#136
|
|||
|
|||
Nope: OP is back! Check out post #130. So we get to keep arguing!!!!!!!:rolle yes:
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Well, according to his post, you've got til Monday. So let er rip!
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#139
|
||||
|
||||
Probably the best outcome at this point is the buyer gives up a bit more than he'd hoped, seller accepts a little less than he'd intended and both parties end up slightly irritated but not mad.
__________________
Goodall, Martin, Wingert |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
That's the perfect definition of 'compromise'.
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Outcome?
I've read this with a lot of interest, and my own quiet wonders.
WildFiddler, as my late father would say, "I am sorry you are having to go through this." And, I'll add that I hope it is resolved fairly since I have been in your position before with a very expensive instrument. Again, wish you the best and hope you find some happy music in the meantime. CAT Quote:
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Nobody forced the OP to do business with whomever it is he ordered the guitars from. We may think it is unreasonable but it was part of the transaction. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Consider the alternative. Let's exaggerate the situation for "clarity". Let's assume you want to try a jar of peanuts. I offer them to you in a sealed, new jar. You open the jar, taste 10% of them, then decide you don't like them and return them to me. I accept them. I subsequently have another person who wants to try the nuts. So, I send them the "new" jar that you tried, but it is now only 90% full. That person tries 10% of them and then decides he or she doesn't like them and then returns them to me. I accept them. I subsequently have another person who wants to try the nuts, same thing happens and I send them a jar now 80% full. Continue this exaggerated situation to a conclusion and I'll end up with an empty jar of nuts that I wasn't paid for who's "value" is now depleted. I "eat" the cost of the jar of nuts. It might well be that at some point prior to entire depletion of value, someone wanted to buy the partially emptied jar of nuts. Is it fair to charge them for a full jar of nuts if only, say, 60% of the nuts (value of the jar of nuts) are left? Sure, guitars aren't nuts. But, what is common in the situation is that if each person who "tries" the "product" depreciates the value of the product, then returns it, who pays for or absorbs the loss of value? The buyer? The seller? Both? Neither: the insurance company? (If the insurance company, the cost of insurance will eventually go up and that will be passed on to you, the consumer.) Who pays for it should be, and usually is, spelled out in writing and should be clear to buyer and seller prior to any transaction. How else could the loss of value possibly be "fairly" assigned but for, "You devalue it, you pay for the devaluation", or, "You break it, you bought it"? The seller won't stay in business long if they can't pass on their costs to buyers, in order to make a profit. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by hbg; 01-21-2019 at 02:18 PM. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Eastman E1SS-CLA-LTD Eastman E1OOSS-LTD Cordoba Fusion Orchestra CE Cordoba SM-CE Mini Classical Acoustic Ibanez Blazer 21 MIJ Stratocaster 2 Yamaha PSR-SX900 keyboards I play professionally Roland FP-90 digital piano I play for pleasure with piano VSTs. Last edited by Beakybird; 01-21-2019 at 04:05 PM. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Wasn't a great analogy for that reason, but I get your point. It's just that it isn't a businesslike approach to the problem. It isn't backed by the law or store policy, clearly spelled out I'm sure. Would you agree that they have a written policy? He only gets to RETURN the guitar if it's the same as when it left the shop. And that's also why they don't LOAN guitars, they SELL them.
__________________
McCollum Grand Auditorum Euro Spruce/Brazilian PRS Hollowbody Spruce PRS SC58 Giffin Vikta Gibson Custom Shop ES 335 '59 Historic RI ‘91 Les Paul Standard ‘52 AVRI Tele - Richie Baxt build Fender American Deluxe Tele Fender Fat Strat Last edited by Goodallboy; 01-21-2019 at 08:37 PM. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm missing something. By the OP's admission, there are scratches (no matter how small) in the guitar that the seller claims were NOT there when the OP received the guitar. The return policy is clear. The seller sets the rules of what is acceptable damage.
__________________
Avian Skylark Pono 0000-30 Gardiner Parlor Kremona Kiano Ramsay Hauser Cordoba C10 Chris Walsh Archtop Gardiner Concert Taylor Leo Kottke Gretsch 6120 Pavan TP30 Aria A19c Hsienmo MJ Ukuleles: Cocobolo 5 string Tenor Kanilea K3 Koa Kanilea K1 Walnut Tenor Kala Super Tenor Rebel Super Concert Nehemiah Covey Tenor Mainland Mahogany Tenor Mainland Cedar/Rosewood Tenor |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I sure wouldn't offer a trial period on ANY guitar over $2K.
__________________
Avian Skylark Pono 0000-30 Gardiner Parlor Kremona Kiano Ramsay Hauser Cordoba C10 Chris Walsh Archtop Gardiner Concert Taylor Leo Kottke Gretsch 6120 Pavan TP30 Aria A19c Hsienmo MJ Ukuleles: Cocobolo 5 string Tenor Kanilea K3 Koa Kanilea K1 Walnut Tenor Kala Super Tenor Rebel Super Concert Nehemiah Covey Tenor Mainland Mahogany Tenor Mainland Cedar/Rosewood Tenor |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
What I am saynig is that: 1) it's not the customer's problem if the return policy is ruining the dealers's business, or if it's non profitable for him. That's on the dealer's side to decide. 2) Without even seing the scrathces, I'm just saying that the EXACT same conditions are never going to be possible, and that there's an obvious wear the guitar is going to suffer. For example, you ship a guitar with return policy, the guitar is worth $300 and the strings $30, you get ir returned, but you deny the reimbursement because the strings are used now, so the guitar has lost 10% of it's price. That´s just not a legal thing to do. At least in EU, when you receive something on "guarantee" to trial it and then decide wether you buy it ( don't know the english legal term for "comodato") your obligation is to give it the maximmum responsible use, and the negligence of the user must be proved or visible to see. I just believe that if the scratches are truly invisible to the naked eye then the seller is behaving illegitimate. Terms and conditions have to be legal and reasonable to apply, in every legislation. On the other hand, I could put an asterisk here saying that by reading my pos you are obliged to pay $10. That wouldn' t be reasonable nor legal. Neither would it be to pretend that exact same conditions actually mean absolute zero wear. That' s impossible. I understand the seller's point of view, this is just my opinion anyway, .... Last edited by Basalt Beach; 01-22-2019 at 04:25 PM. Reason: fix quote |