Another O Feed Back Buyer Opened False Return Request

[ekmadonna]

Just had my first return request in over a year from Brand New Account opened the day they purchased my books. This guy has had my books IN HAND for 11 days and just now opens a false return stating Encyclopedias are not 1992 4th Printing like I stated in my Title and description. Absolute lie as the lower portion of Copyright page clearly states "1992 4th Printing" just under the original 1987 1st edition "Copyright c". I am going to eat money on this because there is no way I am going to refund and let him keep the books. Set was $27.50 free shipping and cost me $8+ in shipping because they were so heavy media mail. I just wish more people had the integrity and character to be truthful and own up to their own mistakes and not have to lie and hurt others lively hood.

[stanleysoverstock]

Integrity is buried over there between common sense and honesty. It is so sad that we sellers that hold those qualities so high are victim to those that don't. Andrew 

[calntom]

I would accept the return, provide a label and see if they actually follow through with the return.

[ekmadonna]

Here is another example for you. I just got back from the post office and a elderly lady was at the counter and asked for media mail shipping on a package that had a scarf in it. She told the clerk that "SOMEONE TOLD HER" to tell the clerk she wanted to ship it Media Mail. Nice someone told someone to LIE and break the rules to save a few extra pennies. the thing shipped 1st class probably under 6 oz, it was a tiny package. I just don't understand what ever happened to MORALS and Doing The Next Right Thing???

[ekmadonna]

That's my plan. at least I stand a small chance they will not return it, and if it is not back on time I will be on the phone closing the case in a heart beat.

[kathy507]

Let's hope you get back the same thing you shipped out and in the same condition.  If they lied about one thing, red flags go up on the others.

[ittybitnot]

 I just wish more people had the integrity and character to be truthful and own up to their own mistakes and not have to lie and hurt others lively hood.

Basically, we wish EBAY would own up to the fact that lying buyers are somehow more desirable than the sellers they hurt.  After a couple of these phony SNADs I packed up my toys and left the eBay sandbox after selling here for over twenty years.  I never looked back.  I still enjoy e-commerce as a seller, I just dumped my abuser. 

[dhbookds]

are these the Readers Digest ency Dictionaries?  if so don't the item specifics say 1987 and lst edition........

I know nothing about books but that may have confused him.......

  Publication Year: 1987 Topic: 20th Century, Illustration Language: English Format: Hardcover Publisher: Reader's Digest Title: Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary Age Level: Adults, Young Adults Type: Illustrated Book Special Attributes: 1st Edition, Illustrated Subjects: Environment, Nature & Earth ISBN: 9780895772671

[ekmadonna]

yes they are and they state 1992 4TH Printing below the other original copyright dates.

[city*satins]

If you get these back and go to relist them, I recommend you change the title.  Your title says 1992 4th printing which technically is correct, but it's confusing to the lay viewer as it implies that this is the 1992 EDITION  and the 4th printing of this edition (year unstated)   as this is the standard format for stating a books edition.   But it's actually the 1987 edition, which also happens to be the first edition, and it's the 4th printing from 1992.

People who don't know the different between edition and printing get confused when you provide the date of the printing and don't mention the date of the edition except in the Item Specifics. 

The year 1992 isn't really nearly as important as the fact that it's the 4th printing.

But the year 1987 is important, and the fact that it's the first edition.

I would have titled it  this way (and yes there's room)

  Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary 2 Vol Set First edition 1987 4th Printing 1992

If there hadn't been room I'd have titled it. 

  Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary 2 Vol Set First edition 1987 4th Printing 

[city*satins]

---

@ekmadonna wrote:

Here is another example for you. I just got back from the post office and a elderly lady was at the counter and asked for media mail shipping on a package that had a scarf in it. She told the clerk that "SOMEONE TOLD HER" to tell the clerk she wanted to ship it Media Mail. Nice someone told someone to LIE and break the rules to save a few extra pennies. the thing shipped 1st class probably under 6 oz, it was a tiny package. I just don't understand what ever happened to MORALS and Doing The Next Right Thing???

---

The customer was honest and told the clerk what the package contained. She was apparently ignorant about media mail.

The person who told her to ship it media mail might have been equally ignorant.  If the person told her to lie, you'd think that they would have advised her not to tell the clerk that the item contained a scarf, don't you think? 

[ekmadonna]

Point taken, there was a clear photograph of the 1987 1st edition in the listing, as well as my added 1992 4th printing in the title. the buyer stated in the return that it was NOT a 1992 4th printing which was false as this was also typeset on the copyright page. I see no way he is confused. But your title makes sense.

[city*satins]

---

@ekmadonna wrote:

Point taken, there was a clear photograph of the 1987 1st edition in the listing, as well as my added 1992 4th printing in the title. the buyer stated in the return that it was NOT a 1992 4th printing which was false as this was also typeset on the copyright page. I see no way he is confused. But your title makes sense.

---

Well, if you'll forgive my quibbling - based on the title, not on the Item Specifics , and on your description - the buyer may have got the impression that this was a 1992 edition.  If he was expecting the 4th printing of the 1992 edition, then that's not what he got.  There doesn't happen to be a 1992 edition, but remember that with something like an encyclopedic dictionary - the 1992 edition (if there was one) would be expected to contain things that weren't in the 1987 edition and he may have been looking for later content as would be found in such an edition.

By the way, I noticed that none of your pics showed that this was the 4th printing from 1992.

Just to be clear though, whether the 4th printing happened in 1987, 1988, 1989, ….1992 or later, all of those printings would contain the same material copyrighted back in the 1987 edition.  That's why the printing and year of that printing  doesn't really matter to anyone other than people looking for first edition AND first printing and not wanting a reprint unless it contains some erratum that makes it valuable (like an upside down page etc).

I know you think he isn't confused, but I think he very well could be.  Your title really is an eccentric way to present the set, since that 1992 is really irrelevant to the contents of the 2 books, and if the buyer was looking for the book's contents, he would not be unreasonable to see 1992 in the title and 1992 in the description, miss seeing 1987 in the item specifics, and incorrextly assumehe was getting the non-existent 1992 edition of the set.  i.e. updated with material post 1987. Which of course it wasn't.

JMHO