy?" "I should probably expect to get a paypal claim any day now..." Even if the seller does everything right- and the item is as described, and shipping was done in a timely mannor, communication was excellent, ect, you never know if the buyer will be 100% happy. Feedback is like the way the seller knows it went well, and he/she can breathe again. I don't think it would be fair to ask for a partial refund AFTER feedback has been left, the more I think about it.
Again, I do know what you mean - it must be hard if you know you've done everything right, but still feel you can't relax, as the buyer may still dispute something, anyway and I certainly think, as a buyer, it would be best (for many reasons) to always make sure one is totally happy before leaving fb; but in this case, the seller must know that she misdescribed the item and then gave untruthful answers to direct questions, as she must have done so intentionally.
So, I suppose the crux of the issue, in this case, is should a seller be allowed to get away with being utterly dishonest, just because hasty positive fb was mistakenly left?
I suppose an anology would be if someone stole something, but the owner of the item knew the thief and so, mistakenly, thought they could be sure that their friend wouldn't steal from them and immediately told the police that it couldn't have been them?
In that scenario, I'm sure the thief would 'breathe again', too, but does that mean, if some evidence later came to light that they did do it, that the victim shouldn't re-inform the police; just because it might be uncomfortable for the thief?
You know, I think there is a natural tendency, if one is a good and honest seller (which I'm sure you are!) to assume that all (or almost all) sellers are fundamentally good and honest, too. But the truth is, they are not, unfortunately and so, I think we all need to try to stay objective, as far as possible and try to not side with people, just because they just happen to be selling, or buying on eBay and that is what we just happen to tend to do more on eBay, too (or that is what we find most stressful to do on eBay).
It's natural to empathise, in a stressful situation, with people we feel are also in that same situation but, in this type of case, unless one is a dishonest seller, one is not actually in the same situation, as anything similar that may happen to one is not deserved.
As I've said before, bad sellers have made eBay a nightmare, not only for buyers, but for good sellers, too and siding with them, just because they happen to also be a seller and one knows how it feels to be scared of potentially bad buyers' possible actions, just encourages them to become worse; which, in turn, makes eBay implement even more anti-seller measures. ush: