I'm pretty sure the other two threads were to determine if SOS was at fault. I think DongTran was only trying to figure out if the tires were described correctly by the seller. I believe the very first thread was in the tire forum, then those folks recommended DongTran to the racing forum for further advice. At least to me, it seems like the OP wanted to verify that he was not getting the item he paid for before starting this thread.

 

ugh....

WHAT original language? I have yet to see a copy of the original FS ad so why is everyone talking about "original language" that it supposedly contained?

 

The ad text was deleted on 2/27 and replaced with Sold to DongTran.

 

Ok, then why is everyone attempting to quote it?

 

The tread life representation came in the OP's first post in thread.

The advert is gone, but the OP relays what it said regarding the tires.

Now, if your are insinuating that the OP is lying about the original representation, then all bets are off.

But that's all we have to go on for evaluation/comment.

 

To me his isn't as much a question of money as it is vendor reliability. If the vendor is truly customer friendly then he would understand this miscommunication and offer to void this transaction completely. If the buyer is truly this upset then he should have no problem returning the products and conducting business elsewhere...

It is in the vendors best interest to lose a bit on shipping here, void the transaction , and save his good name IMO.

 

I wouldn't say that I'm insinuating that he's lying but it's hard to back up a claim of misrepresentation of a product in an advertisement without a copy of that advertisement.

If you go to your credit card company and dispute the charges because what you received is not what was in the original ad, they may ask to see the ad and pictures of what you received. If all you have are pictures of what you received and don't have a copy of the original ad, they may not be willing to help you with that and side with the vendor.

I've been buying and selling on the net long enough to know that you keep a copy of the ad or item description for every item you purchase/sell. It's easy enough to print everything to PDF for free these days...

I'm pretty certain that a small claims court judge would ask for a copy of the ad too.

I see so many pro-Dong posts that he was screwed by this deal because what he got wasn't what was advertised but no one has seen the original ad. So yes, we have to take his word for it but on the other hand with have Chris who has been a long-time supporter/contributer to this community (even I was a customer a few years ago) and there hasn't been (or has rarely been) a problem.

It would be like someone saying they got screwed by Rick's (and maybe some have said that, I didn't search), 95% of us would jump in and say, "no way!"

I think the offer made by Chris is a reasonable solution to the problem but the buyer isn't willing to settle with that.

So, they are at an impasse and if the buyer takes action with his credit card, it may backfire and he'll still be stuck with tires he does not like/want.

I don't know much about race tires or what would be considered 50% tread/life left on them while on a track but there are some people here who do know and they have voiced that there probably is 50% track use left on them. Until I see the original ad, I'm going to side with the vendor.

"Innocent until proven guilty" instead of "the customer is always right" for me on this one.

 

[QUOTE=3ngin33r1,Mar 14 2008, 10:34 AM]I wouldn't say that I'm insinuating that he's lying but it's hard to back up a claim of misrepresentation of a product in an advertisement without a copy of that advertisement.

If you go to your credit card company and dispute the charges because what you received is not what was in the original ad, they may ask to see the ad and pictures of what you received.

 

I don't think it'll work that way, they would void the entire transaction and probably only do so once they received confirmation that the item (including the wheels) were shipped back.

But, I'm in IT, not accounting so I don't know if a CC would refund part of a single charge.

 

They may require a full transaction chargeback. I would explain to the CC representative that the seller does not want the items back (as he won't pay for shipping).

That's ok as well. In that instance, the seller will need to pursue getting paid directly from the buyer (after the CC steps out of the transaction picture).

The buyer then sends a check for the items that are ok.

The seller then has the option of picking up shipping costs for the tire delivery and return (the buyer has kindly offered to send the tires back to him if he covers all shipping) or pursing the remaining amount via court action...which will cost the seller more in time than he would spend by simply covering the shipping costs and ending this now...and he will 95% (my guess) lose in court with a photo.

Again, this is a no brainer for the seller. There in only one upside approach here.

It just doesn't make sense.