- Posts
- 1,541
- Likes
- 3,350
Engee
·I won an auction for a watch listed without movement shots. Usually I probably wouldn't bid on a watch without movement shots, but as this was for a 168.025 Tool 107 front loader I accepted that the seller wouldn't be able to include pictures without taking the watch to someone to open it.
After winning the auction I wrote to the seller saying that under the circumstances I would expect him to accept a return if either a) the watch did not contain the correct movement, or b) the movement was in such poor condition that major expense would be incurred fixing it. The seller had described the watch as working but losing about a minute a day. Enquiries here came led me to conclude that while there may be need for some parts replacement, there should be no major concerns and that's why I decided to bid.
The seller wrote back saying he was cancelling the sale because my conditions meant it was more like a consumer sale than an ebay auction. I replied saying I was disappointed and pointed out that ebay would almost certainly side with me if I wanted to return it on the basis of misdescription. My argument being that while failure to show movement shots does not constitute misdescription, it also means the seller is unable to provide a sufficient description.
So was I wrong to seek his acceptance of my terms before paying for the watch? Am I not playing the game fairly? In one sense I will accept I was being a bit cheeky in that I could have asked him for such an assurance before bidding, but my guess is he would have just said not to bid, which in hindsight is fair enough, but at the time I didn't think there'd be a problem.
.
After winning the auction I wrote to the seller saying that under the circumstances I would expect him to accept a return if either a) the watch did not contain the correct movement, or b) the movement was in such poor condition that major expense would be incurred fixing it. The seller had described the watch as working but losing about a minute a day. Enquiries here came led me to conclude that while there may be need for some parts replacement, there should be no major concerns and that's why I decided to bid.
The seller wrote back saying he was cancelling the sale because my conditions meant it was more like a consumer sale than an ebay auction. I replied saying I was disappointed and pointed out that ebay would almost certainly side with me if I wanted to return it on the basis of misdescription. My argument being that while failure to show movement shots does not constitute misdescription, it also means the seller is unable to provide a sufficient description.
So was I wrong to seek his acceptance of my terms before paying for the watch? Am I not playing the game fairly? In one sense I will accept I was being a bit cheeky in that I could have asked him for such an assurance before bidding, but my guess is he would have just said not to bid, which in hindsight is fair enough, but at the time I didn't think there'd be a problem.
.
Edited:
