Question about Ebay

[melagan]

I bought a video camera off of ebay and it was not as discribed, said it was a digital but it wasn't. The woman was very nice and said she would refund my $$ as soon a I sent it back. Which is fine but I don't think that I sould have to pay shipping since it was free shipping with buy it now. Tell me what you think. Maybe i'm wrong!! It has been known to happen... LOL

 

[DianeV]

I think she should reimburse you for the return shipping since it was her error..getting her to do that is another thing though

 

[bicker]

Without seeing the advertisement itself it is difficult to understand where the confusion stemmed from. "It was digital but it wasn't" is difficult to decipher. The technology can be confusing. If the advertisement was actually factually incorrect, the seller should pay shipping both ways. If the advertisement referred to a product and was accurate (but perhaps didn't describe it completely), then the seller could reasonably expect the buyer to have researched or asked about the details of the product before bidding, and so is not only not obligated to pay for the return shipping, but could make a strong argument for declining the return completely. If that was the case, then the seller's willingness to take the return is rather generous, to start with, and it wouldn't be necessary for the seller to offer more consideration.

 

[LoriZH]

Without seeing the advertisement itself it is difficult to understand where the confusion stemmed from. "It was digital but it wasn't" is difficult to decipher. The technology can be confusing. If the advertisement was actually factually incorrect, the seller should pay shipping both ways. If the advertisement referred to a product and was accurate (but perhaps didn't describe it completely), then the seller could reasonably expect the buyer to have researched or asked about the details of the product before bidding, and so is not only not obligated to pay for the return shipping, but could make a strong argument for declining the return completely. If that was the case, then the seller's willingness to take the return is rather generous, to start with, and it wouldn't be necessary for the seller to offer more consideration.

The OP clearly stated that it said it was a "digital camera" but it wasn't, so the seller incorrectly advertised the item, also the OP states that the seller is willing to take back, most likely because she falsely advertised. I don't know where the confusion is.

To the OP, absolutely the seller should pay for the shipping! Tell them to either send you a return label or reiburse your shipping charges with the original amount.

 

[DMRick]

Without seeing the advertisement itself it is difficult to understand where the confusion stemmed from..

I too, don't understand your difficulty in understanding this. The OP's first sentence, tells it all "not as described, said it was digital, but it wasn't".
Shipping to return should be paid by the seller.

 

[bicker]

The OP clearly stated that it said it was a "digital camera" but it wasn't

Oh! Sorry... I misread that. I read it as "it is but it isn't" (which seemed really vague) not "it was advertised that it is, but it actually isn't." Thanks for the correction.

 

[melagan]

Thanks for all the input. I hope that she will refund the shipping but if she doesn't at least i will get the bulk of my $$ back.