I don't agree, I'm still going to side with the seller until the original ad is produced.

 

Enough already!

IBTL.

 

Misrepresentation or not, IMHO the depicted tires do not represent 50% whatever (tread, life, etc).

Furthermore, I must confess I would have been very unhappy being on the receiving end of this transaction; and would have been my personal assessment that the omission of pictures by an experience business person -- of tires admittedly evaluated subjectively -- is either negligent or deceptive.

Notwithstanding the above comments, from an image and customer service perspective, I would consider this type of negative public attention a liability whose value greatly exceeds any claims raised by the customer. Sad, really...

My 2

 

[QUOTE=phoenixR34,Mar 12 2008, 11:07 AM] 3.

 

What principle?

 

[QUOTE=asiantrick,Mar 14 2008, 02:23 PM] This has got to be the DUMBEST thing i've ever heard anyone said.

 

The principle of fair play and not letting someone take advantage of you just because they claim they are somehow ordained to do so.

It is never pleasant to play hardball, but when a vendor brings his gloves to the ring, it is time for the gloves to come off.

 

Right, but you can't really have a principle if you can't prove your claims of a misrepresented advertisement.

I would stand behind Dong 100% if he could produce the ad.

 

Fair enough.

My statements assume accuracy in the OP's statements...but the tire photo doesn't help much.

If the OP is being deceptive, then we are dealing with a diff situation no doubt.