|Problem: Buyer reports problem with purchase|
06-18-2003: Kublakhan initiated process
06-18-2003: Adkinsa submitted response
Kublakhan describes the events as follows:
Bottom line as evidenced below: I (Buyer) was looking for two Counterpoint SA-220's that had been upgraded to NP status by Mike Elliot of Counterpoint or two SA-220's that I would then upgrade on my own. I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT WANT an SA-20 that was upgraded because the SA-20 did not have the copper plated chassis of the SA-220. I took great efforts to make absolutely positive the Seller was not selling me an SA-20 and this is confirmed in the bill of sale and multiple emails back and forth. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the seller DID IN FACT sell me an SA-20 after all that! Now he says because he 'thought' it was an SA-220 it's not his problem. Am I missing something here?
March 4th - Buyer emails Seller asking SPECIFICALLY if the upgraded amp started out as an SA-20 or SA-220 like his ad said.
March 4th - Seller confirms "They were SA-220's, if you look at the picture you can see, it really doesn't matter except for the chassis everything in them is new."
March 7th - Seller marked ad as 'Sold'
March 11th - Seller sends Buyer (as Buyer requested) and email marked 'CONTRACT' stating "I SOLD TO [buyer's name] TWO COMPLETELY UPGRADED SA-220'S." Etc...
March 14th - Seller emails he received payment in full.
NOTE: Seller sent amps to Counterpoint for Buyer so Mike Elliot could make an adjustment. Time passed before the amps were received by Buyer and Buyer did not set the amps up until all the necessary cables were received. Immediately upon setting the amp up Buyer noticed the SA-20 Serial # plate on the back of one of the amps.
June 16th - BUYER notices upon connecting amps LARGE Serial # plate: SA-20. NOT SA-220. Writes to Seller asking for an explaination.
June 16th - Seller responds "I was told [from person he originally purchased amp from] it was a SA-220...[sic] so I assumed that it was. What difference does it make anyway?"
June 17th - Buyer explains to seller that the SA-220 has a copper plated chassis and the SA-20 does not. Buyer forwards several past emails from himself to Seller asking SPECIFICALLY if the upgraded amp started out as an SA-20 or an SA-220 and forwards the Buyers responses confirming his past emails and the truth of his original ad - that the amp was an original SA-220. BUYER asks what solution Seller can offer for the mistake.
June 17th - Seller responds "I didn't send it to the FBI to get it verified...I really have nothing else to say to you."
June 18th - Buyer submitted negative feedback for seller and initiated this dispute.
Going over emails Buyer is reminded that Seller was to include a full set of replacement tubes. This was not done.
Kublakhan is requesting the following resultion:
I ONLY wanted two SA-220's upgraded to NP status. I DID NOT want one SA-220 and one SA-20. This is why I asked MANY times if the Seller was POSITIVE both amps were original SA-220's. There is nothing more I could have done to ensure I was buying what I wanted. I shouldn't have even needed to ask this question.
I want a FULL REFUND including shipping charges both ways. I was sold THE WRONG PRODUCT. That is the end of the argument. It's not my problem if the Seller can't read a large serial number ID plate two inches from the binding posts on the amp.
If Seller can come up with another option for restitution I will listen. Clearly I am the victim. Seller needs to be a man and take responsibility. Otherwise he is a mere crook.
Adkinsa describes the events as follows:
MY FIRST RESPONSE TO THIS IGNORANT PERSON WHO CALLS ME A LOSER IS THAT THERE IS NO ONE MORE HONEST THAN MYSELF. MICHAEL ELLIOTT UPGRADED THESE AMPS EXACTLY LIKE I SAID I BOUGHT ONE OF THE AMPS NEW AND THE OTHER ONE OFF THE INTERNET.WHEN I GOT THE AMP THE FACE PLATE , TOP OF THE AMP
AND EVERYTHING SAID SA-220. I NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT THE SERIAL NUMBER AS THEY WERE OUT OF WARRANTY. I THEN HEARD ABOUT THE UPGRADE AND CALLED MICHAEL ON THE PHONE AND HE TOLD ME NOTHING IN THE OLD AMP WAS USED EXCEPT THE CHASSIS AND NOTHING WAS EVER SAID ABOUT ANY COPPER PLATING NOT BEING ON ONE OF THE AMPS , BECAUSE I HAD TOLD HIM I WANTED EVERY UPGRADE POSSIBLE.I THEN SENT BOTH AMPS BACK TO MICHAEL
BECAUSE THE BUYER WANTED THEM CHANGED TO LOW SENSITIVITY INSTEAD OF HIGH.I HAD TOLD THE BUYER IN A PREVIOUS E-MAIL
I WOULD SEND HIM 2 SPARE TUBES I HAD BOUGHT , BUT I DIDN'T SEND THEM BECAUSE THE LOW SENSITIVITY MODEL USES DIFFERENT TUBES.I AM SO UPSET I'M TRYING NOT TO RESULT TO NAME CALLING AS THIS IGNORANT PERSON CALLS ME A CROOK.I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY TO THIS IGNORAMOUS.HE GOT A REALLY GOOD DEAL, THESE AMPS STILL HAVE A WARRANTY ON THEM. I REALLY LIKE DOING BUSINESS WITH AUDIOGON AND IF YOU LOOK AT MY PAST TRANSACTIONS YOU WILL SEE ABOUT MY INTEGRITY. IT LOOKS TO ME AS HE HAS BUYERS REMORSE AND IS TRYING TO GET BACK HIS MONEY.I OWE THIS MAN NOTHING AND AFTER THE IGNORANT THINGS HE SAID ABOUT ME BEING A CROOK THERE WILL BE NO RESOLUTION. PLEASE CALL MICHAEL ELLIOTT AND HE WILL VERIFY EVERYTHING I SAID. I HOPE THIS DOSEN'T EFFECT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH AUDIOGON. RESPECTFULLY, AL ADKINS.
Adkinsa's proposed resolution:
I WILL SEND THE TUBES I PROMISED EVEN THOUGH THEY WON'T WORK IN HIS LOW SENSITIVITY AMP.
I have MANY emails asking specifically if the amp was an original SA-220 and NOT an SA-20. Seller emailed back MANY times confirming the amp was an SA-220, NOT an SA-20. I made a deal to buy an upgraded SA-220, NOT an SA-20. I even had him write me an email titled 'CONTRACT' SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT HE WAS SELLING ME TWO SA-220's. Case closed. This is not the amp I agreed to buy. It's astonishing that he actually thinks he is completely in the right and owes me nothing. He needs to take responsibility for selling something that was NOT what he claimed it to be. A ten year old knows this, why doesn't a grown child?
I do not have buyer's remorse. I'll keep the amps but I need some form of restitution. Even an apology and an offer to figure out a solution might have ended this dispute. Instead he played ignorant...the one thing this guy does well. This guy's defense would be laughed out of any court.
The sale is invalid. I want my money back or I want this guy to come up with a fair compromise but he's going to obviously need the help of the Audiogon community.
As of 06-19-2003, Audiogon is requesting input from members regarding this dispute.