used when promised new

Warrenh, in your original post you mentioned that "We negotiated through email and came up with the price of $375 NEW." What you did not mention was how you learned about the item for sale?

I assume that you learned, like we all do, by reading an ad here on Audiogon, and then responding to that ad. Unfortunately, that ad was just taken off of Audiogon moments ago (I guess because the item is now sold) but I checked the language of the ad out and the wording was exactly as Jmcgrogan2 states in his post above. I wish you could all still see the ad! The ad I read was for these same cables and was listed for $375 (no negotiation that I can see from the listed price). There was no fine print. It stated clearly that the cables were "like new" and in the description they were "rated 9.9/10" and "in absolutely mint like new condition." The ad also mentioned that all items that were in stock were either "brand new" or "like new" (implying clearly that if this item was advertised as "like new" then it could not be "brand new" since that was the only other option of the two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive options that the seller provides). I mean to tell you folks, the ad was great and it hit you over the head several times and in big bold print. It did what I suggested above in terms of explaining clearly what exactly was being offered. Since the seller is a dealer with several other Cardas ads on Audiogon, the only logical assumption would be that these were demo cables, and as such, may or may not have come with the original packaging and literature. This was not addressed by the ad. You should have asked if it was a concern.

What frustrates me about this thread is that (like several other people) I took the time to give my opinion and advice (above) based on what was stated by the thread's originator (before reading the ad). If it were not for Jmcgrogan2's post, I would not have had the chance to see the facts for myself. Warrenh, you didn't tell it like it is, which you have to do if you want our honest feedback. You claim that this person misrepresented the product to you, but clearly (based on the ad) he did not.

You, in fact, misrepresented his representations to us! And even based on the half-truth version of the facts as they were presented to us, the majority view seemed to be that neutral feedback with an explanation was in order. Yet, despite soliciting our advice publicly, you went against it and gave negative feedback, and then made matters worse by broadcasting it, and by doing so, led us to the identity of your seller who now has received unwarrented negative feedback and is also the victim of a defamatory thread.

Clearly, you were disappointed that you did not receive new cables as you had expected. I understand your frustration, but as has been pointed out by others, you should not give negative feedback to someone based on your misunderstanding when, in fact, the ad very clearly stated the truth, or at least enough of the truth to draw out your questions about the condition of the product.

In my opinion, you should:

1. Ask Audiogon to remove the negative feedback that you have given, and
2. Issue and apology.

What a shame that the ad has been removed.

Having said all of that, I could be wrong. If you did in fact come to a different understanding with the seller in your email communication than what was stated in the ad, and if your emails clearly indicate an agreement that you were buying "New" cables (full stop), then clearly I'm wrong for being so harsh. Every point I've made above is based on my reading of the plain language of the ad. I may not know all of the facts.

Playing the devil's advocate (pun intended) he may have opened the Cardas package, tried them in his system for a very brief period, then schuffled them to the side with all of his other unused cables, and then months later when he decided to sell them, he remembered them as "new" because (in effect) he never used them. He then listed them quite honestly, sold them to you quite honestly, and then only when it was time to pack them did he discover that he had lost the Cardas literature. In the meantime, of course, he's been too busy (trying out all sorts of other cables) to send you a simple two line email to let you know that (line one) he searched the world over but could not find the original packaging and (line two) to offer profuse appologies for what you might objectively interpret as a misrepresentation. Otherwise he lied.

Another thought on universality (is that a word?) of definitions. There are many forms of the word "New" that can be easily understood by potential buyers if the seller is clear in his or her communication.

In simple terms, "New" (to me) means "New, unopened, and unused" or "New in box" like I would expect to find the item in a retail store or if I were to buy directly from the manufacturer. All shipping materials and literature should be included if the term "New" is used by the seller without any modification or explanation.

If the item has been opened only for inspection purposes, then the seller should describe the item is "New and unused, but opened only for inspection". If the seller does not have the original packaging, then he or she could add, "I don't have the original packaging". Tell it like it is!
If the item has been used in any way, shape, or form (even if for a 5 minute test) then the seller should describe it as "As new" or "New demo" or whatever phrase best describes the reality. Audiogon ads are not priced per word!

Good of you Warrenh, I'd do business with you anytime.

Warrenh, thanks for your follow-up reply. This clarifies that your understanding of the transaction had nothing to do with the original ad. This is good to know. It's also comforting to know that you have received an apology from Trancehits. That was good of him since it was he who made the mistake. It's nice to have all of the facts assembled.

(BTW, Zaikesman, the ad that you see now is not the same one that Jmcgrogan2 referred to and that I had seen prior to its disappearance)

If I could summarize, the ad that some of us latched onto mentioned that Trancehits sells both 1) "like new" (what we now know as "demo" per Warrenth's most recent post) and 2) "brand new" cables. In that ad, which was the basis of my lengthy objections, the item for sale was of the "like new" variety. Per Warrenh's most recent post, however, their agreement via email was clearly for "new" cables by which both parties understood as "brand new" and thus the apology from Trancehits for mistakenly sending demos. Fair enough, Trancehits has lots of postiive feedback and we all make mistakes. I suspect his was an honest one.

It's too bad that this thread drew in so much speculation about what the facts really were. It's also too bad that the issues couldn't be resolved privately or through the dispute resolution process. Yet, it provides some great points that we all should learn from: negative feedback is a serious thing; a seller needs to have an opportunity to address any issues that that buyer has with his or her performance; clear communication is the key to successful transactions; and everyone here wants this to site to continue to be the best place to buy and sell!

I think we can all be friends again...