Horrible Purchasing Experience with a member from Northeast
Thread Starter
da Terminator!
iTrader: (62)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,294
Likes: 1
From: Rockville, MD
Originally Posted by MRC Motorsports
What I meant was when your buying something online from a person you never met, your purchasing something at your own risk. What if the dude never even sent the item? I think your taking your frustrations out on the wrong person. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Last edited by bb1314; Dec 16, 2007 at 11:00 AM.
He just told you what the Buyer Beware warning ment... When you buy things off someone who had only 2 itrader rating previously, and is dropping the price on an item rapidly, there might be something wrong with it.
Honestly I can see that you are fustrated, as many of us have been in the past. I do not blame you one bit. Sadly I do not know who this person is or I would help you, but I think taking your fustration on MRC is a bit overboard.
Honestly I can see that you are fustrated, as many of us have been in the past. I do not blame you one bit. Sadly I do not know who this person is or I would help you, but I think taking your fustration on MRC is a bit overboard.
Originally Posted by bb1314
You still didn't answer my question on why the "Buyer beware" warning. That statement coming out from a Sponsor could really ruin my reputation you know.
Caveat emptor
Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects. The modern trend in the US, however, is one of the Implied Warranty of Fitness that applies only to the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and the rule of Caveat Emptor applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer).(See Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. App. 1991)) Many other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this.
Before statutory law, the buyer had no warranty of the quality of goods. In many jurisdictions, the law now requires that goods must be of "merchantable quality". However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce, and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious.
In addition to the quality of the merchandise, this phrase also applies to the return policy. In most jurisdictions, there is no legal requirement for the vendor to provide a refund or exchange. In many cases, the vendor will not provide a refund but will provide a credit. In the case of software, movies and other copyrighted material many vendors will only do a direct exchange for another copy of the exact same title. Most stores require proof of purchase and impose time limits on exchanges or refunds. However, some larger chain stores will do exchanges or refunds at any time with or without proof of purchase- although they usually require a form of picture ID and place quantity or dollar limitations on such returns.
Laidlaw v. Organ, a decision written in 1817 by Chief Justice John Marshall, is believed by scholars to have been the first U.S. Supreme Court case which laid down the rule of caveat emptor in U.S. law.
In the UK, consumer law has moved away from the caveat emptor model, with laws passed that have enhanced consumer rights and allow greater leeway to return goods that do not meet legal standards of acceptance (Trader's Guide to Civil Law. Trading Standards. Retrieved on 2007-11-29.) Many companies operating in the UK will allow customers to return goods within a specified period for a full refund, even if there is no problem with the product.
Appology accepted..
Thread Starter
da Terminator!
iTrader: (62)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,294
Likes: 1
From: Rockville, MD
Originally Posted by MRC Motorsports
Bro you never heard of the expression BUYER BEWARE?
Caveat emptor
Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects. The modern trend in the US, however, is one of the Implied Warranty of Fitness that applies only to the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and the rule of Caveat Emptor applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer).(See Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. App. 1991)) Many other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this.
Before statutory law, the buyer had no warranty of the quality of goods. In many jurisdictions, the law now requires that goods must be of "merchantable quality". However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce, and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious.
In addition to the quality of the merchandise, this phrase also applies to the return policy. In most jurisdictions, there is no legal requirement for the vendor to provide a refund or exchange. In many cases, the vendor will not provide a refund but will provide a credit. In the case of software, movies and other copyrighted material many vendors will only do a direct exchange for another copy of the exact same title. Most stores require proof of purchase and impose time limits on exchanges or refunds. However, some larger chain stores will do exchanges or refunds at any time with or without proof of purchase- although they usually require a form of picture ID and place quantity or dollar limitations on such returns.
Laidlaw v. Organ, a decision written in 1817 by Chief Justice John Marshall, is believed by scholars to have been the first U.S. Supreme Court case which laid down the rule of caveat emptor in U.S. law.
In the UK, consumer law has moved away from the caveat emptor model, with laws passed that have enhanced consumer rights and allow greater leeway to return goods that do not meet legal standards of acceptance (Trader's Guide to Civil Law. Trading Standards. Retrieved on 2007-11-29.) Many companies operating in the UK will allow customers to return goods within a specified period for a full refund, even if there is no problem with the product.
Appology accepted..
Caveat emptor
Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects. The modern trend in the US, however, is one of the Implied Warranty of Fitness that applies only to the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and the rule of Caveat Emptor applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer).(See Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. App. 1991)) Many other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this.
Before statutory law, the buyer had no warranty of the quality of goods. In many jurisdictions, the law now requires that goods must be of "merchantable quality". However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce, and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious.
In addition to the quality of the merchandise, this phrase also applies to the return policy. In most jurisdictions, there is no legal requirement for the vendor to provide a refund or exchange. In many cases, the vendor will not provide a refund but will provide a credit. In the case of software, movies and other copyrighted material many vendors will only do a direct exchange for another copy of the exact same title. Most stores require proof of purchase and impose time limits on exchanges or refunds. However, some larger chain stores will do exchanges or refunds at any time with or without proof of purchase- although they usually require a form of picture ID and place quantity or dollar limitations on such returns.
Laidlaw v. Organ, a decision written in 1817 by Chief Justice John Marshall, is believed by scholars to have been the first U.S. Supreme Court case which laid down the rule of caveat emptor in U.S. law.
In the UK, consumer law has moved away from the caveat emptor model, with laws passed that have enhanced consumer rights and allow greater leeway to return goods that do not meet legal standards of acceptance (Trader's Guide to Civil Law. Trading Standards. Retrieved on 2007-11-29.) Many companies operating in the UK will allow customers to return goods within a specified period for a full refund, even if there is no problem with the product.
Appology accepted..
LOL.. sorry. I think I edited my post too slow. Hope you understand my frustration though. The attitude that I got from the crappy buyer really triggered me.
Originally Posted by bb1314
LOL.. sorry. I think I edited my post too slow. Hope you understand my frustration though. The attitude that I got from the crappy buyer really triggered me.
On the other hand I can, to some degree, understand that college kids are pretty busy, but I personally would have written myself a big friggin post-it note to make sending the money my first priority. Everyone's different.
How did you pay for the item originally?
Buyer beware notwithstanding, this is supposed to be a community of like minded, responsible people, not a bunch of guys trying to get over on one another. I also don't think posting a "caveat emptor" description is in very good taste either. Whether the seller knew, or didn't know about the defects is not even at issue now.
I don't fault you for making the thread at all
Buyer beware notwithstanding, this is supposed to be a community of like minded, responsible people, not a bunch of guys trying to get over on one another. I also don't think posting a "caveat emptor" description is in very good taste either. Whether the seller knew, or didn't know about the defects is not even at issue now.
I don't fault you for making the thread at all
Last edited by Z1 Performance; Dec 16, 2007 at 01:40 PM.
Originally Posted by abui01
You my friend, do not know the law. Regardless if he has the IQ of a donkey, crippled for life, got his arm blown off, or going to school/working full time - how is that bb1314's fault? Exactly, it's NOT, thank you very much. 
Welcome to the internet. People get ****ed over all the time. He's lucky it was only $50. I don't disagree its shitty on the sellers part to sell damaged merchandise, especially not making the buyer aware and its shitty how he backed off from offering to pay half for the repair. If $50 really meant that much to him, he would've been more cautious buying it in the first place.
Thread Starter
da Terminator!
iTrader: (62)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,294
Likes: 1
From: Rockville, MD
So the seller just IM'ed me out of nowhere.
Take a look at what he posted in the Mid-A forum (Post#19)
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....45#post4841745
Take a look at what he posted in the Mid-A forum (Post#19)
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....45#post4841745
Last edited by bb1314; Dec 16, 2007 at 02:23 PM.
defimation of character .....nice one lol
And what's with the first line of the IM? This + his actions, maybe you could threaten him back as this being a hate crime lol
I guess the intelligence gene didn't pass from father to son
Sucks man, I know....and I hope you don't hold it against all NY'ers
And what's with the first line of the IM? This + his actions, maybe you could threaten him back as this being a hate crime lol
I guess the intelligence gene didn't pass from father to son
Sucks man, I know....and I hope you don't hold it against all NY'ers
Originally Posted by bb1314
I am seriously wondering what he/his father will sue me for.
I personally would take down his NY tag and write a letter to every NY police department in his area that he trafficks drugs and carries loaded guns in his car!!
Originally Posted by MRC Motorsports
Defemation of character only applies to famous or people in a position of power, where such statements financially hurt him and ruin their carrers. What a joke..
I personally would take down his NY tag and write a letter to every NY police department in his area that he trafficks drugs and carries loaded guns in his car!!
I personally would take down his NY tag and write a letter to every NY police department in his area that he trafficks drugs and carries loaded guns in his car!!
But as his dad will tell him
there is no defamation/libel or slander here per se, in part because the allegations are made as a result of fact, not as a result of opinion. What's more, it would be construed by a court to be what's called a "fair comment". Man, I can't believe I remember this stuff still lolololololol
I was a law school geek lololol
Last edited by Z1 Performance; Dec 16, 2007 at 02:46 PM.
Thread Starter
da Terminator!
iTrader: (62)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,294
Likes: 1
From: Rockville, MD
Just an update. 05fairlady had been banned from the forum due to his comment here.
Post #19
https://my350z.com/forum/mid-atlantic/321851-bad-seller-ftl.html
Originally Posted by 05fairlady
First off, thats not the only picture i showed you of the spoiler. I showed u the spoiler from all angles. On top of that you decide to take out what you wrote to me, and edit what i wrote to you. YOUR A COOL GUY! I Could care less about this forum and all you losers that think you run ****. I'm getting rid of the car anyway for something that actually has power. The wheels are sold already so you can write whatever you want on it, and the quad is being sold locally. All you guys need to get a life, and on top of that, thanks Ethan for showing me how many of you clowns drive 350z's...
. The wheels are sold already so you can write whatever you want on it, and the quad is being sold locally. All you guys need to get a life, and on top of that, thanks Ethan for showing me how many of you clowns drive 350z's...https://my350z.com/forum/mid-atlantic/321851-bad-seller-ftl.html
Last edited by bb1314; Dec 16, 2007 at 05:09 PM.
