First Neg . . . Heartbroken 😳😥

[mysalonsavings]

I received my first negative today and am absolutely heartbroken. I try so hard to be good to my buyers but I was not even given a warning that this lady was un-happy. Just a negative without reason. I would have given a refund or corrected whatever was an issue if she had contacted me. I have sent a message to the buyer to find out what about the auction that made her think she would be receiving 3 of the items instead of the 1 she purchased as I do not want to have it happen again. If she purchased 3 I did not receive and order for 3 I only received an order for 1? I just feel this is so unfair. 😳😥

[this*old*attic]

Yes, that’s how I understood the OP (not responsible because it showed delivered but acting nice by choice) and yes, it was rhetorical (and sarcastic) asking if an empty box was sent..... because delivered wasn’t the point; empty was the point. That’s a SNAD.

And, thank you.

[this*old*attic]

Well, I feel crummy you thought I was being mean.

But, I’m sorry. OP (and you) insisting/pointing out/whatever term - that she’s not responsible because the item shows delivery - is simply not the whole truth.

And half truths come off a little concerning.

That’s what I was reacting to.

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@fern*wood wrote:

I think this thread has just gotten too confusing and I haven't started over reading it to see what happened exactly.  I know the OP started out talking about an unhappy buyer getting one item and thinking they were getting two and it morphed into talking about another unhappy buyer that got an empty package.

Along the way I believe some posts were using sarcasm and got misunderstood.  I misunderstood one of the Op's posts because reading a sentence and not knowing which words the strong intonation are intended for completely changes the meaning of a sentence.  I thought the OP was asking why their buyer opened a SNAD, but instead, she meant WHY would they.  I didn't mean to annoy them, but my response did because I misunderstood.

Sometimes the written word doesn't come out like intended---the OP should understand that based on their follow-up.

---

Agree I think a lot of this is because of misunderstanding what others are saying 

[this*old*attic]

But I think it’s nice that everyone is trying to explain themselves. We’re probably all beating a dead horse a little,  but it’s just because we like each other and want to get along.

[turquoisetulips]

Yes the seller was willing to refund.  I don’t think anyone denied that fact.   But the ops statements made it sound like she was doing it even though she Didn’t have too. myangelandmyprincess 

Okay just for clarification  one last time . When a buyer makes a purchase and the seller sends out exactly what was ordered  with a tracking number  and  tracking proves delivery . Then if the buyer [regardless of integrity]  reports they received a damaged  package with missing pieces  then the seller is fully responsible to issue a refund on  their word alone ? Or  is there absolute proof required  before the seller  is held accountable ? Also what would be considered proof  if that is the case ? Tulips 

[turquoisetulips]

But a SNAD is not.  Receiving a package is not the same as receiving the item the buyer paid for.  If not then more sellers would be intentionally sending empty packages and telling buyers to pound sand when they complain. muttlymob 

Okay  I understand . So  what happens   if  a dishonest buyer  receives their order just fine  and intact  .Then proceed to tear open the package , safely  empty its contents and set aside  , stomp on the box or bag   and then send a photo of the damaged box  to the seller  with a demand for a refund ? Tulips

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@turquoisetulips wrote:

But a SNAD is not.  Receiving a package is not the same as receiving the item the buyer paid for.  If not then more sellers would be intentionally sending empty packages and telling buyers to pound sand when they complain. muttlymob 

Okay  I understand . So  what happens   if  a dishonest buyer  receives their order just fine  and intact  .Then proceed to tear open the package , safely  empty its contents and set aside  , stomp on the box or bag   and then send a photo of the damaged box  to the seller  with a demand for a refund ? Tulips

---

As always eBay will generally take the buyers word for it 

[this*old*attic]

The post office puts a sticker on an envelope or package that arrives open and all or partially empty.

I’ve received one this way.

[turquoisetulips]

---

@this*old*attic wrote:

The post office puts a sticker on an envelope or package that arrives open and all or partially empty.

I’ve received one this way.

---

That's REALLY  good to know because I can imagine a policy such as this one in the wrong hands could cause things to go south pretty quickly .  Tulips 

[turquoisetulips]

---

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

---

@turquoisetulips wrote:

But a SNAD is not.  Receiving a package is not the same as receiving the item the buyer paid for.  If not then more sellers would be intentionally sending empty packages and telling buyers to pound sand when they complain. muttlymob 

Okay  I understand . So  what happens   if  a dishonest buyer  receives their order just fine  and intact  .Then proceed to tear open the package , safely  empty its contents and set aside  , stomp on the box or bag   and then send a photo of the damaged box  to the seller  with a demand for a refund ? Tulips

---

As always eBay will generally take the buyers word for it 

---

I'd like to think the PO sticker that redrose just mentioned  would at least be required before sellers are totally on the hook ..  Let's face  it,, we all live in the real world and the real world  isn't always the most honest  place . Tulips 

[turquoisetulips]

  Receiving a package is not the same as receiving the item the buyer paid for.  If not then more sellers would be intentionally sending empty packages and telling buyers to pound sand when they complain. muttlymob 

Would a seller with a developing track record of sending empty packages to their buyers  stay in business for very long ?  I tend to doubt they would . Tulips 

[berserkerplanet]

>>When tracking shows delivery (or Signature Confirmation if the value is high enough) an Item Not Received claim is off the table.

That may no longer be the case. See post 119 and the other thread referenced there.

[mam98031]

---

@turquoisetulips wrote:

  Receiving a package is not the same as receiving the item the buyer paid for.  If not then more sellers would be intentionally sending empty packages and telling buyers to pound sand when they complain. muttlymob 

Would a seller with a developing track record of sending empty packages to their buyers  stay in business for very long ?  I tend to doubt they would . Tulips 

---

Good grief this darn thing has taken on a life of it's own.

I didn't say that receiving a package is the same as received the item the buyer paid for.  You can search all my posts, you will find no such statement.

Can we get this straight.  The OP did NOT send an empty package.  The buyer received an empty package, but that wasn't the way the package left the hands of the OP.  When the buyer received the package, it was empty.  There was a sticker on the package placed there by USPS stating that the contents were missing.  This happens sometimes.

Once the OP was notified of this from the buyer, the OP's response to the buyer was to offer them a FULL refund or a replacement of the buyer's choice.

I know there are some bad sellers out there, but to make a business plan as you describe will get them booted in short order when Ebay catches on and they will.  So sure, in the short run it may work, but not in the long run.  

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@turquoisetulips wrote:

  Receiving a package is not the same as receiving the item the buyer paid for.  If not then more sellers would be intentionally sending empty packages and telling buyers to pound sand when they complain. muttlymob 

Would a seller with a developing track record of sending empty packages to their buyers  stay in business for very long ?  I tend to doubt they would . Tulips 

---

Good grief this darn thing has taken on a life of it's own.

I didn't say that receiving a package is the same as received the item the buyer paid for.  You can search all my posts, you will find no such statement.

Can we get this straight.  The OP did NOT send an empty package.  The buyer received an empty package, but that wasn't the way the package left the hands of the OP.  When the buyer received the package, it was empty.  There was a sticker on the package placed there by USPS stating that the contents were missing.  This happens sometimes.

Once the OP was notified of this from the buyer, the OP's response to the buyer was to offer them a FULL refund or a replacement of the buyer's choice.

I know there are some bad sellers out there, but to make a business plan as you describe will get them booted in short order when Ebay catches on and they will.  So sure, in the short run it may work, but not in the long run.  

---

No one has said that the op sent an empty package.  Red asked it at one point as a rhetorical question to make a point that it would be a not as described case.  Tulips has asked what kind of protections a seller would have against a buyer just claiming that it happened and that she doesn’t think seller who would do this would last long.   No one has said the op sent an empty package 

[turquoisetulips]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@turquoisetulips wrote:

  Receiving a package is not the same as receiving the item the buyer paid for.  If not then more sellers would be intentionally sending empty packages and telling buyers to pound sand when they complain. muttlymob 

Would a seller with a developing track record of sending empty packages to their buyers  stay in business for very long ?  I tend to doubt they would . Tulips 

---

Good grief this darn thing has taken on a life of it's own.

I didn't say that receiving a package is the same as received the item the buyer paid for.  You can search all my posts, you will find no such statement.

Can we get this straight.  The OP did NOT send an empty package.  The buyer received an empty package, but that wasn't the way the package left the hands of the OP.  When the buyer received the package, it was empty.  There was a sticker on the package placed there by USPS stating that the contents were missing.  This happens sometimes.

Once the OP was notified of this from the buyer, the OP's response to the buyer was to offer them a FULL refund or a replacement of the buyer's choice.

I know there are some bad sellers out there, but to make a business plan as you describe will get them booted in short order when Ebay catches on and they will.  So sure, in the short run it may work, but not in the long run.  

---

I think there's a bit more confusion here . I asked Muttymob  the question about sellers who would send out  empty packages .  I was not speaking about the OP ,, it was just a hypothetical question about any seller  just generally speaking .  I just mentioned to Muttlymob  that I didn't think  a seller who conducted a dishonest  business  by sending out empty packages  would stay in business for very long.  It was a bit of thread drift  . I had sent the comment to Mutlymob  ,, It wasn't directed at you  nor was I speaking about the OP.   Tulips