Literal forum of public opinion- Damaged goods sold to me from 6MT

[HEWSINATOR]

6MT, you did lie to me, I think this is valid to bring up. You did tell me that the jeans were shipped and the reason you could not give me tracking is because it was at your office. Then the next day the goods were recieved at the post office, shortly after 1pm. Did this not happen.

Is a full refund likely to happen. No, did I think it was? I hoped.

Cultpop, we obviously do not agree, but a sober opinion is nice, I thank you for that. It should be noted that 6MT has not offered any solution other than a "refund of some amount", I HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED ANY SOLUTION.

6MT Give me a number. Please.

Also, thanks for all your help guys, and again, I want to stress that I do not think that 6MT did this on purpose, and I may just be having trouble as this is a no brainer to me based on my ethos.

Also, again, just because you think that the damage does not matter, and it would not bother you, this does not mean I am out of line for it bothering me, does it? Please keep this in mind when making arguments.

***PS, I am very dissapointed in myself, for those laughing at me, for my mistake in the use of mute, which should rather have been moot earlier. And LSATs are a month

[HEWSINATOR]

6MT, you did lie to me, I think this is valid to bring up. You did tell me that the jeans were shipped and the reason you could not give me tracking is because it was at your office. Then the next day the goods were recieved at the post office, shortly after 1pm. Did this not happen.

Is a full refund likely to happen. No, did I think it was? I hoped.

Cultpop, we obviously do not agree, but a sober opinion is nice, I thank you for that. It should be noted that 6MT has not offered any solution other than a "refund of some amount", I HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED ANY SOLUTION.

6MT Give me a number. Please.

Also, thanks for all your help guys, and again, I want to stress that I do not think that 6MT did this on purpose, and I may just be having trouble as this is a no brainer to me based on my ethos.

Also, again, just because you think that the damage does not matter, and it would not bother you, this does not mean I am out of line for it bothering me, does it? Please keep this in mind when making arguments.

***PS, I am very dissapointed in myself, for those laughing at me, for my mistake in the use of mute, which should rather have been moot earlier. And LSATs are a month

[keri]

keri, how was your situation resolved? did you know they were seconds?

Yeah, the grapist picked them up at a sample sale in NYC.

[keri]

keri, how was your situation resolved? did you know they were seconds?

Yeah, the grapist picked them up at a sample sale in NYC.

[yawn]

no im saying hewsinator is partially responsible for the fact that a full refund can not (AND SHOULD NOT) take place because HE SOAKED THE JEANS PRIOR TO NOTICING THE NEARLY INVISIBLE FLAW.

that didn't seem to be your point in the quote i referenced, but you're faulting him for not detecting something right away that's "nearly invisible"?

lets not forget we are taking about denim here not linen pants.

moot point.

in fact i tend to think if he had soaked them, a retail store would look at that flaw and say "too bad you already soaked these"

this is also a moot point. however, if you were able to prove that they were faulty before you received them at retail, i believe you would get your money back regardless of wear.

and to say it was false advertising is unfair to 6mt, who clearly seems to have made an honest mistake.

false advertising is false advertising. deliberateness is another point.

again they both should compromise here. 6mt seems willing to do so and hews is being unreasonable. remember he only paid $140 for jeans that usaully go for nearly double that.

like i said the item is used. to expect a full refund (on a already heavily discounted item) is a bit unreasonable.

if he paid for something, regardless of the discount, and it's defective without notification, then it should be returnable at full price.

[yawn]

no im saying hewsinator is partially responsible for the fact that a full refund can not (AND SHOULD NOT) take place because HE SOAKED THE JEANS PRIOR TO NOTICING THE NEARLY INVISIBLE FLAW.

that didn't seem to be your point in the quote i referenced, but you're faulting him for not detecting something right away that's "nearly invisible"?

lets not forget we are taking about denim here not linen pants.

moot point.

in fact i tend to think if he had soaked them, a retail store would look at that flaw and say "too bad you already soaked these"

this is also a moot point. however, if you were able to prove that they were faulty before you received them at retail, i believe you would get your money back regardless of wear.

and to say it was false advertising is unfair to 6mt, who clearly seems to have made an honest mistake.

false advertising is false advertising. deliberateness is another point.

again they both should compromise here. 6mt seems willing to do so and hews is being unreasonable. remember he only paid $140 for jeans that usaully go for nearly double that.

like i said the item is used. to expect a full refund (on a already heavily discounted item) is a bit unreasonable.

if he paid for something, regardless of the discount, and it's defective without notification, then it should be returnable at full price.

[HEWSINATOR]

Yawn, thank you for your support. I think this may be like telling a Christian that God does not exist. Morals, values, responsibility is different for all people, maybe better in one's eyes, but definatley different.

[HEWSINATOR]

Yawn, thank you for your support. I think this may be like telling a Christian that God does not exist. Morals, values, responsibility is different for all people, maybe better in one's eyes, but definatley different.

[yawn]

i just believe in getting what you paid for.

[yawn]

i just believe in getting what you paid for.

[snugglepony]

refund him the (inflated) cost of shipping the jeans to him -- $20 -- and call it fucking even.

boring.

[snugglepony]

refund him the (inflated) cost of shipping the jeans to him -- $20 -- and call it fucking even.

boring.

[HEWSINATOR]

Also, I think of worthy note is that some are using the argument I got a good deal anyhow, and 6MT is talking about how he would then be out. He said in this thread that he got the jeans for FREE. 6MT would not be losing anything, just making less.

6MT, I implore you to show me where you have once made an offer to resolve this.

[HEWSINATOR]

Also, I think of worthy note is that some are using the argument I got a good deal anyhow, and 6MT is talking about how he would then be out. He said in this thread that he got the jeans for FREE. 6MT would not be losing anything, just making less.

6MT, I implore you to show me where you have once made an offer to resolve this.

[keri]

By partial refund I meant give the guy like 20% back to him because of the flaw a considerate seller would do so, I've had to do it when I missed something on accident, it's just a natural thing.

But I think even if he sent them back, a full refund is not acceptable, because of the soak.

I think a compromise is in order, not to mention doing business on a forum is no guaratee of perfection, and most people would move on if they were that unhappy and sell them themselves.

And lastly: it's behind the knee not even in an area of stress, it's hiding back there, and will be obscured by your honeycombs, I do think ou deserve a bit back, though.

[keri]

By partial refund I meant give the guy like 20% back to him because of the flaw a considerate seller would do so, I've had to do it when I missed something on accident, it's just a natural thing.

But I think even if he sent them back, a full refund is not acceptable, because of the soak.

I think a compromise is in order, not to mention doing business on a forum is no guaratee of perfection, and most people would move on if they were that unhappy and sell them themselves.

And lastly: it's behind the knee not even in an area of stress, it's hiding back there, and will be obscured by your honeycombs, I do think ou deserve a bit back, though.

[tg76]

no im saying hewsinator is partially responsible for the fact that a full refund can not (AND SHOULD NOT) take place because HE SOAKED THE JEANS PRIOR TO NOTICING THE NEARLY INVISIBLE FLAW.

lets not forget we are taking about denim here not linen pants.

in fact i tend to think if he had soaked them, a retail store would look at that flaw and say "too bad you already soaked these"

and to say it was false advertising is unfair to 6mt, who clearly seems to have made an honest mistake.

again they both should compromise here. 6mt seems willing to do so and hews is being unreasonable. remember he only paid $140 for jeans that usaully go for nearly double that.

like i said the item is used. to expect a full refund (on a already heavily discounted item) is a bit unreasonable.

from a retail point of veiw i totally agree, buyer beware etc check your purchases before altering them and yes soaking is altering, if this came up in my shop i would tell the customer to f off but using legal blahblah if it was a customer i never wanted to see again, if it was a good and valued customer then i would give them some sort of partial refund or compensation, not sure of consumer protection laws in the rest of the world but im pretty sure 6mt would win if it went to small claims court in nz... personally if i was 6mt i would give a partial that ment i didnt loose or make any profit, keep costs

[tg76]

no im saying hewsinator is partially responsible for the fact that a full refund can not (AND SHOULD NOT) take place because HE SOAKED THE JEANS PRIOR TO NOTICING THE NEARLY INVISIBLE FLAW.

lets not forget we are taking about denim here not linen pants.

in fact i tend to think if he had soaked them, a retail store would look at that flaw and say "too bad you already soaked these"

and to say it was false advertising is unfair to 6mt, who clearly seems to have made an honest mistake.

again they both should compromise here. 6mt seems willing to do so and hews is being unreasonable. remember he only paid $140 for jeans that usaully go for nearly double that.

like i said the item is used. to expect a full refund (on a already heavily discounted item) is a bit unreasonable.

from a retail point of veiw i totally agree, buyer beware etc check your purchases before altering them and yes soaking is altering, if this came up in my shop i would tell the customer to f off but using legal blahblah if it was a customer i never wanted to see again, if it was a good and valued customer then i would give them some sort of partial refund or compensation, not sure of consumer protection laws in the rest of the world but im pretty sure 6mt would win if it went to small claims court in nz... personally if i was 6mt i would give a partial that ment i didnt loose or make any profit, keep costs

[HEWSINATOR]

Keri, I find your idea to be a logical place to at least start solving this.

And all those that do not care about the damage, keep your eyes open for NWT, One wash Canes in Supermarket.

TG, here in Alberta, 6MT would not win in small claims. I did a case very similar to this in fact in a Business Law Class titled "The law of business transactions."

One you have bought them all responsibility does not end, especially when you can prove that the good were damaged before you got them. The fact that 6MT missed the flaw, I think, helps my argument in that how then could one expect me to have seen it right away.

But I think we can call hung jury, and leave it to myself and 6MT to sort this out. Still waiting for a reasonable offer and rebuttal to your claim that you did not lie to me in the mailing.

[HEWSINATOR]

Keri, I find your idea to be a logical place to at least start solving this.

And all those that do not care about the damage, keep your eyes open for NWT, One wash Canes in Supermarket.

TG, here in Alberta, 6MT would not win in small claims. I did a case very similar to this in fact in a Business Law Class titled "The law of business transactions."

One you have bought them all responsibility does not end, especially when you can prove that the good were damaged before you got them. The fact that 6MT missed the flaw, I think, helps my argument in that how then could one expect me to have seen it right away.

But I think we can call hung jury, and leave it to myself and 6MT to sort this out. Still waiting for a reasonable offer and rebuttal to your claim that you did not lie to me in the mailing.

[yawn]

personally if i was 6mt i would give a partial that ment i didnt loose or make any profit, keep costs

in that case he would refund the full amount.

[yawn]

personally if i was 6mt i would give a partial that ment i didnt loose or make any profit, keep costs

in that case he would refund the full amount.

[HEWSINATOR]

Exactly, 6MT got these for free. I am out tangible money for something that I bought under false pretences, albeit we will assume (and I believe) in good faith. He would then be out NOTHING.

[HEWSINATOR]

Exactly, 6MT got these for free. I am out tangible money for something that I bought under false pretences, albeit we will assume (and I believe) in good faith. He would then be out NOTHING.

[yawn]

Exactly, 6MT got these for free. I am out tangible money for something that I bought under false pretences, albeit we will assume (and I believe) in good faith. He would then be out NOTHING.

the fact that you would be out tangible money and that he would be out nothing is irrelevant, although a cause for sympathy.

[yawn]

Exactly, 6MT got these for free. I am out tangible money for something that I bought under false pretences, albeit we will assume (and I believe) in good faith. He would then be out NOTHING.

the fact that you would be out tangible money and that he would be out nothing is irrelevant, although a cause for sympathy.

[cultpop 0217]

Yawn, thank you for your support. I think this may be like telling a Christian that God does not exist. Morals, values, responsibility is different for all people, maybe better in one's eyes, but definatley different.

exactly my point. take some RESPONSIBILTY. you soaked them. they are altered. you take a loss. YOU COMPROMISE. move on. dont start making moral judgements dude.

[cultpop 0217]

Yawn, thank you for your support. I think this may be like telling a Christian that God does not exist. Morals, values, responsibility is different for all people, maybe better in one's eyes, but definatley different.

exactly my point. take some RESPONSIBILTY. you soaked them. they are altered. you take a loss. YOU COMPROMISE. move on. dont start making moral judgements dude.

[keri]

the fact that you would be out tangible money and that he would be out nothing is irrelevant, although a cause for sympathy.

Exactly, value is the issue here, and they have decreased in value (both because of the flaw, and because of the soak, so both parties are slightly at wrong, although well intentioned wrongs)

[keri]

the fact that you would be out tangible money and that he would be out nothing is irrelevant, although a cause for sympathy.

Exactly, value is the issue here, and they have decreased in value (both because of the flaw, and because of the soak, so both parties are slightly at wrong, although well intentioned wrongs)