I feel an unjustified return request coming on...

[nationalpawnshop]

We sold a used point & shoot camera and have subsequently received a message from the buyer to inform us that while the camera works great it shows some fine, hairline scratches to the LCD screen that can only be seen when the camera is off. They asked if we could recommend some product that might remove these scratches. We suggested they try Novus No. 2 to which they replied "Should I return the camera without applying anything to the LCD or try it first and let you know it went?"

When I reminded them that it was a USED camera and that we had a No Return policy they responded "I feel you should have fully disclosed any imperfections." eBay defines USED as "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear" and we described it as "showing light general handling marks." To us fine hairline scratches that can only be seen when the camera is off and not being used would constitute signs of cosmetic wear and/or light general handling marks.

We already feel as if we rolled the dice on this auction and lost. We started it with a low opening bid and, in the end, that's what it went for even though that opening bid was only a tenth of what this camera originally retailed for. But, that's how it goes and we accept it as our loss. So, now that we're being confronted by a buyer who thinks that insignificant cosmetic wear may be grounds for returning a used camera and we're not sure how to deal with it.

Do fine, hairline scratches constitute "Significantly Not as Described?" If he requests a return are we obliged to accept it?

[southern*sweet*tea]

---

@nationalpawnshop wrote:

Do fine, hairline scratches constitute "Significantly Not as Described?" If he requests a return are we obliged to accept it?

---

If they weren't mentioned in the listing, then yes it can be construed as a SNAD and you will be required to accept it and pay for the return.

I would tell the buyer to go ahead and file a return case and send a prepaid label. When you get the camera back you can relist at a fixed price more in line with the camera's true value instead of taking chances with an auction.

[hidy-hoo]

"Do fine, hairline scratches constitute "Significantly Not as Described?" If he requests a return are we obliged to accept it?"

Yes!  ALL imperfections should be stated/described in the listing description.

[lintbrush*]

To an extent I agree with you. You did say "light general handling marks" which I do think would cover some light marks on the led screen. While they are not on the lens and the camera works as intended, it could've used a meatier description 

I think you'll be stuck with the return as a result.  

[pvcliff]

---

@southern*sweet*tea wrote:

---

@nationalpawnshop wrote:

Do fine, hairline scratches constitute "Significantly Not as Described?" If he requests a return are we obliged to accept it?

---

If they weren't mentioned in the listing, then yes it can be construed as a SNAD and you will be required to accept it and pay for the return.

I would tell the buyer to go ahead and file a return case and send a prepaid label. When you get the camera back you can relist at a fixed price more in line with the camera's true value instead of taking chances with an auction.

---

Great advice. And BLOCK the buyer from future purchases!

[tev4all]

---

@nationalpawnshop wrote:

We sold a used point & shoot camera and have subsequently received a message from the buyer to inform us that while the camera works great it shows some fine, hairline scratches to the LCD screen that can only be seen when the camera is off. They asked if we could recommend some product that might remove these scratches. We suggested they try Novus No. 2 to which they replied "Should I return the camera without applying anything to the LCD or try it first and let you know it went?"

When I reminded them that it was a USED camera and that we had a No Return policy they responded "I feel you should have fully disclosed any imperfections." eBay defines USED as "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear" and we described it as "showing light general handling marks." To us fine hairline scratches that can only be seen when the camera is off and not being used would constitute signs of cosmetic wear and/or light general handling marks.

We already feel as if we rolled the dice on this auction and lost. We started it with a low opening bid and, in the end, that's what it went for even though that opening bid was only a tenth of what this camera originally retailed for. But, that's how it goes and we accept it as our loss. So, now that we're being confronted by a buyer who thinks that insignificant cosmetic wear may be grounds for returning a used camera and we're not sure how to deal with it.

Do fine, hairline scratches constitute "Significantly Not as Described?" If he requests a return are we obliged to accept it?

---

Has an official return request been opened? or are you just messaging back and forth? 

[nationalpawnshop]

What gets me about it is that the first thing the buyer wrote was that "the camera worked great just as described" but then they're being all whiney about some minor cosmetic flaws that are invisible when the camera is being used and can only be seen when it's NOT being used... Is this camera kept in a display case under spot lights? Why should anyone care what minor imperfections can be seen when it's not being used? Who spends time gazing at a camera that works great when they're not using it?

[nationalpawnshop]

No official return request, yet. But when they wrote "Should I return the camera without applying anything to the LCD or try it first and let you know it went?" it seemed that unless the Novus solves the problem they will be requesting a return...

[tev4all]

---

@nationalpawnshop wrote:

No official return request, yet. But when they wrote "Should I return the camera without applying anything to the LCD or try it first and let you know it went?" it seemed that unless the Novus solves the problem they will be requesting a return...

---

I would just reply one more time outside the return request process with something like...

Sorry you feel the cosmetic appearance was not adequate describe and I don't usually accept returns for this, I will be glad to refund your full purchase price plus original shipping if you are willing to return item using online viewable tracking at your expense.  

Now, if/when they open an ebay return request come back for more information/advice on how to handle that, so you may not get helically  inclined on a fixed post.

  If you are so inclined, you could tell them, to keep the item turned on and they won't see the hairline scratches.  

[baantiques]

---

@southern*sweet*tea wrote:

---

@nationalpawnshop wrote:

Do fine, hairline scratches constitute "Significantly Not as Described?" If he requests a return are we obliged to accept it?

---

If they weren't mentioned in the listing, then yes it can be construed as a SNAD and you will be required to accept it and pay for the return.

I would tell the buyer to go ahead and file a return case and send a prepaid label. When you get the camera back you can relist at a fixed price more in line with the camera's true value instead of taking chances with an auction.

---

and don't forget to add the buyer to your black list

[silvermoon2020]

I would assume the buyer's description " while the camera works great it shows some fine, hairline scratches to the LCD screen that can only be seen when the camera is off" would confirm that the hairline scratch is a cosmetic issue and not affecting how the camera works. .. good luck to you and I wish eBay was a safer place to sell.

[prescott4]

---

@silvermoon2020 wrote:

I would assume the buyer's description " while the camera works great it shows some fine, hairline scratches to the LCD screen that can only be seen when the camera is off" would confirm that the hairline scratch is a cosmetic issue and not affecting how the camera works. .. good luck to you and I wish eBay was a safer place to sell.

---

Just because its a cosmetic flaw that doesnt affect how the camera works, doesnt mean the camera was described properly. The seller glossed over the issue rather than detailing it. The buyer has a case for a return

[silvermoon2020]

[eBay defines USED as "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear" and we described it as "showing light general handling marks." ]

---if you're picky, don't purchase used item with no return policy. 

[prescott4]

---

@silvermoon2020 wrote:

[eBay defines USED as "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear" and we described it as "showing light general handling marks." ]

---if you're picky, don't purchase used item with no return policy. 

---

If you dont specfically mention damage, dont whine when you get an MBG return.

[gramophone-georg]

---

@nationalpawnshop wrote:

We sold a used point & shoot camera and have subsequently received a message from the buyer to inform us that while the camera works great it shows some fine, hairline scratches to the LCD screen that can only be seen when the camera is off. They asked if we could recommend some product that might remove these scratches. We suggested they try Novus No. 2 to which they replied "Should I return the camera without applying anything to the LCD or try it first and let you know it went?"

When I reminded them that it was a USED camera and that we had a No Return policy they responded "I feel you should have fully disclosed any imperfections." eBay defines USED as "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear" and we described it as "showing light general handling marks." To us fine hairline scratches that can only be seen when the camera is off and not being used would constitute signs of cosmetic wear and/or light general handling marks.

We already feel as if we rolled the dice on this auction and lost. We started it with a low opening bid and, in the end, that's what it went for even though that opening bid was only a tenth of what this camera originally retailed for. But, that's how it goes and we accept it as our loss. So, now that we're being confronted by a buyer who thinks that insignificant cosmetic wear may be grounds for returning a used camera and we're not sure how to deal with it.

Do fine, hairline scratches constitute "Significantly Not as Described?" If he requests a return are we obliged to accept it?

---

---

@nationalpawnshop wrote:

We sold a used point & shoot camera and have subsequently received a message from the buyer to inform us that while the camera works great it shows some fine, hairline scratches to the LCD screen that can only be seen when the camera is off. They asked if we could recommend some product that might remove these scratches. We suggested they try Novus No. 2 to which they replied "Should I return the camera without applying anything to the LCD or try it first and let you know it went?"

When I reminded them that it was a USED camera and that we had a No Return policy they responded "I feel you should have fully disclosed any imperfections." eBay defines USED as "The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear" and we described it as "showing light general handling marks." To us fine hairline scratches that can only be seen when the camera is off and not being used would constitute signs of cosmetic wear and/or light general handling marks.

We already feel as if we rolled the dice on this auction and lost. We started it with a low opening bid and, in the end, that's what it went for even though that opening bid was only a tenth of what this camera originally retailed for. But, that's how it goes and we accept it as our loss. So, now that we're being confronted by a buyer who thinks that insignificant cosmetic wear may be grounds for returning a used camera and we're not sure how to deal with it.

Do fine, hairline scratches constitute "Significantly Not as Described?" If he requests a return are we obliged to accept it?

---

No, you're not obliged to accept it, but just realize that to eBay "no returns" does NOT mean "no refunds". They'll refund your buyer with your money and let them keep your camera.

GOTCHA!