I would also suggest to document the events arising from the sale and send it to paypal/eBay before "numbnuts" takes any drastic action.
Mike Schmidt Millington, New Jersey Sent from my iPhone
On May 17, 2009, at 11:39 AM, john strizek <lyonstrings@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> One more 2 cents worth:
> 1. You sold the freewheel in good faith.
> 2. You are not a merchant.
> 3. You are not bound by the errors of the manufacturer or
> original retailler.
> 4. Buyer (claims) took freewheel apart.
> a. this in itself voids any recourse
> 5. Return is not apprpriate because the part has been "tampered"
> with. If the buyer sought to return before "opening" the freewheel
> he might have a cause.
> 6. buyer did not say there was any defect except missing balls;
> did the mechanic replace them, if so why not.
> 7. If a shop mechanic were involved was he competent to work on
> an open ball freewheel? I come across young mechanics who know
> nothing about anything made older than 2 or 3 years ago. I have had
> some categorically state no such thing ever existed as what I am
> talking about. For instance metal stemmed and threaded schrader
> valve tube stems. I still have several Hutchinson tubes of that
> style. Others have never seen a thorn remover that is a wire mounted
> to the brake bolt by clear plastic tubing that rides on the tire to
> pull out thorns. They deny that is what it is when shown one and
> argue it is no such thing.
> 8. buyer claims no error in description.
>
> When you sell an item in good faith, that is it. If the item in
> fact is defective but unaltered there is the possibility for a
> return at your discretion. The freewheel is no longer NOS, it is now
> used. In effect any , although wrongly perceived fitness for use no
> longer applies.
> I would refer buyer to the Universal Commercial Code (UCC). I
> would tell him I am sorry but by his own admission he has tampered
> with the item and it can no longer be returned.
> I know there are bad sellers. there are also bad buyers. You can
> wait and see or I suppose lodge a complaint that he has supposedly
> opened the freewheel (ie altered the condition) and there is no
> assurance it is in the same condition as sent and is thus not
> returnable. Any return would have required return as received.
> I am not defending you or being derisive of the integrity of the
> buyer. I would not take a return after the item is claimed suspect
> and then not returned in conditin received unless defective on its
> face.
> Mostly It is up to you. I would not accept it back. the spectre of
> buyers remorse is all too present.
> Blah, blah, blah! Move on.
> John Strizek
> sacramento california
> in the USA