If the return was for any reason other than gross misrepresentation in the listing description, sure. But why should the buyer pay for shipping in either direction an item that was so grossly misprepresented? If the item had been fairly and honestly described the bidder would probably never had bid on it and the seller would not be responsible for return postage. All the blame rests with the seller in this instance as far as I can tell.
Kurt Sperry Bellingham WA USA
On 9/2/07, Steven L. Sheffield <stevens@veloworks.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/02/2007 07:23 PM, "Kurt Sperry" <haxixe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think outing dishonest Ebay sellers of on-topic merchandise is a real
> > service to the list given our collective frequent reliance on Ebay to
> obtain
> > out esoteric needs. Claiming an item "works great" and refusing to pay
> for
> > return postage when it is clear the item dosn't "work great" on the
> flimsy
> > pretense that there was some unspoken implicit understanding that the
> item
> > was for display only is unethical for sure.
>
>
> Phooey ... On those rare occasions when someone has not been happy with a
> purchase they've made from me, I've immediately refunded the total auction
> amount, and asked them to return the items to me.
>
> Not once have I had someone ask me to pay for their return postage to me
> first before they sent the items back; or even after the items came back,
> for that matter.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steven L. Sheffield
> stevens at veloworks dot com
> bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
> ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
> aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
> double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash