Well, he said that his dad had sent it in for repair because the mirror wouldn't come down and he said that it still had that problem. He just didn't say how it got that way. If you want me to give a word-by-word explanation, I'll be happy to download the text of the description and parse it for you and everyone else.
Len --- > -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Ripped on eBay > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Len Paris" > Subject: RE: Ripped on eBay > > Len, I read, and reread the description, and nowhere did I > read that the camera was fatally damaged. At the same time, I > was uncomfortable enough with the description that I would > have passed this one by. The description is definitely > designed to decieve. You seem to agree with this. > > Whether it's worthwhile to try to get his money back is hard > to say. Depends on local laws. Up here, you can't say "all > sales final" to rip someone off. We have a cooling off period > built into our consumer laws that would protect a buyer in > this instance. > > William Robb > > > > I'm not defending the seller. I'm just saying potential > buyers have > > to read the descriptions a lot more closely. I, > personally, think the > > seller crafted that description very carefully, depending > on greed and > > haste to provide a sucker for him. In a rush to get it for the low > > BIN price, he read way too quickly. Had I done so myself, I would > > chalk up the hundred buck loss to experience. I may have jumped on > > the BIN immediately, too, but surely would have read more closely > > before actually sending the money. I have backed out of a sale on > > eBay before because I didn't trust the seller. I have my > money and he > > has his lens. A seller gets to change his mind about > selling, so why > > shouldn't a buyer get to change his mind about buying? > > > > Len > > --- > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:33 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Ripped on eBay > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Len Paris" > > > Subject: RE: Ripped on eBay > > > > > > This is what he has to say about the camera body. > > > > > > "He Had It Serviced Back In 1988 For The Mirror Not > Dropping Down. > > > I Guess That Is Still The Problem." > > > > > > He definitely said the camera has a problem, but he > didn't describe > > > the > > > problem(s) completely or properly. > > > At best, his description is a weasel worded attempt to minimize a > > > serious flaw in the product. At worst, he has outright lied about > > > the condition. A punched out shutter is a serious enough > flaw that > > > it should be mentioned in the description. Where does he > > > specifically say the camera isn't functioning? > > > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > > > >
