| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Bought lens with unknown flaw - seller refuses repair cost
Rich Glickstein, Photographer
 |
Columbia | SC | | Posted: 9:36 AM on 08.04.10 |
->> I recently purchased some gear, all from SS members. Two lenses have arrived, a third is on the FedEx truck right now (woo hoo) and camera bodies are on the way, too.
One of the lenses was a pretty good price. In the description email the seller described this lens "...the barrel is tight...". However, upon receipt and inspection, the lens looks in overall good condition. But the barrel is indeed NOT tight. This could cause focus issues in the future if not addressed.
I have no problem sending the lens off to Canon because I think it'll be corrected with a clean-and-check. But if it costs $$ to repair, is the seller obligated here? He refused to budge on paying for "future repairs," but this is nothing I did.
Thanks.....Rich |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 9:50 AM on 08.04.10 |
->> The seller should probably take the lens back and return your money. If not, they should pay for the repair or at least 50% of the repair. If neither is agreeable, they should face being outed. This is really a matter of professionalism and mutual respect. If they can't be ethical, they should face the wrath of the community. Assuming you're addressing these flaws within five days or fewer since receiving the lens, it seems reasonable that you would have several days for inspection of the lens. If you've taken longer than 3-5 days to discover the flaws, then you're stuck with it.
Another exception would be if they stated that the lens had some quirks, then you're liable for the repair as they described the lens as potentially having issues. But if not, it would appear they hid the flaw.
More than 10 years ago, I sold an Nikon 300 to someone via eBay in Atlanta. They decided they were not happy with the condition of the lens and I ended up getting it back. I was able to sell the lens and move on, but I did refund their money. One can hope to sell an well used lens, but as professionals it's important we not intentionally rip off a colleague. |
|
Rich Glickstein, Photographer
|
Columbia | SC | | Posted: 10:19 AM on 08.04.10 |
->> That's what I was thinking, Darren. Thank you. I emailed the guy minutes after I opened the box to tell him that I got the lens, but that there seemed to be a problem with it which he reported as solid. Even with quoting the text from his original description of the lens, he still refused to pay for things, which may not even be necessary.
I got a private email from a friend a few moments ago who suggested the same thing. But he also suggested that it might be easier for my sanity in the long run to get the repair done and move on. The lens seems in otherwise good condition. Camera won't be here until tomorrow for the real test, though.
I have considered outing the guy, but how does that look on my part? Then again, I don't want anyone else to get burned by him when he sells stuff that needs a tune-up before he upgrades. |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 10:41 AM on 08.04.10 |
->> The ratings by some companies from 1-10 are based on a judgment of the company. If they tell you the lens is a 9+ then you have an idea of what to expect. If it turns out to be an 8, people out the site.
In this case the individual gave you an expectation that was not honest and treated you dishonestly. Out him. If he wants to he can publicly defend himself, and his ratings. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 10:48 AM on 08.04.10 |
->> Sometimes things can wobble a little loose in transit, especially if it's on an airplane with all those high frequency vibrations. My 70-200 tends to loosen up pretty quickly when I'm flying a lot; not so much if I'm driving or working locally. It's also a well-known issue with several Canon lenses.
I'd say that if it's just a little loose, where it's hard to see with your eye but you can feel it with your hands, don't worry about it because we can't be sure. But if it's got a lot of movement and might fall apart, it's a difficult case to make that it wasn't loose previously. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Indiana | IN | USA | Posted: 10:57 AM on 08.04.10 |
->> RIch, before you run the guy down here, I would advise you think about that. The old expression, "buyer beware" is alive and well here as it is anywhere else. This isn't Walmart where you cheerfully return items and get a refund. This is a private transaction between two parties. And nobody here knows exactly what transpired in your conversations with him. Could he hold you liable for slandering him on a public forum? It's being done more and more these days.
I'm not saying you are wrong and you have a right to be upset. I know I would be. But sometimes you have to cut your losses. I bought a Canon 20mm lens off a SS member here and one or more of the lenses' elements were misaligned. It took me several emails to finally get him to pay for the repair. But I was living in Arizona at the time and he on the east coast. There wasn't much I could do. Outing him here wouldn't have got the lens repaired either. Kind of like buying a used car. |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 08.04.10 |
| ->> Oh, I just hope this situation resolves and this thread dies down rather "Swistly." |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 11:30 AM on 08.04.10 |
| ->> If someone misrepresents a lens they should be outed. If by some miracle it happened in transport then the shipping company should pay. I certainly expect honesty among ss members. If you get no response out the guy. |
|
Stan Cochrane, Photographer
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 12:27 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> It happens here just like any open market place (buyer beware, if you want like new, you have to buy new).
Purchase a Mark II, and seller reported 8,000 clicks. Got the camera and checked it, and it was well over 80,000 (was not a typo error). E-mailed seller and advised of this clear misrepresentation (camera was still acceptable), not seeking anything but an apology. Seller says he'll send me back $75.00 of the purchase price to make it right, of course never heard or received another thing.
Some times you just have to take the high road. And seller if you see this now,,,forget the $, just remember what a stand up guy you were next time you look in the mirror. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:40 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> When it come to members dealing with members I would hope that we would first try to resolve the issues fairly and then if that fails have a duty to protect each other by outing the person so that a member in the future doesn't meet the same fate.
To keep quiet and let others fall into the same trap is just wrong. |
|
Dennis Wierzbicki, Photographer
|
Plainfield | IL | USA | Posted: 1:04 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> Rich, clearly the proper thing is for the seller to offer your money back of to fix the problem with the lens.
I bought a MkIIn from a fellow SS member last Fall, and the first time I pushed the ISO to 1600 I got terrible banding and had to send it into CanonCPS to be fixed. The seller is a very stand-up guy and I sent him the repair bill (somewhere around $250, IIRC) and he sent me a money order the next day.
Now THAT's what should happen. Good luck with your pursuit of buyer satisfaction. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 3:23 PM on 08.04.10 |
| ->> Expectations don't always correllate to obligations. I'd research your state's law for implied warranty of fitness. |
|
Rich Glickstein, Photographer
|
Columbia | SC | | Posted: 3:36 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> All... Thanks so much for your replies and suggestions. I have definitely thought about several things y'all have brought up. During our email exchanges I asked for, and thought I received, a thorough and accurate description. He sent me very detailed images of and through the lens. It's either he thought everything was good to go or he knows the right things to hit to give a sense of security in his sale.
This person's job is a position one would think would require he have some kind of honesty. (I'm being vague, because I haven't decided to out him yet and naming his employment would do that for me). Also, he packed the lens so well that I find it difficult to believe that vibrations, or harmonics could loosen the lens up this much.
I put thought into the potential for libel on a public forum, Jeff. Thanks so much for being Devil's advocate here. But I think it passes the NYT v. Sullivan muster. I have no malice and the information I would post is factual. The truth is my defense.
I take the "buyer beware" caution very seriously, and I appreciate those thoughts as well. I would've been happy had he offered to pay for half of the possible repair cost. No, was the short answer. Not one penny.
What's worse is that I told him a repair would probably not even be necessary because Canon corrects this during a clean-and-check. But I asked that we figure something out if it needed repair. I didn't even ask for anything specific before he put the kabash on it without question. I would hope that I could do business with the guy Dennis bought his camera from, but we can't all be that lucky.
That being said, I bought a different lens from SS member Trevor Brown in Denver. He sent the lens to CPS BEFORE sending it to me, bought a new hood to replace the one that was lost and even paid to ship the lens to me. Now that's a stand-up guy. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 3:50 PM on 08.04.10 |
| ->> "Sweep the leg." |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 4:33 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> how did you pay? Any chance of disputing charge with a credit card or maybe with Paypal?
Sometimes they offer mediation. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:36 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> A person who has shipped something to you knows where you live.
With this in mind, I would think very carefully about outing someone who you really do not know very well.
***DISCLAIMER***
I'm not the guy who sold the lens to Rich :) |
|
Rich Glickstein, Photographer
|
Columbia | SC | | Posted: 4:53 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> Alan: paid by check. Just how I roll. I am honest in my representation that my payment is golden. But I also assume someone's word is worth his weight in gold.
Michael: Good point. But I had to mail the check to the guy, so I have an address, too. :) |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 7:43 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> I would just keep it private at this time. Maybe contact the head people of the site and inform them of what one of their members did.
If someone wants to know who it is, just contact him through his page or post your email here so people can do it that way.
Either way i think the powers that be would like to know, so maybe ask them for advice on what you should do first. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 8:49 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> I'm not the seller, nor do I know who it is, but the thread has been one-sided thus far. Playing the devil's sidekick and before passing judgment, we should also look at the situation from the seller's perspective.
The lens was shipped in working order and for all we know exactly as described in good faith by the seller. The alleged flaw described by the OP did not exist while in the possession of the seller.
Perhaps the seller believes the buyer either damaged the lens once it was in his possession or trying to 'negotiate' his way to an additional discount after the sale, a risk any seller takes on a transaction that happens through the mail. Also, not known is if the transaction was 'as is' or if an actual or implied warranty exist by the seller.
Now this is just my 2 cents...which used to be worth a lot more in the dot-com days :-) Because this is a he said, s/he said situation, there are four possible solutions;
1. If Rich is unhappy with the condition of the gear upon receipt and the sale was not clearly marked 'as is', then right thing to do in this case is for Rich to return the lens in the original packing and condition received. The buyer should accept the returned gear and return the check or the full amount paid to him/her ASAP. Both parties go their separate ways and hopefully never do business with each other again.
Yeah, sucks for the seller (one of my biggest fears about selling used gear online and why I prefer f2f transactions) because s/he may have to pay for the repair. It sucks for Rich, too, because future members selling gear will certainly be reluctant in dealing with him (I would after reading this thread).
OTOH, if Rich likes the lens and other than the play in the lens barrel, works to spec, he should keep the lens and either 2a) tighten screws that holds the barrel in place himself or 2b) send the lens to CPS or Canon, pay for the CLA and have a like-new lens after the repair (this is generally what I do with all used gear I purchase).
4. If the seller refuses to accept the return of the equipment and properly refund the seller's money in a timely manner, then, IMHO, they should be outed here. I know I and certainly others would not want to buy equipment from this individual. Rich should also pursue any and all available legal remedies at his disposal until the issue is settled. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 9:11 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> Clark,
I'm not sure how you'd come to the conclusion that, "future members selling gear will certainly be reluctant in dealing with him", so let me clear something up.
Those of us who have the privilege of knowing Rich would trust him without question, without exception and without hesitation.
-Brian Blanco |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 10:35 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> DIRECT QUOTE: "But the barrel is indeed NOT tight. This could cause focus issues in the future if not addressed."
So wait a second.... There is actually _NOTHING_ wrong with the lens at all and you're basing this whole thread on potential future problems. That's like buying a used car and expecting the seller to - after transfer of ownership - pay to have a rattling exhaust repaired because at some point in the future it might fall off.
If I were the seller I wouldn't budge either because it's a completely unreasonable request. Unless you exchanged the lens face to face, you have absolutely no idea what happened in transit, which is exactly why you should be taking this up with the shipping company in the first place, and they're going to say the same thing; "so there actually isn't anything wrong with it". |
|
Rich Glickstein, Photographer
|
Columbia | SC | | Posted: 11:39 PM on 08.04.10 |
->> Brian, thanks for the backup here.
The whole point of this thread, Clark, is to question how business is done between two people and how they represent either side of a deal. If you re-read my posting at the top, I asked the seller to work with me on repairs **IF** they were needed. What I wrote was, "I have no problem sending the lens off to Canon because I think it'll be corrected with a clean-and-check." I was clear in my email to the seller that I would cover this cost. But I believe the lens had the play in the barrel when it was shipped and the condition of the lens was misrepresented. Even with that said, **I** was still going to cover the cost of getting it to Canon and use one of **MY** clean and check coupons to see if the problem was corrected then. Only **THEN** might the seller incur any repair costs...something I think he should have done before putting the lens on the market, IMHO.
Don't take me the wrong way, Clark, I appreciate your playing devil's advocate here completely. I didn't like your suggestion that others would be hesitant in doing business with me, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not trying to renegotiate anything nor am I trying to get some wiggle room on the back end. I actually gave the guy his asking price. But when he says the item is one way and it arrives packed in its case, foam and foam peanuts another, I'm skeptical, to say the least.
When I replied to his "the lens is sold 'as is'" email I never received a response from him. Furthermore, the words "as is" were never used before that email following my receipt of the lens, so one has to assume that if I have a reasonable complaint then there is room to work between the buyer and seller.
This thread is a discussion of not only my particular situation, but this kind of situation in general. So far I purchased four other pieces of equipment, the biggest being a 400, and all others I have so far received have come in with flying colors, in the condition EXACTLY as the seller described them.
So, Thomas, no. There IS something wrong with the lens. The seller claimed it was in one condition and it arrived in my possession in another. Focus is always an issue when lens elements are in motion. So there is a problem **right now** and a potential bigger problem in the future.
Anyway, I think this thread has reached "dead horse" status. I **REALLY** appreciate the discussion and all of the comments. It'll be very helpful in deciding how, or even if, I'll pursue recouping anything.
All best, everyone.......Rich |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:03 AM on 08.05.10 |
->> The problem with trying to put the onus on to the carrier is that it is the responsibility of the seller to get the product to the buyer in the condition advertised. In the case of fragile items it is the seller who has to worry about the condition that an item may arrive in.
Further the buyer does not have a contract with the shipping company. It is the seller, the person who paid the carrier, who has a business relationship and who will have to file the claim. (Drop Yamil a note if you want a dissertation on shipping claims :) )
If I buy a car that is listed with a good paint job and it shows up with scratched paint..... eventually those scratches will rust. Whether the seller should have done something to protect the paint in transit or the carrier was negligent, as the buyer I did not receive the item as advertised. Under those circumstances the transaction has not been consummated because what I have before me is not what was offered. I may have taken receipt of the item from the carrier, but that doesn't mean I've accepted ownership.
If it's transit damage the onus falls back on the seller. Unfortunately Rich paid by check so barring the seller stepping up and doing the right thing, Rich is on the losing end of this. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 2:56 AM on 08.05.10 |
->> Funny you should even say that Eric. After getting swindled by two buyers I leave no room for doubt when I sell something anymore.
The first was through eBay where someone bought a $2000 turntable off of me then threatened to sue me when it arrives non functioning. I get it back and send it off to be repaired and it turns out the guy bought it to swap out a $200 part that broke on his. The only way I found out is because the repair man noticed that the serial number on the unit used a component from a different manufacturer which coincidentally, had been prone to burning out.
A few years later I sell a 400 on SportsShooter and the buyer gets completely up my butt that I sold them a damaged lens and demands their money back (rather than me pay for repairs which is a red flag). Once again I eat the shipping costs and imagine my surprise when the lens indeed arrives in non-working condition. Off to CPS is goes and the diagnosis is impact damage with a bent lens mount and something else inside the transmission. Strange since I had just got it back from CPS for it's pre-sale cleaning and they had just replaced the lens mount. Obviously FedEx must have opened it up, dropped it on hard wood floor (splinter wedged in the seam) then repacked it and sent it off.
Those two instances as well as eBay's removal of sellers rights to leave negative feedback have obviously slanted my perspective to the point that I now use tamper tags, have the shipping company preinspect, use video documentation and only deal with ACH transfers on any item costing more than $1000 any more. To top it off, if I'm selling camera gear, it goes to CPS/NPS before being sold and stays in the box once it's returned.
Point being, Caveat Venditor. Let the buyer prove I lied because I've got a mountain of proof you're getting what I advertised. |
|
Jason Jump, Photographer
|
Humble | TX | USA | Posted: 1:47 PM on 08.05.10 |
->> It's a tough call. I'm kind of with Thomas on this one, because I sold a lens some time back (several years actually) and I know full well that the lens was fully functional just as it was when I bought it. But the person that bought it said it wasn't working properly when he got it.
I did end up paying for the repair or it might have been half, but I was furious about doing it because I ended up basically giving him the lens by the time of paying half the repair bill and I knew when it left my view it was perfectly fine.
Thankfully most of the people that I have purchased from and sold to the transactions have been perfect. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 2:03 PM on 08.05.10 |
->> Several years ago I sold a 400mm f2.8 Nikon AFS to a SS.com member.
Packed it in it's metal Nikon case, packed it in proper size box with lots of packing. Took it to the UPS distribution center where I lived, had them inspect the packing and give it the thumbs up. We sealed the box, insured it and sent it off.
Three days after he received the lens he emails me, stating that he took it to a NFL game and the lens won't focus to infinity.
We get a tech I use to look at the lens. It was dropped. Expensive repair. To this day, I believe the buyer got a lens that was broken.
We filed a claim with UPS. They of course, denied it. Said it must of been improperly packed. The buyer had once upon a time worked at UPS, so he knew how they treated product. Long story short, I pointed out the claims person that UPS had inspected the box and packing before sealing it. They ended up paying for the repair. So, thinking it's well packed is no guarantee that it is packed well enough. Sometimes logistics companies just abuse your packages.
Now, in this case, you're concerned that the lens isn't tight. But, the lens works, right? I gotta agree with other posters - you're asking the guy to pay for something that's working. You could send the lens in and have them look at it. If it's within spec, you pay the bill. If it isn't, THEN you have a valid claim.
Make sense?
Michael |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer, Assistant
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:07 PM on 08.05.10 |
| ->> Wait a second...all the barrels on my zooms are always loose. Why is this a problem? |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:25 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> "Don't take me the wrong way, Clark, I appreciate your playing devil's advocate here completely. I didn't like your suggestion that others would be hesitant in doing business with me, but that's neither here nor there."
@Rich
Sorry if you and Brian felt offended at that line of thought concerning the hesitation of engaging in a commercial transaction with you. It was not meant to personal but a logical extension of human nature based on the tenor of your OP and hypothetical/alternate viewpoint.
The reality is I spent five years of my life selling new and used camera gear when brick and mortar camera stores were in vogue. I sold and traded a ton of gear in that time. I'm not defending the seller nor am I siding with your because there are some facts missing and as I said in my post the conversation was offer an alternative scenario.
I hope the situation has been resolved successfully and to both party's satisfaction. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 8:14 PM on 08.13.10 |
->> Thanks Clark, but I wasn't offended at all. I knew what you were saying and I guess it made sense for someone who doesn't know Rich. I was just making a statement, as someone who has the benefit of knowing Rich, that his word is solid and he's a well-respected and trusted shooter.
My post was more of a PSA than anything else. I don't know the seller and, frankly the seller may very well be a stand-up guy too. I don't really care, as I don't have a dog in the fight. All I know is that if I sent a perfectly working camera or lens to Rich and he told me that, upon receiving it, something was wrong with it I'd know that something was, in fact, wrong with it. The guy is as honest as they come.
In fact, Rich, I have a spare Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 (the lens in question) that I'll be happy to next day FedEx you for free to use for as long as you need it. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|