Conned on ebay. I quit!

[y2kitty]

**please don't quote spammers**

 

[natsplat]

I'd like to see an IP address for missingpotato too

 

[Rae~]

[quote="Missingpotato **please don't quote spammers**.[/quote]

What a ridiculous and unhelpful post.

Or are you trying to get the thread closed too? Why would that be, hmmm?

 

[SB621]

RH,
Kelpie has not seen the damage to the stone, except perhaps in photos. She probably feels she is entitled to a full refund, so I can see why she's not budging.

However, that being said, I cannot see why you wouldn't refund something after she files the claim. If hypothetically, she did file the claim, and you did run off with the claim money and at the same time, didn't refund her at all, she would report it here on PS, and everyone would really be after your throat a million times worse than now. I suspect it's not worth that much grief, and that is why I still believe you have good intentions. I guess I am someone who likes to see the good in people and give the benefit of the doubt, and this is coming from a person who has been scammed by sellers in the past. The internet makes it more difficult for people to get away with this because their id's can be traced more easily, and PS'er would be up in arms about it not just here, but all over the net.

Again, I do hope you two can try to trust each other again, and work out a resolution. I really do.

TL, I actually offered her a partial refund of the stone AND AGL fees *before* she files the claim, and I have been refused. She wants all or nothing.

As far as the claim goes, becasue she is considered the shipper, the money would never touch my hands, so any risk of me 'running off' with the claim money is non existant. I am just offering to help her with the proof of damage and value aspect.

I fail to see how this is fair. You would still have part of her payment and the stone.

 

[FrekeChild]

Please read the Ebay TOS. Every buyer on ebay agrees to them, and they surpass any TOS us sellers have. In the Ebay TOS, refunds are given apon return of the item, in ORIGIONAL condition. It is the buyers responsibility to read these terms when signing up for ebay.

My website says "Returns are accepted in origional unaltered condition".

A. That is patently false. The Ebay Buyer Protection, which seems to be what you're referencing,says nothing of the sort. It seems that in some cases, you are not even required to return the item at all if you dispute under that.

B. According to Ebay, you are required to state return policies in the listing. Not on your website. In the listing. Ebay Buyer Protection is separate from your own return policies, and, as I understand it, only supersedes them in the event that the buyer makes a claim and Ebay follows through on it.

C. As well, this: "We do not transfer legal ownership of items from the seller to the buyer. California Commercial Code § 2401(2) and Uniform Commercial Code § 2-401(2) applies to the transfer of ownership between the buyer and the seller, unless the buyer and the seller agree otherwise."

It looks like a relevant part of the Uniform Commercial Code (not 2-401, but a little after) is this:

"§ 2-613. Casualty to Identified Goods.

Where the contract requires for its performance goods identified when the contract is made, and the goods suffer casualty without fault of either party before the risk of loss passes to the buyer, or in a proper case under a "no arrival, no sale" term (Section 2-324) then

(a) if the loss is total the contract is avoided; and
(b) if the loss is partial or the goods have so deteriorated as no longer to conform to the contract the buyer may nevertheless demand inspection and at his option either treat the contract as avoided or accept the goods with due allowance from the contract price for the deterioration or the deficiency in quantity but without further right against the seller."

I'm not a lawyer, but it does look like that the word "the contract is avoided" means that the money belongs to Kelpie and the rock belongs to Gemsrocks. This is not a case of a "sale, then return" but of a conditional sale, and the "risk of loss" had not yet passed to the buyer since Kelpie rejected the goods due to their failing to pass inspection.

I'm certainly no contracts attorney, but yours is the same message that I'm getting out of the above legalese too.

 

[SB621]

[quote="Missingpotato **please do not quote spam**

What a ridiculous and unhelpful post.

Or are you trying to get the thread closed too? Why would that be, hmmm?[/quote]

I couldn't agree more. I'm hoping the MODS just delete the post and keep the thread open. To me this is an obvious attempt to get the thread shut down. Even if IPs don't match I still bet it is the same person.

 

[Ella]

We will not be bullied into closing a thread by users returning under different usernames to try and provoke us. These posts will be treated as what they are, spam.

Please do us a favor and report such posts and do not quote them.

We believe consumers have a right to discuss these situations and will do our best to keep the thread to remain on the forum.

A reminder that posts need to be respectful to keep the thread open. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[VapidLapid]

I have a few questions that I think, if answered directly, will make possible resolutions easier to reach.

1) Has anyone contacted AGL to confirm that they
a) insured the stone when they sent it, and
b) have the insurance item number?

2) if yes to the above, has AGL been asked for that number?

I would think that AGL would be happy to provide that information to EITHER of the parties. Without that number, no claim can be initiated. I would leave it to the insurance company to decide if and how much it will pay out.

If AGL did not insure it or can/will not provide that information then the entire insurance recovery path is moot and we can stop arguing about it.
I dont think the "flipping" issue is relevant. I know it is not productive. How a business gets its inventory, as long as it it legal, is their own business. My local supermarket buys cases of canned corn and they have no intention of keeping it for years. The faster they turn that inventory over the better. I will not be picketing them for flipping cans of corn. I also dont want to know what they paid for the corn. If it is or isn't priced fairly I will either buy it or not, assuming that I want corn in a can. If it should turn out that the corn is not good and I return it, I do not think they should look up their cost per can and deduct that from my refund.
This should have been a simple thing to fix at the beginning. You must work hard at making it simple again. Stop putting conditions on each other and move forward.

 

[Rae~]

We will not be bullied into closing a thread by users returning under different usernames to try and provoke us. These posts will be treated as what they are, spam.

Please do us a favor and report such posts and do not quote them.

We believe consumers have a right to discuss these situations and will do our best to keep the thread to remain on the forum.

A reminder that posts need to be respectful to keep the thread open. Thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you, Ella. I should have thought to not quote, myself.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Oh for heaven's sake RH just refund Kelpie the money already! Your arguments are nonsense. When we were being stubborn as kids my Nana used to say "You are cutting off your nose to spite your face." I think you need to take some of Nana's advice here and stop being so stubborn. It is not helping your reputation at all. Once you give the refund people will remember that there was a dispute involving you but it turned out well in the end.

 

[colormyworld]

I have a few questions that I think, if answered directly, will make possible resolutions easier to reach.

1) Has anyone contacted AGL to confirm that they
a) insured the stone when they sent it, and
b) have the insurance item number?

2) if yes to the above, has AGL been asked for that number?

I would think that AGL would be happy to provide that information to EITHER of the parties. Without that number, no claim can be initiated. I would leave it to the insurance company to decide if and how much it will pay out.

If AGL did not insure it or can/will not provide that information then the entire insurance recovery path is moot and we can stop arguing about it.
I dont think the "flipping" issue is relevant. I know it is not productive. How a business gets its inventory, as long as it it legal, is their own business. My local supermarket buys cases of canned corn and they have no intention of keeping it for years. The faster they turn that inventory over the better. I will not be picketing them for flipping cans of corn. I also dont want to know what they paid for the corn. If it is or isn't priced fairly I will either buy it or not, assuming that I want corn in a can. If it should turn out that the corn is not good and I return it, I do not think they should look up their cost per can and deduct that from my refund.
This should have been a simple thing to fix at the beginning. You must work hard at making it simple again. Stop putting conditions on each other and move forward.

I suspect you are onto something here. I am pretty sure AGL would ask the OP how much to insure the stone for. I am beginning to think that there was no insurance for the return shipment to the seller from AGL. That would explain why the OP can not or will not file a claim.

 

[ededdeddy]

I have a few questions that I think, if answered directly, will make possible resolutions easier to reach.

1) Has anyone contacted AGL to confirm that they
a) insured the stone when they sent it, and
b) have the insurance item number?

2) if yes to the above, has AGL been asked for that number?

I would think that AGL would be happy to provide that information to EITHER of the parties. Without that number, no claim can be initiated. I would leave it to the insurance company to decide if and how much it will pay out.

If AGL did not insure it or can/will not provide that information then the entire insurance recovery path is moot and we can stop arguing about it.
I dont think the "flipping" issue is relevant. I know it is not productive. How a business gets its inventory, as long as it it legal, is their own business. My local supermarket buys cases of canned corn and they have no intention of keeping it for years. The faster they turn that inventory over the better. I will not be picketing them for flipping cans of corn. I also dont want to know what they paid for the corn. If it is or isn't priced fairly I will either buy it or not, assuming that I want corn in a can. If it should turn out that the corn is not good and I return it, I do not think they should look up their cost per can and deduct that from my refund.
This should have been a simple thing to fix at the beginning. You must work hard at making it simple again. Stop putting conditions on each other and move forward.

I suspect you are onto something here. I am pretty sure AGL would ask the OP how much to insure the stone for. I am beginning to think that there was no insurance for the return shipment to the seller from AGL. That would explain why the OP can not or will not file a claim.

The "insurance claim" has always been secondary. The terms of the sale were to be completed if the stone came back paraiba, it didn't. Rock Hugger hurt her claim by resending the stone and putting it in peril again by resending it and then having it sent back due to refusal of delivery.

Rock Hugger waited 10 days AFTER the return of the stone to make the claim that it was damaged. She claims there were "lost messages" that she had sent, but doesn't provide any kind of evidence that she ever sent them. Only when it was brought up on PS and only when another member contacted her on facebook did the issue of damage and insurance come into play. That raises a HUGE red flag.

As far as I know Rock Hugger provided photos of the "damaged" stone but not the shoddy packaging that she claims the stone came in. Also some of the photos that RH took compared to the pics in the original auction blown up show a similar inclusion. Rock Hugger said that the lab didn't note anything about the inclusion but the lab was checking for color only. As mentioned, for all we know Rock Hugger could have dropped the stone herself. Another red flag.

Rock Hugger then posts series of convoluted messages basically twisting herself and her explanations into endless web of convoluted non answers and excuses. Then the accusations of being threatened by pricescope members through phone, and messages and the claims of having an attorney that is "advising" her on what to say and "advising" her that the threats are coming from pricescope members with absolutely no evidence to back up her claims, but most definitely a way to try and close and derail this thread. Then the appearance of spammers/sockpuppets here to try and force the moderators to close the thread. Another red flag.

Why did Rock Hugger use a different name and location for her ebay auctions then what her real name and location is? Another red flag.

Rock Hugger didn't state the terms and conditions of returns in her auction, which is required by EBAY in their own terms and conditions. The bottom line is that the completion of the sale was contingent on what the lab said about the stone, both buyer and seller agreed to that. You can't put but's, what if's, or add some kind of clause or rider in after the fact. That doesn't happen in the real world.

After all the red flags Rock Hugger has thrown up, I would be very suspect of filing any kind of claim involving anyone with suspect business practices.

 

[lavatea]

Because when she said she was unhappy with the stone, I had absolutely no knowlege the stone would be delivered to me damaged. If the stone not come back to me damaged she would absolutely have received a refund. Just because the stone was not what she expected, doesnt mean it did not have significant value for me to resell or keep. But being damaged, that value is gone. Either AGL or USPS needs to be held accountable for that damage due to poor packaging.

I have offered her a partial refund and refund of AGL fees along with reciepts of what I paid for the stone, and she can file a claim without my input or participation on her own, but seller the buyer refused. There is nothing more I can or am willing to do.

Like the anology I said before, if you buy a TV that was supposed to be red at a store, get it home and it is blue, then drop it on the way back to the store to be returned and it shatters, the seller will not accept it back regardless of the origional complaint. I cannot stress that enough, online sales are no different then BM stores. In fact, offering the buyer a partial refund is above and beyond what any retail outlet would have done apon receiving a damaged return.

This is all a rehash of what was said before.

Exactly. You told her that the refund was being processed and that Paypal could take up to 7 days. You should have followed through and sent the refund right then when you said you would! Then, when (if) the stone showed up damaged you could have contacted Kelpie to help with the insurance claim (if that was actually necessary - did you ever contact AGL directly to see if Kelpie even needed to be involved?).

Instead you packaged the stone and the "poor packaging" up and shipped them overseas. And now you want to only refund Kelpie a partial payment. Even if the time limit has not passed, I seriously doubt a claim can be filed with the extra shipping that has gone on. Though I hope that part is wrong.

Resolve this! It is bad business practice not to. Haven't you ever heard, "The customer is always right"? Kelpie's not trying to pull a fast one on you. She doesn't have the stone (damaged or not). And she didn't cause the damage. She just wants her money back. You can possibly get your own money back for the "damage" without her help by contacting AGL. And if not, I'd bet she'd be compliant with helping with the claim if you refunded her as you should have done in the beginning.

 

[T L]

You know, I doubt this will get resolved.

#1) It doesn't help when people speculate about a seller, tell them they're a liar, unethical, bring up what they think are bad business practices unrelated to this thread, etc. . . we need to stick to the facts, and be respectful of each other, no matter how much we disagree. Heck knows I've had serious disagreements with people here in the past, but it's no reason to be nasty to one another, just stick to the facts, and logic, and stop all this negative speculating.

#2) It doesn't help the buyer when everyone is telling her not to trust the seller, and what a liar, and unethical person she is. We need to get some trust here, not convolude the buyer, who I have the utmost sympathy for, but it's not going to get her money back.

#3) It doesn't help when the seller keeps replying on this thread, as it just infuriates everyone else, and that makes more of these counterproductive spats, but I can understand why she keeps replying, as she wants to defend herself against all this speculation and claims that people cannot prove.

I think this would have resolved itself much sooner, but this thread has become counterproductive. It's really in the hands of Kelpie and RH now, and anythng else here isn't going to be of much help. It's really sad as Kelpie is out $850, and while I appreciate that everyone has tried to help her get her money back, I feel this thread has done more harm than good (although it did have the best of intentions).

 

[ruby59]

You know, I doubt this will get resolved.

#1) It doesn't help when people speculate about a seller, tell them they're a liar, unethical, bring up what they think are bad business practices unrelated to this thread, etc. . . we need to stick to the facts, and be respectful of each other, no matter how much we disagree. Heck knows I've had serious disagreements with people here in the past, but it's no reason to be nasty to one another, just stick to the facts, and logic, and stop all this negative speculating.

#2) It doesn't help the buyer when everyone is telling her not to trust the seller, and what a liar, and unethical person she is. We need to get some trust here, not convolude the buyer, who I have the utmost sympathy for, but it's not going to get her money back.

#3) It doesn't help when the seller keeps replying on this thread, as it just infuriates everyone else, and that makes more of these counterproductive spats, but I can understand why she keeps replying, as she wants to defend herself against all this speculation and claims that people cannot prove.

I think this would have resolved itself much sooner, but this thread has become counterproductive. It's really in the hands of Kelpie and RH now, and anythng else here isn't going to be of much help. It's really sad as Kelpie is out $850, and while I appreciate that everyone has tried to help her get her money back, I feel this thread has done more harm than good (although it did have the best of intentions).

100% agree. All this "supposing" on both sides, name calling and finger pointing is just putting more salt in the wounds and having both sides dig their heels deeper. I for one do not like when moderators close threads. We are all adults here. But I was happy to see when Amesthyst guy started taking it off track a bit with those cute cat pictures. It gave people a chance to settle down a bit and find common ground. Again imo, except for the OP and RH, we are all 3rd party, and all of this is heresay. Let the buyer and seller AND LAB, sit down and come to an amicable desicison. At this point no one is going to get 100% of what they want. IN THIS CASE, half is better than nothing.

 

[LD]

TL if I genuinely believe that somebody will do their best to try to resolve a situation I will give them my full support. RH has not displayed ANY of those qualities and quite clearly wants everything her own way. What about Kelpie's rights in all of this?

I'm sorry but RH has shown herself up for what she is : a poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself.

I have made a number of suggestions that RH could have explored to putting this situation right and she's chosen to ignore every one of them.

Please don't forget she is also now accusing PS members of making threats against her and earlier there appeared to be SPAM in this thread in an attempt to have it closed.

 

[ruby59]

TL if I genuinely believe that somebody will do their best to try to resolve a situation I will give them my full support. RH has not displayed ANY of those qualities and quite clearly wants everything her own way. What about Kelpie's rights in all of this?

I'm sorry but RH has shown herself up for what she is : a poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself.


I have made a number of suggestions that RH could have explored to putting this situation right and she's chosen to ignore every one of them.

Please don't forget she is also now accusing PS members of making threats against her and earlier there appeared to be SPAM in this thread in an attempt to have it closed.

I know you and I to not see "eye to eye" on this, which is fine. We all have our opinions. And based on your suggestions you can see that there are two sides to them.

You call RH a "poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself." They may not be overly generous but they are far from out of the norm. I went on a few sites to see what their return policies are. Some will take anything back under any condition. With others, you have to return the item in its original condition. Different policies for different companies.

Accusing PS members of making threats against her and the spam that appeared. You have your theories, but no real proof either way. And the spam could have come from anyone on either side, or a past disgrunted Pricescoper looking for a bit of payback.

As far as your suggestions that RH could be exploring but is ignoring, the same could be said for the OP. Many people on here have given her suggestions as well, but she does not seem to be acting on any of them. Does that make her more suspect?

Answer: No. Two people with valid points who need to make the best of a bad situation. Neither one is all right or all bad.

 

[FrekeChild]

I believe this is what is referred to as a stalemate.

 

[movie zombie]

I believe this is what is referred to as a stalemate.

 

[bluebirrrd]

http://about.usps.com/forms/ps1000.pdf

The above link is a usps insurance claim form. Maybe I'm wrong but it appears that either the mailer or addressee can file a claim, depending on the situation. In this case, I think it would have to be the addressee. The instructions specifically say, "If you are the addressee, do not return or remail any damaged items." In this case, I believe that already occurred.

If the package was insured, the addressee would need to request the insurance receipt from the mailer. The addressee, who would make the claim, would also specify who receives the payment.

I have my own opinion who is right and who is wrong, but does it really matter? This could have been resolved in a way that neither party had to lose.

 

[ruby59]

I believe this is what is referred to as a stalemate.

Exactly. (I have 98 and want to see what happens when I get to 100 posts).

But all kidding aside, while both sides have valid points, the clock is ticking. Someone needs to blink first and start compromising fast. Soon, if not already, just like ebay gives you 45 days in which to file, I am sure USPS has limits as well. That is why 10 pages back, I suggested a 50 / 50 compromise.

Compromising first does not have to mean that you did something wrong. It just allows you to move on.

 

[ruby59]

100 POSTS

 

[T L]

TL if I genuinely believe that somebody will do their best to try to resolve a situation I will give them my full support. RH has not displayed ANY of those qualities and quite clearly wants everything her own way. What about Kelpie's rights in all of this?

I'm sorry but RH has shown herself up for what she is : a poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself.

I have made a number of suggestions that RH could have explored to putting this situation right and she's chosen to ignore every one of them.

Please don't forget she is also now accusing PS members of making threats against her and earlier there appeared to be SPAM in this thread in an attempt to have it closed.

LD,
You know I love you to pieces. You and I are what I consider to be good friends, and we have mutual trust for each other. We always have. However, I have no reason to believe that what RH is saying isn't true about some things that you think she's lying about. In fact when her Facebook page first went down, my first thought was that people were actually making very negative comments on it, in light of this thread. I could be wrong, but I don't know the truth, and if I state otherwise that as factual, then I'm giving in to speculating.

I do believe with my heart that RH will try to meet Kelpie half way. I do think that's a start, but it keeps getting derailed by this thread. I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to cooperate if they were continually berated, and if the threats, or negative comments on RH's various pages are true, that's even worse. When is enough, enough? The truth of the matter is that RH can simply walk away from this thread, and do what she wants, and it will be more expensive in the ultimate outcome for Kelpie and RH to come to a resolution. The cost is not just in monetary ones, but in human terms.

I know you have no love for RH, and that's fine, but she's still a human being, and all this berating and insulting is not going to get anyone anywhere. There is a difference between disagreements and insulting/negative speculation. I actually once had a very similar experience to Kelpie at Intergem, it left me with an awful taste in my mouth, and I really feel bad for Kelpie, but I am now beginning to feel bad for RH because her reputation is so trashed in this thread, even when she does try to defend herself and offer some sort of resolution, which she has tried to do, it is met with disdain. I know many of us would love to be criminal profilers, but the facts are facts, and we should debate, but only on facts. As I have said before, no one knows the full truth except RH, Kelpie and AGL.

Let's let bygones be bygones, and start fresh, and see how this pans out between Kelpie and RH without further insults, speculation and negativity.

 

[ededdeddy]

TL if I genuinely believe that somebody will do their best to try to resolve a situation I will give them my full support. RH has not displayed ANY of those qualities and quite clearly wants everything her own way. What about Kelpie's rights in all of this?

I'm sorry but RH has shown herself up for what she is : a poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself.


I have made a number of suggestions that RH could have explored to putting this situation right and she's chosen to ignore every one of them.

Please don't forget she is also now accusing PS members of making threats against her and earlier there appeared to be SPAM in this thread in an attempt to have it closed.

I know you and I to not see "eye to eye" on this, which is fine. We all have our opinions. And based on your suggestions you can see that there are two sides to them.

You call RH a "poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself." They may not be overly generous but they are far from out of the norm. I went on a few sites to see what their return policies are. Some will take anything back under any condition. With others, you have to return the item in its original condition. Different policies for different companies.

Accusing PS members of making threats against her and the spam that appeared. You have your theories, but no real proof either way. And the spam could have come from anyone on either side, or a past disgrunted Pricescoper looking for a bit of payback.

As far as your suggestions that RH could be exploring but is ignoring, the same could be said for the OP. Many people on here have given her suggestions as well, but she does not seem to be acting on any of them. Does that make her more suspect?

Answer: No. Two people with valid points who need to make the best of a bad situation. Neither one is all right or all bad.

This comment from Ella tells me all I need to know about who might be spamming the thread to get it taken down

We will not be bullied into closing a thread by users returning under different usernames to try and provoke us. These posts will be treated as what they are, spam.

You went to a few websites to see what their return policies were. I take it that those websites explicitly stated what their return policies were. Rock Hugger did not do with this sale, nor does she have her return polices stated on her about me EBAY page. Ebay says the seller has to have their policies stated on the auction. The seller did not. Wait a minute I did see something about 150% satisfaction on there. Everything else was stated long after the auction was over with.

You say you offered her a solution of 50/50. Why on earth should the OP be out half the cost. The sale was contingent on whether or not the stone was paraiba. It wasn't. That really should have been the end of it right there as far as offering a refund goes. When the OP wrote that the seller told her the "paypal takes 7 days" story the first red flag went up. The OP hasn't responded on this thread and judging by the responses the seller has written I don't know if I would respond to her either at this point. Too many convoluted excuses, and non answers.

Very reminiscent of Elana Rubin and Future Fashionista last year.

 

[T L]

TL if I genuinely believe that somebody will do their best to try to resolve a situation I will give them my full support. RH has not displayed ANY of those qualities and quite clearly wants everything her own way. What about Kelpie's rights in all of this?

I'm sorry but RH has shown herself up for what she is : a poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself.


I have made a number of suggestions that RH could have explored to putting this situation right and she's chosen to ignore every one of them.

Please don't forget she is also now accusing PS members of making threats against her and earlier there appeared to be SPAM in this thread in an attempt to have it closed.

I know you and I to not see "eye to eye" on this, which is fine. We all have our opinions. And based on your suggestions you can see that there are two sides to them.

You call RH a "poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself." They may not be overly generous but they are far from out of the norm. I went on a few sites to see what their return policies are. Some will take anything back under any condition. With others, you have to return the item in its original condition. Different policies for different companies.

Accusing PS members of making threats against her and the spam that appeared. You have your theories, but no real proof either way. And the spam could have come from anyone on either side, or a past disgrunted Pricescoper looking for a bit of payback.

As far as your suggestions that RH could be exploring but is ignoring, the same could be said for the OP. Many people on here have given her suggestions as well, but she does not seem to be acting on any of them. Does that make her more suspect?

Answer: No. Two people with valid points who need to make the best of a bad situation. Neither one is all right or all bad.

This comment from Ella tells me all I need to know about who might be spamming the thread to get it taken down

We will not be bullied into closing a thread by users returning under different usernames to try and provoke us. These posts will be treated as what they are, spam.

You went to a few websites to see what their return policies were. I take it that those websites explicitly stated what their return policies were. Rock Hugger did not do with this sale, nor does she have her return polices stated on her about me EBAY page. Ebay says the seller has to have their policies stated on the auction. The seller did not. Wait a minute I did see something about 150% satisfaction on there. Everything else was stated long after the auction was over with.

You say you offered her a solution of 50/50. Why on earth should the OP be out half the cost. The sale was contingent on whether or not the stone was paraiba. It wasn't. That really should have been the end of it right there as far as offering a refund goes. When the OP wrote that the seller told her the "paypal takes 7 days" story the first red flag went up. The OP hasn't responded on this thread and judging by the responses the seller has written I don't know if I would respond to her either at this point. Too many convoluted excuses, and non answers.

Very reminiscent of Elana Rubin and Future Fashionista last year.

Eddy,
This has all been said already. Also, again, we're speculating on who is spamming, and who is trying to get the thread taken down. Is it RH, her friends, some guy hiding under a bridge??

You know, I really liked Pandora's posting earlier in this thread. It stuck to facts, and was very well thought out an logical. While I have stated that I think the OP should get a full refund, regardless of the damage, repeating this over and over again, isn't going to change anyone's opinion on what should or should not be done. It' like a bad broken record. I think the thread, as Freke has said, has reached a stalemate. I obviously have too much time on my hands now, and I think I need to exit here, as it will go to 500 pages without a resolution, and that's the only thing I feel brave enough to speculate on.

 

[LD]

TL - you know also that I have the deepest respect for you and consider you a good friend on and off this forum. On this matter we will never see eye to eye because I fundamentally do not believe that a compromise of 50/50 is appropriate. In essence, my view is that is stealing. If I take $800 out of your purse and then only offer to give you back $400 and believe that to be correct, that's stealing. That maybe very black and white but that's my view.

Despite not particularly liking RH, I have tried to suggest and find ways for RH to resolve this and in response she's told me that she was surprised I wasn't the one threatening her! You know me and you know how that would have removed any shred of compassion I may have had for her.

Both parties know how to communicate off forum and if RH really wants to resolve this she will offer a 100% refund, whether that's conditional on a postal claim or otherwise is up to RH/Kelpie to decide. Perhaps the USPS link and suggestions provided by bluebirrrd may be the way forward. However, I will speculate now by saying that I think there's a far better chance of hell freezing over than an amicable solution being found between the parties - that's a shame but it's happened to all of us and we live and learn.

 

[T L]

TL - you know also that I have the deepest respect for you and consider you a good friend on and off this forum. On this matter we will never see eye to eye because I fundamentally do not believe that a compromise of 50/50 is appropriate. In essence, my view is that is stealing. If I take $800 out of your purse and then only offer to give you back $400 and believe that to be correct, that's stealing. That maybe very black and white but that's my view.

Despite not particularly liking RH, I have tried to suggest and find ways for RH to resolve this and in response she's told me that she was surprised I wasn't the one threatening her! You know me and you know how that would have removed any shred of compassion I may have had for her.

Both parties know how to communicate off forum and if RH really wants to resolve this she will offer a 100% refund, whether that's conditional on a postal claim or otherwise is up to RH/Kelpie to decide. Perhaps the USPS link and suggestions provided by bluebirrrd may be the way forward. However, I will speculate now by saying that I think there's a far better chance of hell freezing over than an amicable solution being found between the parties - that's a shame but it's happened to all of us and we live and learn.

Fair enough LD, and I respect your opinion above , but I do think we ought to leave this in their hands, off this board. If there are any new details, they can be reported to this thread, or a new one.

I wish both parties the best of luck coming to a viable resolution.

 

[ededdeddy]

TL if I genuinely believe that somebody will do their best to try to resolve a situation I will give them my full support. RH has not displayed ANY of those qualities and quite clearly wants everything her own way. What about Kelpie's rights in all of this?

I'm sorry but RH has shown herself up for what she is : a poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself.


I have made a number of suggestions that RH could have explored to putting this situation right and she's chosen to ignore every one of them.

Please don't forget she is also now accusing PS members of making threats against her and earlier there appeared to be SPAM in this thread in an attempt to have it closed.

I know you and I to not see "eye to eye" on this, which is fine. We all have our opinions. And based on your suggestions you can see that there are two sides to them.

You call RH a "poor business person with policies that she bends to suit herself." They may not be overly generous but they are far from out of the norm. I went on a few sites to see what their return policies are. Some will take anything back under any condition. With others, you have to return the item in its original condition. Different policies for different companies.

Accusing PS members of making threats against her and the spam that appeared. You have your theories, but no real proof either way. And the spam could have come from anyone on either side, or a past disgrunted Pricescoper looking for a bit of payback.

As far as your suggestions that RH could be exploring but is ignoring, the same could be said for the OP. Many people on here have given her suggestions as well, but she does not seem to be acting on any of them. Does that make her more suspect?

Answer: No. Two people with valid points who need to make the best of a bad situation. Neither one is all right or all bad.

This comment from Ella tells me all I need to know about who might be spamming the thread to get it taken down

We will not be bullied into closing a thread by users returning under different usernames to try and provoke us. These posts will be treated as what they are, spam.

You went to a few websites to see what their return policies were. I take it that those websites explicitly stated what their return policies were. Rock Hugger did not do with this sale, nor does she have her return polices stated on her about me EBAY page. Ebay says the seller has to have their policies stated on the auction. The seller did not. Wait a minute I did see something about 150% satisfaction on there. Everything else was stated long after the auction was over with.

You say you offered her a solution of 50/50. Why on earth should the OP be out half the cost. The sale was contingent on whether or not the stone was paraiba. It wasn't. That really should have been the end of it right there as far as offering a refund goes. When the OP wrote that the seller told her the "paypal takes 7 days" story the first red flag went up. The OP hasn't responded on this thread and judging by the responses the seller has written I don't know if I would respond to her either at this point. Too many convoluted excuses, and non answers.

Very reminiscent of Elana Rubin and Future Fashionista last year.

Eddy,
This has all been said already. Also, again, we're speculating on who is spamming, and who is trying to get the thread taken down. Is it RH, her friends, some guy hiding under a bridge??

You know, I really liked Pandora's posting earlier in this thread. It stuck to facts, and was very well thought out an logical. While I have stated that I think the OP should get a full refund, regardless of the damage, repeating this over and over again, isn't going to change anyone's opinion on what should or should not be done. It' like a bad broken record. I think the thread, as Freke has said, has reached a stalemate. I obviously have too much time on my hands now, and I think I need to exit here, as it will go to 500 pages without a resolution, and that's the only thing I feel brave enough to speculate on.

True but at the same time some of the basics should be reposted since some facts seem to get twisted or modified by some people.

Frankly after reading bluebirrrd's link about claims and how they can get filed, I'm of the feeling that this whole thing could have been avoided at the get go. Assuming that the damage was real, per the link the receiver CAN initiate a postal claim which I take it as Rock Hugger could have initiated the damage claim a month ago without the OP. At that point in time, Rock Hugger was in a much better position to initiate a claim of damage since she had the stone in her possession and she had more knowledge of stone as far as clarity characteristics go. Rock Hugger could have simply refunded the money and per the USPS link could have initiated the claim as the receiver of the package. Had she done this thread wouldn't have even existed.

 

[VapidLapid]

I hate this kind of thread.
This kind of situation is bad enough on its own without all of us escalating the wrongs with speculation and software that seeks anomalies in fourth generation jpg and pricescope compressed files. RH ought to refund Kelpie in full and immediately. It should then be a simple matter for her and kelpie to each contact agl for the insurance number. Since the stone was in agl's custody and they were shipping it as kelpie's agent and certainly would not have sent the stone uninsured and so also certainly would have included the shipping and insurance charges that they fronted in their bill. There must be a record of that. We all know how simple it is to buy insurance at usps, and it is printed and trackable right on the receipt. Rock Huggers insurance claim has no bearing on Kelpie's claim. The bill of sale between rock hugger and kelpie should be sufficient to establish the legitimacy of the insured value. I know this is not the first time a PS member has sold on that site and behaved dishonorably leaving no recourse but to make claims with paypal and credit card companies, but it is no less disappointing.

This is my post from page 4 of this thread. I thought I was making it clear that the addressee can file the claim and that all is needed is for RH to contact agl. Why was this not done? Kelpie's involvement was never needed in this. I feel I have said that over and over in this thread. There was good advice given early on in this thread that was ignored. Had it not been this could have been over by now.
Now my advice would be, Im afraid it is all in RH's hands now (though it could be argued that it always was) to get from agl the insurance info, inform the usps of her intention to to file claim, make some excuse if neccessary about being out of town to buy time until the parcel is returned from africa, and then pursue her claim. In the mean time refund kelpie and potentially everyone can be happy, notwithstanding the damage that this thread has caused. Otherwise, I myself am sick of this thread, and if you (RH) don't get this properly fixed then I don't care how much damage this thread does to your reputation.

 

[ooo~Shiney!]

Because when she said she was unhappy with the stone, I had absolutely no knowlege the stone would be delivered to me damaged. If the stone not come back to me damaged she would absolutely have received a refund. Just because the stone was not what she expected, doesnt mean it did not have significant value for me to resell or keep. But being damaged, that value is gone. Either AGL or USPS needs to be held accountable for that damage due to poor packaging.

I have offered her a partial refund and refund of AGL fees along with reciepts of what I paid for the stone, and she can file a claim without my input or participation on her own, but seller the buyer refused. There is nothing more I can or am willing to do.

Like the anology I said before, if you buy a TV that was supposed to be red at a store, get it home and it is blue, then drop it on the way back to the store to be returned and it shatters, the seller will not accept it back regardless of the origional complaint. I cannot stress that enough, online sales are no different then BM stores. In fact, offering the buyer a partial refund is above and beyond what any retail outlet would have done apon receiving a damaged return.

This is all a rehash of what was said before.

Let me try to get this straight ...... because, well..... you know.....

But if the person (let's say "you") bought the red TV, it comes in the mail and "you" find out it's blue not red, then "you" pack it back up and MAIL IT BACK TO THE SELLER for a return, (AND there is a picture of the TV in good condition somewhere along the way) then why would "you" NOT expect to get your money back? YOU sent it off in good condition......