AudiogoN Forums: Andrewp vs Cheardone: Seller reports problem with sale

Andrewp vs Cheardone: Seller reports problem with sale

Problem: Seller reports problem with sale
05-08-2009: Andrewp initiated process
05-10-2009: Cheardone submitted response

Andrewp describes the events as follows:
april 6 - speakers shipped to the buyer via Fedex.

april 9 - received a phone call from a buyer
in which hes said: "speakers are not quite in the condition I expected". I immediately offered to take them back and give the buyer full refund.
April 13th buyer shipped speakers back to me.
April 16th Speakers arrived heavily damaged by Fedex.
Buyer opens the claim with Fedex.
April 21th Fedex picks up speakers from my house,takes it to local San Jose office, opens the packages, examines damages, repacks (repacking is slopy and buyer draws a wrong conclusion that it was my packing) the speakers and sends them back to the buyer. The claim is declined on the basis of not sufficent packing by the buyer.
I declined the refund to the buyer for 2 reasons:
1)It was the buyer who is responsible for the packing of the speakers.
2)It was Fedex who did the damage to the speakers.

There are more small details which the buyer uses agains me.
For example: He opened only one package (one speaker) which he admitted was a bad decision.
He used my packing and packing material on one speaker shipping it back which was another risky decision as it might've been already damaged. During the conversation about returning the speakers to me when asked if the speakers arrived damaged he said "no".... not desclosing to me at the very moment that he only opened one of them.

In his negative feedback he states "no refund was given"
here are the exerpts from his e-mails to me: "I did not ask you to pay for damage caused by FedEx."
"I did not say it was your fault."

I'll be happy to forward the original e-mails buyer and I exchaged,
upon request.

Andrewp is requesting the following resultion:
Removing negative feedback

Cheardone describes the events as follows:
The seller appears to be changing his story. The first time we spoke on the phone after he received the speakers back from me he stated that only one speaker had damage. Now he states on April 16 that both speakers were received heavily damaged. This is the first time I have heard this and believe he is only saying this now because I told both him both speakers have been returned to me damaged. He is also claiming that I did not tell him I only opened the package to one speaker. This is not correct. When I called him to tell him the speakers were not in the condition as described in his listing, he was informed during that conversation that I was not going to open the other package, but only return it to him in his original packaging. He made mo objections to this. Some of my comments he is using at the end of his statement are clearly being taken out of context to make it appear as if he is does not bear any fault. If you look at our last email exchange you will see I did not admit to making any bad decisions. Based on his changing story and attempts to use my comments out of context I do not feel this individual is going to be completely honest in his dispute.

Cheardone's proposed resolution:
Feedback is accurate and will not be withdrawn.

Andrewp's rebuttal:
Buyer accused me before of a slopy packing but it turned out to be Fedex's packing, not mine,so he now tries integrity card (honesty). One speaker damaged versus two. Maybe that'll catch.
Just another desperate attempt to get seller implicated
in a conflict between buyer (party that shipped) and Fedex
(party that did the damage).
Buyer claims "I did not admit to making any bad decisions".
Really? Where is his honesty, again?

As of 05-12-2009, Audiogon is requesting input from members regarding this dispute.

Audiogon (Threads | Answers | This Thread)

05-12-09

Responses

05-12-09: Commcat
Agree with: Andrewp completely, grant full request

The Contract is between Andrewp (A) and Cheardone (C). A ships to C. C is dissatsified and A agrees to have C return the merchandise for a refund. The third party FedEX (F) causes damage to the merchandise returned by C but claims it is C's fault because the packaging was poorly executed. C's claim is properly against F for the value of the damaged merchandise. C cannot claim against A because C is in breach of the modification to the original contract which requires C to return to A the same merchandise in the same condition received. The intervening cause, FedEx's damage of the merchandise, prevents full performance by C. Therefore, C must seek compensation from F. A is entitled to removal of the negative feedback and C should be prevented from leaving any feedback comment which reflects negatively on A's efforts.
Commcat (Threads | Answers | This Thread)

05-12-09: Gtshelby65
Agree with: Both parties have valid points, compromise

Once an item is delivered, it becomes the buyer's possession. If it was not satisfactory, Cheardone is entitled to return for a refund, and Andrewp was happy to oblige. At this point, it is Cheardone's responsibility to properly pack the item for shipping. Re-using boxes is a huge no-no... virtually guarantees a denied damage claim. Since Fedex did indeed damage the speakers, Andrewp is no longer required to refund the purchase, especially since Cheardone retained possession of the speakers.

OTOH, Andrewp should have rejected the feedback left by Cheardone if he did not agree with it. This whole dispute could've possibly been avoided by just hitting the "Reject feedback" button.

Perhaps neutral feedback for both parties is in order?

I feel bad that Cheardone got shafted by Fedex's insurance, but that's what they do... they deny claims.
Gtshelby65 (Answers | This Thread)

05-13-09: Elizabeth
Agree with: Cheardone completely, grant full request

The problem here is packaging.
The original seller sent the speakers to the buyer in some sort of packaging.
Clearly that packaging would have been used to send the speakers back to the buyer. I cannot see any way the buyer is responsible for the damage, even if he sent the speakers back to the seller, as the seller was the person who created the packaging in the first place.
The seller failed to properly package the speakers in the first place, even though he claims to have said he would accept a return, the speaker damage was HIS fault. (for not packaging the speakers well enough to withstand a two way trip.
Elizabeth (Threads | Answers | This Thread)

Closed for Input

Only the two Disputants may post now

This thread is no longer accepting general input.
Only the two disputants may post their follow ups about resolution.