Ugh Accidentally bought a redeemed redemption card.

[hive17]

How is ebay unlike anywhere else you buy something from?
If you order something from walmart.com, open it and realize it sucks, you can take it back.
ebay is no different from any other online marketplace, yet there is this supposed "code of conduct" amongst hobbyists.

Imho, you shouldn't sell anything on ebay unless you are prepared for the possibility of it being returned to you.

And in this case, the seller was clearly trying to pull something. He got the dupe he was looking for, and it backfired on him.

No one really wants to tackle this question. I already asked it once. You've restated my point very well. I agree that, as a function of an AUCTION, blanket returns shouldn't be allowed. But this was a BIN, same as Amazon or anything else.

It was an auction the op just hit the BIN thinking he was getting a "steal".

Doesn't change anything. BIN is an instant purchase, just like an item on Amazon. BIN is not an auction. Hence, why shouldn't returns be accepted regardless, for a BIN purchase?

 

[dp33]

Are you people really thinking this auction is tricky? As I've said earlier if anything about this auction "tricks" you, can cannot say you comprehend simple Engish. You don't even have to have a long attention span, The 4th word is redeemed!

I still cannot see how the op filed a not as describe when he got exactly what was described!

And just for my knowledge, would someone please send me a link to the eBay policy where it states a title of an auction is not considered part of the description? I was always under the assumption that the purpose of the title was to describe your item you were trying to sell. Thanks

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/sea ... ation.html

Or for those of us who "lack reading comprehension":

"When you create a listing, make sure all your text and other information are complete and consistent throughout. For example, you can't say one thing in the title and then describe it differently in the description."

 

[danimal]

But the auction doesn't say anything about the card being unredeemed. So how is it not consistant?

 

[phillyfan0417]

Lots of excuses being made for a person who admitted he didnt fully read what he was buying.



Anyway, we can exucse the person who would have come here to gloat how he "stole" this but we have such outrage when it turns out the buyer got bitten.

This isnt one of those "high horse" threads to me, this is just interesting we are willing to ignore that the only thing that happened here is who gets to show off how they stuck it to who.


I'm not condoning the sellers actions here but i'm just interested in all the outrage...

 

[George_Calfas]

Are you people really thinking this auction is tricky? As I've said earlier if anything about this auction "tricks" you, can cannot say you comprehend simple Engish. You don't even have to have a long attention span, The 4th word is redeemed!
I still cannot see how the op filed a not as describe when he got exactly what was described!
And just for my knowledge, would someone please send me a link to the eBay policy where it states a title of an auction is not considered part of the description? I was always under the assumption that the purpose of the title was to describe your item you were trying to sell. Thanks

Sixth word is AND, meaning both title and description.

http://pages.ebay.com/help/sell/descriptions.html

So why would he need to repeat in the description what he already stated in the title? If they are both make up the description it would seem to be a bit repetitious to state what was already stated wouldn't it?

I am simply stating ebay's policy and defining the term "and", you mentioned reading comprehension and simple English language.........to break it down "and" means BOTH title and item description not title only.....that would be an either-or situation.

 

[George_Calfas]

Lots of excuses being made for a person who admitted he didnt fully read what he was buying.
Anyway, we can exucse the person who would have come here to gloat how he "stole" this but we have such outrage when it turns out the buyer got bitten.
This isnt one of those "high horse" threads to me, this is just interesting we are willing to ignore that the only thing that happened here is who gets to show off how they stuck it to who.
I'm not condoning the sellers actions here but i'm just interested in all the outrage...

Should be no outrage, both buyer and seller are at fault.......one for not following eBay auction clarity suggestions and the other for buyers remorse.

 

[phillyfan0417]

Lots of excuses being made for a person who admitted he didnt fully read what he was buying.
Anyway, we can exucse the person who would have come here to gloat how he "stole" this but we have such outrage when it turns out the buyer got bitten.
This isnt one of those "high horse" threads to me, this is just interesting we are willing to ignore that the only thing that happened here is who gets to show off how they stuck it to who.
I'm not condoning the sellers actions here but i'm just interested in all the outrage...

Should be no outrage, both buyer and seller are at fault.......one for not following eBay auction clarity suggestions and the other for buyers remorse.

Agreed George. The buyer will win his claim but it seems this could have been avoided by just reading and understanding the title.

 

[dp33]

But the auction doesn't say anything about the card being unredeemed. So how is it not consistant?

It doesn't say it is for a redeemed card in the description either. And then it goes so far as to say the odds of the card are 1 in 2400 packs - that is only true for an unredeemed card. And then on top of that, he doesn't scan the back of the card to show that it has been redeemed.

You are clearly ignoring all of this because of your axe to grind regarding the OP trying to get a "steal". My axe is pretty well sharpened now though, so I'll move along and just hope no one else in this thread gets duped.

 

[hive17]

Lots of excuses being made for a person who admitted he didnt fully read what he was buying.
Anyway, we can exucse the person who would have come here to gloat how he "stole" this but we have such outrage when it turns out the buyer got bitten.
This isnt one of those "high horse" threads to me, this is just interesting we are willing to ignore that the only thing that happened here is who gets to show off how they stuck it to who.
I'm not condoning the sellers actions here but i'm just interested in all the outrage...

Should be no outrage, both buyer and seller are at fault.......one for not following eBay auction clarity suggestions and the other for buyers remorse.

Agreed George. The buyer will win his claim but it seems this could have been avoided by just reading and understanding the title.

Also agree. But the seller, while not shady (well, maybe a little), left himself wide open for this. So he gets no sympathy from me either. I'd feel different if he hadn't tried to explain his way out of it with that "people collect these things" BS response. If he'd have just told the OP "tough *****", I'd have been on his side more (again, not entirely).

 

[Wes]

It's reasonable for the buyer to ask for a refund.

It's unreasonable to put the fault on the seller.

There are too many entitled posters in this thread who think that they're entitled to a novel about the item for sale, every pixel of the text of both sides of the card, a screenshot of the redemption page, the seller's birth certificate, social security card and someone to hold their hand when they click "Commit to Buy."

 

[fengzhang]

Lots of excuses being made for a person who admitted he didnt fully read what he was buying.
Anyway, we can exucse the person who would have come here to gloat how he "stole" this but we have such outrage when it turns out the buyer got bitten.
This isnt one of those "high horse" threads to me, this is just interesting we are willing to ignore that the only thing that happened here is who gets to show off how they stuck it to who.
I'm not condoning the sellers actions here but i'm just interested in all the outrage...

Should be no outrage, both buyer and seller are at fault.......one for not following eBay auction clarity suggestions and the other for buyers remorse.

Agreed George. The buyer will win his claim but it seems this could have been avoided by just reading and understanding the title.

Also agree. But the seller, while not shady (well, maybe a little), left himself wide open for this. So he gets no sympathy from me either. I'd feel different if he hadn't tried to explain his way out of it with that "people collect these things" BS response. If he'd have just told the OP "tough *****", I'd have been on his side more (again, not entirely).

There have been many examples posted in this thread alone of redeemed cards selling for as much as the seller was asking (which was $19 originally with a $49 BIN). What is wrong with his response? Some people do collect these. It is not up to you nor I to judge how much this card is worth. The seller can set it at whatever price he wants. So, I don't understand all the people saying the seller should've priced this card lower so that the buyer would understand that it wasn't for the full blue refractor set.

The buyer will win the claim only because ebay rules have become ridiculously one-sided. Under the old system, I would've negged the buyer and ruined his perfect feedback. In fact, under the old system, I think the buyer would've paid the money he owed to preserve his feedback. Now, there's no fear on the part of buyers and situations like this only adds to the frustration of Ebay sellers.

Like I said, the OP's own auctions have worthless descriptions (basically, the title repasted). I wonder how he'd feel if a buyer renegged or filed a chargeback because he failed to look at the scan closely enough.

 

[hive17]

Lots of excuses being made for a person who admitted he didnt fully read what he was buying.
Anyway, we can exucse the person who would have come here to gloat how he "stole" this but we have such outrage when it turns out the buyer got bitten.
This isnt one of those "high horse" threads to me, this is just interesting we are willing to ignore that the only thing that happened here is who gets to show off how they stuck it to who.
I'm not condoning the sellers actions here but i'm just interested in all the outrage...

Should be no outrage, both buyer and seller are at fault.......one for not following eBay auction clarity suggestions and the other for buyers remorse.

Agreed George. The buyer will win his claim but it seems this could have been avoided by just reading and understanding the title.

Also agree. But the seller, while not shady (well, maybe a little), left himself wide open for this. So he gets no sympathy from me either. I'd feel different if he hadn't tried to explain his way out of it with that "people collect these things" BS response. If he'd have just told the OP "tough *****", I'd have been on his side more (again, not entirely).

There have been many examples posted in this thread alone of redeemed cards selling for as much as the seller was asking (which was $19 originally with a $49 BIN). What is wrong with his response? Some people do collect these. It is not up to you nor I to judge how much this card is worth. The seller can set it at whatever price he wants. So, I don't understand all the people saying the seller should've priced this card lower so that the buyer would understand that it wasn't for the full blue refractor set.

The buyer will win the claim only because ebay rules have become ridiculously one-sided. Under the old system, I would've negged the buyer and ruined his perfect feedback. In fact, under the old system, I think the buyer would've paid the money he owed to preserve his feedback. Now, there's no fear on the part of buyers and situations like this only adds to the frustration of Ebay sellers.

Like I said, the OP's own auctions have worthless descriptions (basically, the title repasted). I wonder how he'd feel if a buyer renegged or filed a chargeback because he failed to look at the scan closely enough.

This is clearly not one of those instances.

Wes stated it better. There is nothing wrong with requesting a refund and the seller shouldn't take the heat for his auction. I just don't believe the seller honestly thought that used redemption was worth that much. JMO.

 

[Super Mario]

Kudos to the seller for finding someone stupid enough to not read the full item description and hit the BIN on it.



FACT

My fault. Listing said redeemed.

OP said the listing said it was redeemed.


Not the sellers fault for him not reading it before purchasing.



Take your licks, learn your lesson. Don't be a baby and ask for a refund. You screwed up, not the seller.






That's how I view the situation.

 

[t3dudek]

And then it goes so far as to say the odds of the card are 1 in 2400 packs - t

Now if the card was rare. wouldnt the redemption for said card be just as rare. If there was only 100 Pujols auto's an they were all redemptions with odds of 1 in 2400 packs. Then the odds of pulling the Pujols Auto redemption would be equal to the print run of the card (100) so it would still be a tough pull just to get the redemption card.

Just saying

 

[ChasHawk]

The system is set up to be able to return things...why is that being a baby?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that those bashing the OP have never returned anything, anywhere, ever...correct?

 

[MartinFFcollector]

Wow. Didn't think this would cause this. Once I return the card, I'm getting $20 back from the seller. I'm fine with that. I'll never know how the Paypal claim would have turned out since I canceled it.

Now stop fighting and get back to busting packs!

 

[All The Hype]

The reason the seller should have included a picture of the back of the card is because that's a vital detail in this auction. If you know anything about baseball card market, you know that if there's something wrong/unusual about what you're selling, it is vital to put this information in the listing title/picture/description in such a way that it is undoubtedly clear what exactly is for sale. Otherwise you leave yourself vulnerable to not as described claims. Every time. The word redeemed was in the title. It was not in the description, and the description in no way made it clear that it was a redeemed card. It was also not in the scan, and from the scan, it looks just like the unredeemed card (the card NORMALLY sold on eBay). It's certainly the buyer's fault for not asking for clarification if he was unsure what the auction was for, but the seller should have been more clear since

The fact that it is somewhat uncommon to sell a redeemed card on eBay is actually pretty important here IMO, because it makes his item require special attention to the detail that it is redeemed, unlike most listings for these cards. This is similar to selling a damaged card. Since most cards are presumed to be in reasonably good condition, any damage needs to be described in extra detail in the description to make it clear for the buyer.

For example, you have a card with a dinged corner. Perhaps the scan of your auction shows the ding, but you do not mention it in title or description. Don't you think the buyer is going to be upset when he gets the card and sees the ding? There's a chance he saw it in the scan, but there are three different ways to advertise your product (scan/title/description), so why not make it clear in all three as to avoid duping the buyer?


And just a general comment: The way I see it, an eBay auction done properly will give the buyer a similar understanding of the item for sale as picking it up at the store and physically touching/inspecting the item while deciding whether or not to purchase it. Not doing this will leave the seller vulnerable to having to return the buyer's money.

 

[ChasHawk]

There have been many examples posted in this thread alone of redeemed cards selling for as much as the seller was asking (which was $19 originally with a $49 BIN). What is wrong with his response? Some people do collect these. It is not up to you nor I to judge how much this card is worth. The seller can set it at whatever price he wants. So, I don't understand all the people saying the seller should've priced this card lower so that the buyer would understand that it wasn't for the full blue refractor set.

Some people buy redemptions for cards that were never made.

 

[RL24]

So, I don't understand all the people saying the seller should've priced this card lower so that the buyer would understand that it wasn't for the full blue refractor set.

I know you're smarter than this... but I'll try to explain.


I got a fake watch. It looks really great, just like a real Rolex. I bought it off a guy in the WalMart parking lot for $30, it was a sweet deal. Now I'm ready to sell it. I could do one of two things. I could price it at $30 and people would automatically know "That is not a real Rolex." OR I could sell it for $3,000 and try to trick somebody into thinking they are getting a steal on a real Rolex. You could say "I never told him it was a real Rolex" but you didn't have to say that, your price tag did.

It's one of the oldest and most basic principals of scamming. Maybe. :?

 

[Wes]

The reason the seller should have included a picture of the back of the card is because that's a vital detail in this auction. If you know anything about baseball card market, you know that if there's something wrong/unusual about what you're selling, it is vital to put this information in the listing title/picture/description in such a way that it is undoubtedly clear what exactly is for sale. Otherwise you leave yourself vulnerable to not as described claims. Every time. The word redeemed was in the title. It was not in the description, and the description in no way made it clear that it was a redeemed card. It was also not in the scan, and from the scan, it looks just like the unredeemed card (the card NORMALLY sold on eBay). It's certainly the buyer's fault for not asking for clarification if he was unsure what the auction was for, but the seller should have been more clear since

The fact that it is somewhat uncommon to sell a redeemed card on eBay is actually pretty important here IMO, because it makes his item require special attention to the detail that it is redeemed, unlike most listings for these cards. This is similar to selling a damaged card. Since most cards are presumed to be in reasonably good condition, any damage needs to be described in extra detail in the description to make it clear for the buyer.

For example, you have a card with a dinged corner. Perhaps the scan of your auction shows the ding, but you do not mention it in title or description. Don't you think the buyer is going to be upset when he gets the card and sees the ding? There's a chance he saw it in the scan, but there are three different ways to advertise your product (scan/title/description), so why not make it clear in all three as to avoid duping the buyer?


And just a general comment: The way I see it, an eBay auction done properly will give the buyer a similar understanding of the item for sale as picking it up at the store and physically touching/inspecting the item while deciding whether or not to purchase it. Not doing this will leave the seller vulnerable to having to return the buyer's money.

I think it's more common than you're giving it credit for. As several members in this thread have said, people do collect those things.

As far as the scenario with the dinged card being evident in the scan and not mentioned in the description, I don't agree with this either. The onus is not on the seller to write an essay about the condition of the card. I don't think that that is the expectation of most buyers either. I have 100% feedback and 4.9's and 5's across the board on eBay and my descriptions say only this: "You get the exact item pictured." Nothing more, nothing less. If someone has a question about something they see in the scan, I respond. Otherwise, I leave it up to the buyer to determine if what they see is what they want. I've found that adding a wordy description about "great condition" or "hairline scratches" etc only creates confusion.