Re: [CR]re: CR resolved? Seller Concerns...

Example: History

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:44:50 -0400
To: "C. Andrews" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]re: CR resolved? Seller Concerns...
References: <005f01c1058a$24cb1800$719afea9@chasds>

No smear implied nor intended, I have never heard of the seller before this discussion and based on the seller's actions (or lack thereof) I will choose not to business with them in the future. Price of the item should not matter when commitments are not followed. I merely call the facts as they are presented...

Prehaps this situation could have been averted if the buyer/seller had exchanged EMails containing pics in advance of the sale and a more clear description of the bike provided. However, it is troubling that shipping terms were changed without prior notification nor agreement and an apparent overcharge for insurance that was never purchased.

The buyer relied in good faith of insurance being provided and the seller never followed through. Now, a damaged front derailleur is found with no recourse for the buyer because the seller never followed through on their commitment for insurance. Could these component failures (tires and frt derailleur) have been an undisclosed error on the seller's part? What does "superb" condition mean - parts not included?

Unfortunately, I too have been burned by this "insurance" lapse by another seller with a nice set of NOS Campy rings & arms damaged in transit. The seller declined to take the set back, even though I paid their price in advance for "insurance" that they never obtained. Prehaps the seller in this instance should accept the bike in return for a full refund to the buyer.

When in doubt, Charge! Questor

C. Andrews wrote:
> Dave H. opined:
> >Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Van Hook <>
> Subject: Re: [CR]Resolved! HA! CR Classifieds possible
> Fraud?
> To:
> Cc: Classic Rendezvous <>
> I believe "questor" is correct, this matter is
> only "resolved" because the buyer probably has no
> other reasonable course of action, except to not
> to pay the SCHMUCK, which she has chosen not to
> do.
> Dave(nice guys finish last)Van Hook
> Hershey, PA<
> ******************
> I have to disagree with this. From my reading of the
> situation, the buyer is one of those people all sellers
> dread: the one who is never happy, and who totally freaks
> out the moment one e-mail is not answered or the bike is a
> day or two late.
> There's no way *any* of us can know, from the evidence,
> whether the seller was in any way culpable here. For all we
> know the bike is more-or-less as described. The problems
> the buyer mentions are minor, imho, if the bike is something
> she really wanted. The bike was shipped, and arrived
> more-or-less on schedule. Before inditing the seller, one
> should know a little more about the situation.
> I should also ask, humbly, how much did the buyer pay for
> this bike? A Mercier? Probably not much, unless it was the
> Professional model. Point being, I've noticed an inverse
> effect here: the cheaper the item, the more impossible a
> buyer can be, all other things being equal. I've never
> understood this, but it does seem to be the case. Not all
> the time, but too often.
> I find it slightly amazing that the poor seller is being
> smeared all over this list, when, from the evidence, he
> behaved in good faith.
> Charles "patience and tolerance are definite virtues when
> buying used bicycles of any kind---of course, when that $1K
> Colnago arrives with a pretzeled fork, then it's time to get
> annoyed" Andrews