no, he doesn't.

 

this is an appalling and insensitive statement. to truly make your point here, you should send me $200 at your earliest convenience.

 

actually there's one in oakland. maybe worth your time, maybe not, but it's not at all "far".

you're not the silver AP1 that's parked outside on harrison near main are you? i used to walk past it all the time.

 

OP: After all is said and done you could be out only $60. If your time is truely worth something, spending $60 over going back and forth for days seems like a no brainer. At least to me it does..

 

I don't know why people go like "bickering here for a long time probably costs Dong more than the amount he's complaining about, thus he should just give up that money." That may be true if you want to measure in terms of his opportunity cost, but what's right still needs to be done. People can easily say things like "Just let it go" without ever stepping into his shoes, but seriously, this is not some Ferrari forum where people probably don't give a damn about "little money". I hope they just get this issue resolved ASAP and thread close down.

 

[QUOTE=phoenixR34,Mar 12 2008, 11:07 AM] This is just a crappy situation for several reasons:

1.

 

Yeah, he does. The fact is that he made 3 different threads on the same thing, SoS has offered to cover pretty much all the costs of returning the tires, and he can avoid the dismounting fee if he's getting new tires put on. He can ask SoS to pay the fee if he's not getting tires right away, but they are being pretty good about taking them back anyways.

Honestly, I can't really understand whats wrong with their offer. I've been in situatuins where I wasn't refunded completely and had to eat some small fee's, it happens. Hell most places charge restocking fee's anyways...

 

There nothing wrong with a restocking fee when you change your mind, or you order a part that does not fit due to lack of knowledge.

The fee protects vendors from wishy washy and idiot buyers.

However, in this case, a restocking fee should not apply. The item shipped did not match the item described (50% tread...not 50% wear, but 50% tread). In this case the buyer should be subject to zero financial loss. They buyer still loses due to his time consumed with this issue and disruption.

Without question, the seller should:
1) refund the purchase price
2) refund the delivery shipping
3) pay for the return shipping

Anything less, and just dispute the charge to the CC provider.

Say you order a part from an company that has a 'restocking fee' policy. You get the part and discover that it fits a Ford F150 rather than an S2000, even though the part description says it is for an S2000. Who on earth would pay a restocking fee in that situation? The vendor screwed up with his item description. Simple mistake. Perhaps an innocent mistake, but in any case a mistake that the buyer has no skin in and should not suffer from it. Period.

 

The real problem is that the language was sort of ambiguous to begin with. While I understand the buyer thought it meant something, obviously it meant something else to the seller. The seller has offered to take the tires back and cover the costs, I'm pretty sure if he called them on the phone and talked with them, he could get the $60 dismount fee, or at least part of it. The fact is that at some point he had a responsibility to ensure the tires were what he was expecting before he paid for them, so taking a ~$60 hit compared to being out $200 isn't a terrible resolution.

My personal complaint is that this seems like something that could have been easily discussed on the phone or something, making 3 separate threads on a forum is totally not needed. The only time I think making something like this is actually constructive is if the shop (or private seller) has not been communicating with the buyer for an extended period. This guy went a few days without a response while the seller was out of town and made 3 threads about it. Not only is this thread not really needed, it damages the shops reputation and makes the buyer (OP) look like an ass to some people.

I don't think either parties are bad people at all, its one of those odd situations that pops up every so often when dealing with used goods over the internet.

 

Agreed.

The question here is was the misunderstanding the seller's fault (poor description) or the buyer's fault (poor interpretation).

If the fault fell to both parties, then I would agree some equitable splitting of the losses might be appropriate.

In this case, if someone describes a tire with 50% tread remaining, how would a reasonable person be expected to interpret?

It seems clear to me that a tire bald on one side and tread on the other side (as in the photo) does not constitute 50% tread remaining. I agree with a previous poster on this thread that such a description would indicate wherever the least amount of tread can be found on a tire with uneven wear, that 'thinnest area' would have 50% remaining as compared with a new tire.

50% tread remaining is not an appropriate description for a tire that has one side bald and the other side with tread. This is a true statement, but not accurate for adverting sale.

I could sell you an Xbox (as many did on ebay) and it would be my bad for sending you the cardboard container the xbox is sold in for $400. It is a true description, as it is a box, but it is still fraudulent in description.

Now, if the seller had said 50% life left on tires (rather than tread), I would feel differently and agree that a simple refund of product price would be sufficient.