How much disclosure is appropriate in a description?

[m_dodge_thomas]

I've been on eBay for 20 years as both a buyer and seller, but I have never encountered a situation exactly like this one, and I would like to hear others' opinions.

________________

Over the years I have purchased a number of "Manufacturer Refurbished" Olympus cameras and lenses, some direct from Olympus, some from eBay sellers.

All of these lenses were purchased with the understanding that Refurbished products may have *some* cosmetic blemishes, however all were received in close to "like new" condition, and as best I can judge this has been pretty close to a universal experience when buying Olympus refurbished products.

I recently purchased several cameras and lens from a high volume eBay seller, all arrived in *much* rougher cosmetic condition that any\d I has purchased before, and  one lens had a bezel so badly dented that a filter will not thread on.

And, we are talking several thousand dollars here. 

In response to my inquiry about their condition, the seller wrote:

"Let me explain this to you... Olympus has two classes of refurbished. one is class A which is just like new and comes with all the original accessories just like as it was new. Then there is the other class called class C which has cosmetic blemishes and some accessories might be missing. this product that you bough is class C and it has clearly mentions that it has cosmetic blemishes and some accessories might be missing."

This was information new to me, there was no mention that these were class "C" items in the listings, and a best I can judge from a GOOGLE this is not a question typical buyers would know they should ask, I did not find a single specific mention of the fact that there are different classes of Olympus Refurbished products.

So my question is this:

If a seller has "specialized knowledge" of some aspect of an item's description or condition which is likely unknown to buyers but would affect their purchasing decision if they knew it, but fails to inform the buyer in the listing, in your opinion would the item be "not as described" for the purpose of an eBay return?

I know  that this is ultimately eBay's call, but I wanted to get a sense of were other sellers "drew the line" on this question when writing their own listings.

FWIW ,my own opinion is that if a "reasonable buyer" could misunderstand an item's condition because of some fact I knew but omitted, then that would by my problem, not the buyers.

Thus when not certain I always err on the side of full disclosure, and if I had listed these items the description would have said something like:

"PLEASE NOTE: Olympus has two classes of refurbished  products. "A" and "C".

"If you have purchased a refurbished Olympus product in the past, and received a product which appeared new or nearly new, they you likely purchased a class  "A" item.

"Please note that this is a class "C" item, sold in packaging sealed by Olympus.

"As such I can't know it's cosmetic condition, and I will not accept ANY returns for cosmetic damage. When buying this item you need to be aware that it could be be in *any* sort of cosmetic condition at all, as long as it is optically and mechanically functional."

(Well... except that I would never sell expensive items like this in unknown condition on a "no returns" basis - I would open, grade and photograph them before listing.)

But, that's just me.

Thoughts?

[southern*sweet*tea]

---

@m_dodge_thomas wrote:

 and  one lens had a bezel so badly dented that a filter will not thread on.

---

I know absolutely nothing about cameras, but I can tell you that refurbished items are supposed to work as intended just like a new item or a used item is. If the cosmetic damage (the dent on the bezel) made the item unusable (can't put a filter on) then that item is clearly not as described and can be returned, with the return being paid for by the seller. It is a SNAD.

It doesn't matter what the seller says or disclaims in the listing. If it doesn't function as intended, it's a SNAD and can be returned - with return shipping paid for by the seller - even if the seller is a no returns seller. This is Ebay's rule and is spelled out in the money back guarantee.

[luckythewinner]

FIRST:

If the item description accurate describes what the buyer receives, there is no basis for a "Not As Described" claim. It should not matter whether the item was class A or class C, because the buyer would know exactly what he was getting.

SECOND:

If a bezel was so dented that a filter will not thread on, that is not a "cosmetic blemish". That is DAMAGE and if it was not disclosed the item is clearly "not as described", whether you were told it was class A or class C or class Clown or nothing at all.

THIRD:

You said "all arrived in *much* rougher cosmetic condition that any I has purchased before." 

What you bought before has nothing to do with this seller and this transaction. This seller is obligated to deliver the items that he promised in the condition that he stated. He is not responsible for matching the items that you received in other transactions.

[gracieallen01]

One thing one might wish to keep in mind - on ebay, if something is not as described, inadequately described, falsely described, etc., there is NO such thing as 'no returns'.  Just ask you credit card company.

[gracieallen01]

Sorry, I should have said that there is no such thing as 'no refunds'.

[m60driver]

I highly doubt that a company like Olympus is going to let what your seller refers to as "class C" products out into the market place.  Corporate America does not act like that without removing all identifying corporate marks.  And as others have noted, a dent that prohibits the placing of a filter in the lens is not a cosmetic defect but actual damage. I know it is awkward for a regular seller to initiate a SNAD complaint given all the false SNADs, but some are indeed justified.