Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Dispute between seller and buyer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dispute between seller and buyer  

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 

Dispute between seller and buyer

 
I recently bought an amp from someone here in this forum. During shipping, the amp got damaged by the carrier(usps...) but luckily i got insurance on it. So the claim was initiated by the seller( usps requires the seller to start the claim) and  it took 3 months for it to complete. The insurance money was sent to the seller so he sent me the money afterwards. 
 
Now here is the argument between us ; the seller claims that the defective item is his. 
 
I thought he was joking at first but it seems that he is serious about it. I find it laughable for the greed he shows. The transaction was completed when I paid him. He got the money he asked for and now he wants more. 
 
Why I am posting this is because he doesn't seems convinced about it, so let me know what u guys think.
post #2 of 63

Ok, so as I understand it, you have both the money and the amplifier. I think that it is well within his rights to have the amplifier back, especially if it is in partial working order. I say you should send it back to him, if you have the money, why do you want the amp?


PM a mod, though.
 

 

post #3 of 63
Thread Starter 

no the amp is not working, i just sent it to repair as i receive the money. Dont be confused about who made the check, usps repaid for my insured good so it can get repaired

post #4 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaysuu View Post

no the amp is not working, i just sent it to repair as i receive the money. Dont be confused about who made the check, usps repaid for my insured good so it can get repaired



Man, if he gave you your money back, the amplifier is definitely still his...

post #5 of 63
Thread Starter 

Usps require the seller to male the claim, if the buyer can make can make the claim it would never go through the seller. the money is dedicated to me as, not to the seller. 

put it this way, if usps sent only partial amount for the repair, so the seller sent me that partial amount, would he still consider the damage good his? the money that usps sent out is to repair the good.

post #6 of 63

I sense miscommunication here.

 

Questions:

 

A) Did the seller receive the correct amount of money during the initial transaction

B) If yes, was additional money sent to him for the insurance claim by the insurer, on top of the money you paid?

C) If yes, did he send you the difference, or ALL of the money (insurance claim + what you paid).

 

This is of course, assuming YOU paid for the insurance on the package.  Whoever shelled out the penny for the insurance should get the claim money.

 

I feel like if he just sent you the insurance claim money (assuming you paid for it), then the amp is still yours.  If he refunded you entirely, you might want to send the amp back to him.

 

Unless there is something I am clearly missing here.  I feel like money was added to the system by the insurer and that is what is causing this confusion.

post #7 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaysuu View Post

Usps require the seller to male the claim, if the buyer can make can make the claim it would never go through the seller. the money is dedicated to me as, not to the seller. 

put it this way, if usps sent only partial amount for the repair, so the seller sent me that partial amount, would he still consider the damage good his? the money that usps sent out is to repair the good.

 

The way I see it, if you have been refunded all the money you paid (through insurance or otherwise), if you keep the amplifier, you have profited from the transaction (value of functional amp - repair cost), and he has lost money (-value of functional amplifier). If he keeps the amplifier, there is no change from before the transaction took place. Now, given this scenario I advocate that you do what is fair and send the amplifier back to him.

 

If only a partial amount of money was sent for repair, and he keeps the sum of money for the sale of the amplifier, then you have both profited from the transaction as if the amplifier had not been damaged (you have value of amp - cost of repair + repair insurance, and he has been paid for the value of the amp that he sent out). That's an entirely different scenario from what I outlined above (which is what I assumed had happened), and you should keep the amplifier.


Edited by logwed - 12/8/11 at 4:19pm
post #8 of 63

It's difficult to parse what happened here without seeing how much money exchanged hands, and what each item was invoiced for.

 

If the final result was that the seller was fully compensated for the total amount of the initial agreed upon price (such as getting paid $110 for a $110 product + $10 s/h/insurance), then it seems like the buyer should hold onto the defective item and the remaining insurance claim.  If the seller receive all the money they had expected to get, in addition to a fair split for whatever additional costs were incurred, I'm not sure why the seller should also hold onto the defective product?

post #9 of 63
Thread Starter 


a) the seller received the 100% we agreed on

b) i paid 540$ for the amp, and the insurance check was another 540

c) he just sent me my insurance claim, he still have the original 540 that i paid him

 

he has no loss on the whole transaction, he still have the 540$

Quote:
Originally Posted by R-Audiohead View Post

I sense miscommunication here.

 

Questions:

 

A) Did the seller receive the correct amount of money during the initial transaction

B) If yes, was additional money sent to him for the insurance claim by the insurer, on top of the money you paid?

C) If yes, did he send you the difference, or ALL of the money (insurance claim + what you paid).

 

This is of course, assuming YOU paid for the insurance on the package.  Whoever shelled out the penny for the insurance should get the claim money.

 

I feel like if he just sent you the insurance claim money (assuming you paid for it), then the amp is still yours.  If he refunded you entirely, you might want to send the amp back to him.

 

Unless there is something I am clearly missing here.  I feel like money was added to the system by the insurer and that is what is causing this confusion.


 

 

 

post #10 of 63

So basically:

 

Seller: Lost an amp but was 100% monetarily compensated for the entire cost of the amp

Buyer: Gained a broken but repairable amp for free, at no cost (other than a few months worth of interest).

 

I think you're both in the wrong, and whoever that keeps the broken amp should pay a fair amount of cash to the other party to call it even.

 

Basically, what happened here was that the value of the amp was decreased, and the insurance gave you both free money in excess of the value of the now broken amp.  You guys should figure out a way to fairly split that free money insurance sent your way, by negotiating against the value of the broken amp.

 

In other words, come to an agreement on the value of the (broken amp + full insurance claim), subtract that from what you paid, divide the result in half, then sort it out from there.  You could value the broken amp by: price of used amp - repair costs (consisting of labor + shipping + parts + extra $20-50 for inconvenience).


Edited by Elysian - 12/8/11 at 4:57pm
post #11 of 63
Thread Starter 

i wouldnt really say he lost an amp, he sold me the amp and have the exact amount he asked for

 

the seller thinks that the claim from the insurance is his, but if usps allow the buyer to 

make the claim, he wouldnt be part of the equation
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysian View Post

So basically:

 

Seller: Lost an amp but was 100% monetarily compensated for the entire cost of the amp

Buyer: Gained a broken but repairable amp for free, at no cost (other than a few months worth of interest).

 

I think you're both in the wrong, and whoever that keeps the broken amp should pay a fair amount of cash to the other party to call it even.

 

Basically, what happened here was that the value of the amp was decreased, and the insurance gave you both free money in excess of the value of the now broken amp.  You guys should figure out a way to fairly split that free money insurance sent your way, by negotiating against the value of the broken amp.

 

In other words, come to an agreement on the value of the (broken amp + full insurance claim), subtract that from what you paid, divide the result in half, then sort it out from there.  You could value the broken amp by: price of used amp - repair costs (consisting of labor + shipping + parts + extra $20-50 for inconvenience).



 

 

post #12 of 63

sounds like no one lost anything but usps.

 

put it on ebay and split the profit then.

or donate the amp. after all, its christmas :P

 

 

post #13 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantsleep View Post

put it on ebay and split the profit then.

or donate the amp. after all, its christmas :P


Lol tongue.gif

 

Well, OP, it sounds like you're fishing for people to back you up.  Fair thing to do would be to split the value of the broken amp, but since you have possession of the amp as well as the insurance claim, it's up to you if you want to do the right thing.

 

Yes, you can argue it going either way, but given that I'm guessing you didn't buy something like a WES or Apex Pinnacle, life's too short to get upset over a couple bucks.

post #14 of 63

This sounds complicated!

But if the OP paid for the insurance does the payout not belong to him? The transaction between the buyer and seller was all ready completed.

Why should the seller benefit from the insurance if they did not contribute to it?

Put it another way, if there was no insurance what would have happened? Would it have been the buyers loss??

post #15 of 63

You should pay to have the amp repaired, then send the seller HALF of the money left over... That's the right thing to do IMO

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Dispute between seller and buyer