Where does consumer accountability start and end?

[brandon184]

I had an old piece of portable electronics that I didn't want around the house anymore. The last time I used the item, about 6 months ago, it worked fine. Since then I had lost it's battery and wanted to get rid of it since I had no use for it, and because we are clearing old junk from our house. So I put this piece of hardware on eBay, which would ordinarily go for over $75.00, and listed it at $5.00.

At the top of the listing in big, bold text I stated that the item did not come with a battery, was not tested and may not work at all. I stated that the buyer was buying the item at their own risk, and that I would not accept returns or offer refunds if the item did not arrive as a functioning product.

I didn't represent the item as a functioning product (even though I had every reason to believe it would work, since I had last used it not many months ago), and priced it as such.

The item ends up being sold for about $60, and there are quite a few bids. The auction ends, I ship the item, and lo and behold, I just received an e-mail that the item does not work. The buyer acknowledges that even though the item was listed "as is", she feels quite ripped off and has advised me to not sell items on eBay unless I know that they are working.

To me, this is an intriguing look at human behaviour. On one hand, part of my brain thinks, "You should have just bought a new battery and tested the item so you could be sure it was working.", or that I indeed should not list untested items on eBay even if I state explicitly that the item is untested and could very well not work.

The other part of my brain is thinking, "Doesn't the buyer need to have some level of accountability here?" .. I accurately represented the product and never made any claims about function or reliability. I listed the item at $5.00, simply to get rid of "stuff" from my house. Do I need to be held accountable because a buyer effectively decided to roll the dice and lost?

[tony_j15]

Since its a used item being sold person to person, you did everything fine AFAIK.

[Gomer]

What was it (curiosity)?

PM me in confidentiality if you want.

[brandon184]

It was a digital camera.

[Gomer]

Good work!

[Epidemic]

did they try and give negative feedback or simply gripe to you?

I think griping might be ok. you might have relented and they could have their money back. I am not sure but I might consider griping in the hopes of having you refund something. What do I have to lose? I have a broken camera, you received too much money for it in a windfall, i could hope you might roll me back some cash.

You are not technically obligated to give me back the money but you did receive 60 bucks for a piece of garbage. I would make a vane attempt to get you to give back some of your proceeds once you found out you had sold me a turd.



but you are under no legal obligation to give me back cash. (moral??? ehhh morality is in the eye of the beholder)

[GroundZero3]

If you did everything you said you did, you covered you basis on the item you sold. I'm curious as Ep, did she try to leave negative feedback? The customer is not always right!

[brandon184]

I'm not asking whether or not I have a legal obligation to give the money back. I'm fairly certain that I have no such obligation, though I'm still undecided as to what I will do. The question is whether or not it's immoral or unethical to list an untested product on eBay and describe it as untested, being sold as is, no guarantee of functionality?

To be clear, if I had listed the product as working and or even neglected to mention that it was untested or being sold as is, I would certainly own up to my accountability as a seller and refund her cash.

As far as feedback is concerned, she hasn't left feedback yet but she claims that her feedback will be based on whether or not the product is functioning. So presumably it's a "give me a refund or you get negative feedback" scenario.

[GroundZero3]

No I don't think its immoral or unethical, a lot of people buy broken devices to salvage parts on it to use to get another device working.

It would be immoral or unethical to sell it as new/working condition without warning to the consumer

[Steve R Jones]

Human nature at its finest.

[SoloCamo]

To be honest, yea, you probably should have tested the item to save yourself this current headache. As i'm sure you are now thinking the same.

However, if it was me personally, I'd discuss it with the buyer and say I'm willing to give a partial refund (maybe 50% off what she paid so you still make profit). But the amount depends on the person's attitude about it, IMO. Besides, she is the one at fault as you did everything legally and clearly described the item as potentially non-functioning.

It's like an auction house, she threw down the cash, and got a bad dice roll.

[brandon184]

To be honest, yea, you probably should have tested the item to save yourself this current headache. As i'm sure you are now thinking the same.

I could have tested the item as working, but that would have meant that I would have to spend money on a new battery simply so that I could sell the item with the "IT WORKS" description. That was the whole point of the auction; that I was offering something at an extremely discounted rate with the caveat that I didn't want to (and hadn't) invested the time to ensure that it works.

It's not really a headache, it's just an interesting turn of events that I wanted to get opinions on!

[Epidemic]

To be honest, yea, you probably should have tested the item to save yourself this current headache. As i'm sure you are now thinking the same.

However, if it was me personally, I'd discuss it with the buyer and say I'm willing to give a partial refund (maybe 50% off what she paid so you still make profit). But the amount depends on the person's attitude about it, IMO. Besides, she is the one at fault as you did everything legally and clearly described the item as potentially non-functioning.

It's like an auction house, she threw down the cash, and got a bad dice roll.

I agree with what was said by SoloCamo. but it is a funny subject.

Person's attitude would have to be really nice and I think I deserve some windfall because it wasn't my fault people bid it up... I think 50% is a good lesson to read for the person and a good profit for your trouble.

Or you could keep it all. I really would not fault you for it.

[Epidemic]

I could have tested the item as working, but that would have meant that I would have to spend money on a new battery simply so that I could sell the item with the "IT WORKS" description. That was the whole point of the auction; that I was offering something at an extremely discounted rate with the caveat that I didn't want to (and hadn't) invested the time to ensure that it works.

It's not really a headache, it's just an interesting turn of events that I wanted to get opinions on!

for future reference you don't need to spend money... probably could test it with a couple of aligator clips and an old powersupply from around the house.

[Gomer]

Was it broken? Or did it just need a battery? What is the nature of the malfunction?

[brandon184]

I'm not really a huge fan of partial refunds for two reasons:

1) I don't like the idea of the partial refund because it seems like an acknowledgement of my end that I did something unethical. If I did something unethical, she should get a full refund.

2) She could be pulling a scam on me. The camera could work fine. I give a partial refund and she gets an even deeper discount on her item.

If I did decide to give her a refund, it would be a refund in full in exchange for the item. It might be worth noting that in addition to the camera, I also threw in a lens that is about equal in value to the auction ending price, so I would probably re-list that item on it's own. I'm sure many of the people she outbid were only interested in the auction for the lens.

[brandon184]

Was it broken? Or did it just need a battery? What is the nature of the malfunction?

The camera worked perfectly fine the last time I used it. It sat in my desk for a number of months after I bought a higher-end camera, and I eventually gave the battery out of the camera to a friend who had the same camera model.

As far as the specific malfunction the buyer is experiencing, I have no idea what the problem could be. She claims that a light blinks and that it doesn't turn on. Though for all I know, she purchased the wrong battery or is hitting the shutter button to try and turn the thing on.

[SiliconJon]

I smell a scammer buyer, though it could just be a fool. I would probably offer a refund anyway, but be ready to receive broken garbage in return even if it was working in their hands...

[The Real Bingo]

Interesting; I didn't think about the customer defrauding you. The camera could, in fact, work perfectly fine - you would have no way of knowing.

Did you sell the camera in its original box with instructions? Maybe, like you said, the lady is a dope and can't figure out how to operate it.

What kind of battery/batteries does it take? If it takes generic AAs or AAAs, I would've tested it with batteries I already have at home first before listing. If it works, then I could get more money out of it. You chose not to, but, as has been said, you fully disclosed that it may not be in working order - you've done nothing wrong and I don't think you have any responsibility to the buyer. If she leaves negative feedback, you can comment on it - I think you have a pretty good defense to make and will hopefully not blemish a good eBay rating.

[brandon184]

No I didn't have the manual for it, but I gave her a link to a PDF version of the manual online. If the camera took AA or AAA batteries, I certainly would have tested it then, but it takes a battery specific to several models.