essphoto Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Since it's obvious from looking at feedback who the seller is (ie me), I'm compelled to state my position here as well. I feel a bit odd doing this, but I was not the one to decide to take this public... and after all, it's my reputation on the line.
Here are the facts of the story I feel are being missed, given the comments I've seen so far.
First, there is a misconception being tossed around that I've been incommunicado or "avoiding" the buyer. That's simply not true. The buyer claimed on May 8 that I hadn't replied to his PM on the forums, and while that was true at the time, I did respond the following day on May 9. Since then, I have been in contact with the buyer and sent five followup messages, including one today.
Secondly, the suggestion that I tried to pull a fast one by unloading bad equipment is baseless and in fact contrary to common sense. I pay for extended camera insurance on all of my gear through Hill & Usher. If the D3S needed repair from any type of damage, I would have been able to cover it with relative ease. I have no incentive to unload broken equipment to anyone.
Thirdly, for people reading this, it is important to keep in mind that I overnighted the camera to the buyer on Janurary 21. To repeat, Janurary 21. On February 2, the buyer posted feedback for me stating "Bought my D3s and it was exactly as described. He was very patient with me while I worked out PayPal issues. Wonderful seller!" Then, approximately two months later, the seller sends me the following message: "Hey the first time I used the D3s it was acting very weird and really slow to respond. I thought it was just settings that were weird. Turns out the mainboard needs to be replaced."
When considering his claims, I cannot help but to bear this inconsistency in mind. In any case, I replied to the buyer's message, telling him that if the camera was experiencing any issues when it was in my possession, then I would have told him about them from the outset. "Acting very weird" would be a very noticeable issue, and it's not likely I (or he) would have missed it back then. I also said that it was his responsibility to check the camera to his satisfaction when he received it. If at that time he was dissatisfied with how it was performing, I would have accepted it back or worked out some sort of deal for its repair. The buyer responded to this stating "It was not working right from the start but I thought maybe it needed to be cleaned and calibrated for a tuneup [no mention of what this tuneup consisted of...]. I highly doubt it got damaged in shipping and it wasn't damaged in my care. It may not have been noticeable to you but it was clearly not working right when I got it. [however, in the post above, he now refers to these as "basic issues"...]." To this, I told him that if it were me, and if there was a problem with the camera I just bought that warranted over a month of service (quite a long "tuneup"), I would have definitely told the seller about it. This seems so commonsensical that it makes me skeptical of his claims.
Lastly, the buyer falsely stated that "He knew about it [the issues with the camera] and I messed up by waiting too long to file a paypal claim according to him." In fact, in none of our correspondences did the PayPal claim ever arise. I never taunted him by saying he waited too long to file a claim or anything remotely of the sort. I'm disappointed the buyer is making false allegations like this.
Since I wish to believe the buyer is an upfront and honest person, I think the camera may have been damaged either during the servicing he described or in use, perhaps accidentally. However, as the seller in this instance I do not feel comfortable accepting responsibility given the circumstances. I do hope that this clears things up and sheds light on the situation from my perspective.
|