Is this fair?

[hcsiow]

Recently bought some used E46 eqpt from a forumner. Assured in perfect working order. Paid in full and collected it for installation in my ride. After installation, found that part of it was not working. When I called him, said I could return it for a refund. Problem is, installation and stripping of this stuff would cost me over 1K. I asked if we could negotiate on repairing, replacing the faulty part and would even split the cost with him but he flat out said no. He also refused to give me anything back for the installation and stripping.:furious:
One wonders if the eqpt was faulty to begin with and knowing how much it would take to install and dismantle, he figured I would not do it and would instead replace the faulty part at my own expense? Should I report him as I fear others may get trapped in this unscrupulous was by a fellow forumner?
Thoughts please:angry:

 

[kenntona]

Re: Is this fair?

What are the parts and what are the faults?

 

[centurion]

Re: Is this fair?

when a manufacturer, for example, sells you a car, he assures you that to the best of his knowledge that car is perfect.

Then there's something wrong as you are driving it on day 1.

U spend a few months trying to isolate the problem, total man hours spent plus cabfare is about a thousand bucks.

The manufacturer is not gonna refund you those cab fares man ... much less your time.

BUT he's gonna repair the part for you. NO the manufacturer will not refund you the car.

Now the other forummer who sold you the part is willing to refund you. It's a better deal than buying a lemon of a car in Singapore.

I think it's fair.

 

[hcsiow]

Re: Is this fair?

What are the parts and what are the faults?

CD player as part of GPS navigational system.

 

[hcsiow]

Re: Is this fair?

when a manufacturer, for example, sells you a car, he assures you that to the best of his knowledge that car is perfect.

Then there's something wrong as you are driving it on day 1.

U spend a few months trying to isolate the problem, total man hours spent plus cabfare is about a thousand bucks.

The manufacturer is not gonna refund you those cab fares man ... much less your time.

BUT he's gonna repair the part for you. NO the manufacturer will not refund you the car.

Now the other forummer who sold you the part is willing to refund you. It's a better deal than buying a lemon of a car in Singapore.

I think it's fair.

Ah, but your analogy is off. If the cost of the efforts to isolate the problems cost you the equivalent of 1/4 the cost of the car...I think you will bang some tables. Besides, I am asking for a repair and do NOT want a refund..even better, offering to pay for some of the repair! Would you offer to that for a lemon?

 

[hitmee]

Re: Is this fair?

sad to hear ur case. lets hope that the other forumer do not have the intention to cheat u.

 

[kenntona]

Re: Is this fair?

Recently bought some used E46 eqpt from a forumner. Assured in perfect working order. Paid in full and collected it for installation in my ride. After installation, found that part of it was not working. When I called him, said I could return it for a refund. Problem is, installation and stripping of this stuff would cost me over 1K. I asked if we could negotiate on repairing, replacing the faulty part and would even split the cost with him but he flat out said no. He also refused to give me anything back for the installation and stripping.:furious:
One wonders if the eqpt was faulty to begin with and knowing how much it would take to install and dismantle, he figured I would not do it and would instead replace the faulty part at my own expense? Should I report him as I fear others may get trapped in this unscrupulous was by a fellow forumner?
Thoughts please:angry:

There are two distinctive issues here:

• the faulty equipment
• the refund on labour owing to faulty equipment

The equipment, or part of it, does not work. Perhaps it is electronic in nature, there are other variables at play. Neither the seller nor the buyer could have figure this out. Unless you have a vibe that the seller intentionally sells you a faulty equipment (that you were screwed), there is always a risk in buying a used set. Trust is a big word, and if the equipment has worked in his car, no finger should be pointed. However, if he has the intention to offload a faulty set to you, then it is a different story altogether - not in this case as shown by his goodwill to refund the purchase.

Lemme share a modified story that can put the whole thing into perspective. Forumer A sold a used set of coilover (KW2) to forumer B. Forumer B tried to install it on his car, but it just would not fit. B has to pay workshop charges. A put back the KW2 on his ride - it works. Who's at fault? The true story is that the coilover could not clear B's rims. No one knows about this until the transaction took place. B pays for the labour charges and return the set to A. Case closed, lesson learnt. B might think he is the victim, but then again, things like that are associated with used parts purchase. Hence the buyer naturally bears more risks.

The refund on labour is gonna be tough. There is an unspoken "rule" even when buyers stripped a de-modding car apart. In cases between forumers, the parts are bought on knowledge that it "will" fit, or that it "will" work, then the onus is on the buyer to check on the compatibility - obviously the seller would not know as much as the buyer whether it will fit, or why should he? Case might be different for deals between resellers and forumers, since the resellers know the parts numbers and all. In your case, was there a check on the set before installation?

My take is that the case might not sounds fair to you. Then again, it would not be fair to the seller if he is asked to pay the labour for stripping the parts, especially if and when the equipment he sold is working perfectly (on his car). So, not a win-win scenario, inherent in the used parts transaction. But the seller is not at all "unfair" in his offer to refund you the purchase. Take it. And make a friend. He is not all out to "screw" you (I have heard cases where the blame is put on the buyer's car)......

 

[T6]

Re: Is this fair?

Lemme share a modified story that can put the whole thing into perspective. Forumer A sold a used set of coilover (KW2) to forumer B. Forumer B tried to install it on his car, but it just would not fit. B has to pay workshop charges. A put back the KW2 on his ride - it works. Who's at fault? The true story is that the coilover could not clear B's rims. No one knows about this until the transaction took place. B pays for the labour charges and return the set to A. Case closed, lesson learnt. B might think he is the victim, but then again, things like that are associated with used parts purchase. Hence the buyer naturally bears more risks.

This case slightly different as Forummer A selling a set of coilovers as per specs. If he did not misrepresent that it will fit on Forummer B's car, I do not think Forummer B has a recourse. Glad that in that case, the matter was settled amicably.

In the current case, I don't think any gentleman seller will try to pass off a faulty set CD player as a a working set. There are many possible causes, e.g. damage in the course of stripping the set, during installation, accidentally dropped on the floor etc. No one is the wiser. But I think it seems fair of seller to offer a refund. I can't see him having to pay for repair costs as the set may well be in good working order when he handed over.

Buyers who are concerned that such incidents may happen to them should then have some form of prior understanding with buyer that the set should be working after installation before full payment is made etc.

 

[kenntona]

Re: Is this fair?

Buyers who are concerned that such incidents may happen to them should then have some form of prior understanding with buyer that the set should be working after installation before full payment is made etc.

No way. Who could guarantee it is not the installation process that screwed up the parts - of which neither the seller nor the buyer could control?

 

[T6]

Re: Is this fair?

No way. Who could guarantee it is not the installation process that screwed up the parts - of which neither the seller nor the buyer could control?

I have given this kind of warranty or 7 days guarantee before but I will usually be present during the stripping and installation to be sure no third party causing the problem. Ultimately, it is the comfort level of the seller and buyer. Some sellers choose to leave the item at a 3rd party shop and then buyer go and collect and install. During the interim, lotsa things cld have happened to the item.

 

[centurion]

Re: Is this fair?

Ah, but your analogy is off. If the cost of the efforts to isolate the problems cost you the equivalent of 1/4 the cost of the car...I think you will bang some tables. Besides, I am asking for a repair and do NOT want a refund..even better, offering to pay for some of the repair! Would you offer to that for a lemon?

My analogy is not off, because you are differentiating in terms of a matter of degree here. Just to bring in some precedent, the last 2 cases of 7-series being a lemon, had to fight in court for 2 years to ask BMW and PML to take the car back. So it is safe to say that whatever the problem is, BMW/PML will repair, not replace or refund.

Bang table or what, the principle is still that they do not refund. They repair.

I symphatize with your issue you encountered, but the seller cannot be held liable for incidental losses - your installation charges is beyond his control and one cannot be held liable for unlimited liability associated with a sale.

In most forum transactions, because of a lack of relationship between the buyer and the manufacturer, and possibly the warranty has lapsed already, the principle of `let the buyer beware' should apply.

But you should of course reveal the name of the seller in order to make clear for the rest of the forum that this guy you must take extra care. TRUTH is the absolute defence against defamation, so you have nothing to fear.

 

[Oilman]

Re: Is this fair?

Buying second-hand stuff is like that... caveat emptor... be it accessories or the whole car. Particularly for private deals like these.

I think it's reasonable to expect a refund only for the part and not the incidentals.

 

[rex7_vtec]

Re: Is this fair?

Recently bought some used E46 eqpt from a forumner. Assured in perfect working order. Paid in full and collected it for installation in my ride. After installation, found that part of it was not working. When I called him, said I could return it for a refund. Problem is, installation and stripping of this stuff would cost me over 1K. I asked if we could negotiate on repairing, replacing the faulty part and would even split the cost with him but he flat out said no. He also refused to give me anything back for the installation and stripping.:furious:
One wonders if the eqpt was faulty to begin with and knowing how much it would take to install and dismantle, he figured I would not do it and would instead replace the faulty part at my own expense? Should I report him as I fear others may get trapped in this unscrupulous was by a fellow forumner?
Thoughts please:angry:

Hey dude sorry to hear of your unpleasant experience.

Could you kindly PM me the details of this transaction and the admin will take note of this matter

 

[hcsiow]

Re: Is this fair?

There are two distinctive issues here:

• the faulty equipment
• the refund on labour owing to faulty equipment

The equipment, or part of it, does not work. Perhaps it is electronic in nature, there are other variables at play. Neither the seller nor the buyer could have figure this out. Unless you have a vibe that the seller intentionally sells you a faulty equipment (that you were screwed), there is always a risk in buying a used set. Trust is a big word, and if the equipment has worked in his car, no finger should be pointed. However, if he has the intention to offload a faulty set to you, then it is a different story altogether - not in this case as shown by his goodwill to refund the purchase.

Lemme share a modified story that can put the whole thing into perspective. Forumer A sold a used set of coilover (KW2) to forumer B. Forumer B tried to install it on his car, but it just would not fit. B has to pay workshop charges. A put back the KW2 on his ride - it works. Who's at fault? The true story is that the coilover could not clear B's rims. No one knows about this until the transaction took place. B pays for the labour charges and return the set to A. Case closed, lesson learnt. B might think he is the victim, but then again, things like that are associated with used parts purchase. Hence the buyer naturally bears more risks.

The refund on labour is gonna be tough. There is an unspoken "rule" even when buyers stripped a de-modding car apart. In cases between forumers, the parts are bought on knowledge that it "will" fit, or that it "will" work, then the onus is on the buyer to check on the compatibility - obviously the seller would not know as much as the buyer whether it will fit, or why should he? Case might be different for deals between resellers and forumers, since the resellers know the parts numbers and all. In your case, was there a check on the set before installation?

My take is that the case might not sounds fair to you. Then again, it would not be fair to the seller if he is asked to pay the labour for stripping the parts, especially if and when the equipment he sold is working perfectly (on his car). So, not a win-win scenario, inherent in the used parts transaction. But the seller is not at all "unfair" in his offer to refund you the purchase. Take it. And make a friend. He is not all out to "screw" you (I have heard cases where the blame is put on the buyer's car)......

This case slightly different as Forummer A selling a set of coilovers as per specs. If he did not misrepresent that it will fit on Forummer B's car, I do not think Forummer B has a recourse. Glad that in that case, the matter was settled amicably.

In the current case, I don't think any gentleman seller will try to pass off a faulty set CD player as a a working set. There are many possible causes, e.g. damage in the course of stripping the set, during installation, accidentally dropped on the floor etc. No one is the wiser. But I think it seems fair of seller to offer a refund. I can't see him having to pay for repair costs as the set may well be in good working order when he handed over.
Buyers who are concerned that such incidents may happen to them should then have some form of prior understanding with buyer that the set should be working after installation before full payment is made etc.

I agree with your last statement. My mistake was to pay upfront in good faith that the eqpt was working as advertised. Other than that, I want to point out that I do NOT want him to reimburse my installation cost rather to bear the cost of repairing/replacing the defective part with me which I think is more than fair as even if I had returned the whole set to him, he could not sell the defective item ( I hope) in good faith. This is not a matter of coiloveres not fitting as the eqpt IS defective as confirmed by the installing electrical guys who stated it has to be replaced to work.

I have given this kind of warranty or 7 days guarantee before but I will usually be present during the stripping and installation to be sure no third party causing the problem. Ultimately, it is the comfort level of the seller and buyer. Some sellers choose to leave the item at a 3rd party shop and then buyer go and collect and install. During the interim, lotsa things cld have happened to the item.

Agreed, it may have occured at installation but even with the installer I used his installer to try to minimise issues. It is good of you to offer a waranty and that would be a most gentlemanly way of transacting.

My analogy is not off, because you are differentiating in terms of a matter of degree here. Just to bring in some precedent, the last 2 cases of 7-series being a lemon, had to fight in court for 2 years to ask BMW and PML to take the car back. So it is safe to say that whatever the problem is, BMW/PML will repair, not replace or refund.

Bang table or what, the principle is still that they do not refund. They repair.

I symphatize with your issue you encountered, but the seller cannot be held liable for incidental losses - your installation charges is beyond his control and one cannot be held liable for unlimited liability associated with a sale.

In most forum transactions, because of a lack of relationship between the buyer and the manufacturer, and possibly the warranty has lapsed already, the principle of `let the buyer beware' should apply.

But you should of course reveal the name of the seller in order to make clear for the rest of the forum that this guy you must take extra care. TRUTH is the absolute defence against defamation, so you have nothing to fear.

Again part or my answer is above in reponse to Kenntona. Again, not asking for unlimited liability or even extended gurantee, just that the stuff should work as advertised. Again, do not want refund esp since I know that getting any compensation on the installation cost (which is again as I said 25% the unit cost and therefore not insubstantial) is slim to say the least. I am willing to SHARE in repair of said defective unit. If you spent $280K on a cayman and will settle for a partial repair of a defective car instead of a full repair, I would already say you are exceptional.

Buying second-hand stuff is like that... caveat emptor... be it accessories or the whole car. Particularly for private deals like these.

Noted but shouldn't the stuff at least work as advertised?

I think it's reasonable to expect a refund only for the part and not the incidentals.

I would be more than happy to have that and I agree wholeheartedly. In this case I am willing to SHARE in the replacement/repair of the part. Unresonable, I don't think so.

Hey dude sorry to hear of your unpleasant experience.

Could you kindly PM me the details of this transaction and the admin will take note of this matter

Thank you kindly, still mulling over this but will pm you if necessary.
Cheers!

 

[kenntona]

Re: Is this fair?

Other than that, I want to point out that I do NOT want him to reimburse my installation cost rather to bear the cost of repairing/replacing the defective part with me which I think is more than fair as even if I had returned the whole set to him, he could not sell the defective item ( I hope) in good faith. This is not a matter of coiloveres not fitting as the eqpt IS defective as confirmed by the installing electrical guys who stated it has to be replaced to work.

Now it became clear...... Was the item working in his car? Or he has already stripped it out when he sold it to you? There is a difference here - if it was working in his car, then it was not defective. But if it was stripped out, then it is a bit grey - on one hand we cannot give benefit of doubt to him, but on the other hand, how could you receive an used electronic item and paid the seller thinking it will definitely work? Pardon me here, but even for a relatively new used watch, I would not do that.

That been said, now what you need to do is to assess the cost of replacement - how much to fix the damaged part?

 

[centurion]

Re: Is this fair?

1) While I don't want to get into the thorny issue of `what if your electrical guys tested it first before installing it' .... must say that the cost of repairing/replacing is not fixed while refunding is. Moreover, the seller does not manufacture these things, and neither is he a dealer. The cost of replacing or repairing should not be within the normal customary practice for forum transactions. And the rules of trade should operate within the normal accepted customary practice in a certain category of transaction. This discussion has shown that the normal customary practice is `caveat emptor' and therefore, though I sympathize with you, I think a refund is well within customary practice and therefore acceptable.

2) In your desiring compensation of the installation cost, you want to go beyond the customary practice. You want to treat the forum transaction as a risk-free transaction, but it cannot be. In my opinion, forum transactions have an element of risk which, in going ahead with the transaction, you impliedly agreed to the customary transaction terms.

If I spent 280K on a Cayman and it's a Lemon, and cannot solve in even 3 months of crazy trouble, I'd be overjoyed to get a refund or replacement. I wouldn't even think of getting compensation additional to a refund with interest on the downpayment. No I will not settle for partial repair, but that `partial repair' is in no way analogous to your case. Why so generous? Simple. We have to work within rules, and in these gray areas, the customary rules of transaction within a class of transaction, should hold sway. I'm very rule based, so I'm sorry, that's my position. Will I screw Stuttgart in the transaction? no. Because they worked within the rules, and while I may mention this in the forums, but there is no extra prejudice.

Again, HC, I'm sorry that this happened to you, but honestly, the first thought in my mind, why didn't they test the unit before putting it in? Anyway, you asked for an opinion of fairness and I gave it, I hope you don't hold it against me. I am not friends with the seller for sure, coz I don't know who it is. And I don't know who you are. So, fair opinion.

I agree with your last statement. My mistake was to pay upfront in good faith that the eqpt was working as advertised. Other than that, I want to point out that I do NOT want him to reimburse my installation cost rather to bear the cost of repairing/replacing the defective part with me which I think is more than fair as even if I had returned the whole set to him, he could not sell the defective item ( I hope) in good faith. This is not a matter of coiloveres not fitting as the eqpt IS defective as confirmed by the installing electrical guys who stated it has to be replaced to work.

Again part or my answer is above in reponse to Kenntona. Again, not asking for unlimited liability or even extended gurantee, just that the stuff should work as advertised. Again, do not want refund esp since I know that getting any compensation on the installation cost (which is again as I said 25% the unit cost and therefore not insubstantial) is slim to say the least. I am willing to SHARE in repair of said defective unit. If you spent $280K on a cayman and will settle for a partial repair of a defective car instead of a full repair, I would already say you are exceptional.

 

[milk15]

Re: Is this fair?

CD player as part of GPS navigational system.

I think 1st you have to CONFIRM that it can be fitted onto your car....
2nd, i THINK.......... for the CD player or GPS could be tested whether is it in working condition b4 installing, rite?

Correct me if i'm wrong....................

 

[centurion]

Re: Is this fair?

HC anyway, maybe some people can help you here.

What's wrong?

The CD player 100% playing right?

It's the GPS not working correct?

I suspect the speed cable not properly attached to the GPS unit.

 

[hcsiow]

Re: Is this fair?

Now it became clear...... Was the item working in his car? Or he has already stripped it out when he sold it to you? There is a difference here - if it was working in his car, then it was not defective. But if it was stripped out, then it is a bit grey - on one hand we cannot give benefit of doubt to him, but on the other hand, how could you receive an used electronic item and paid the seller thinking it will definitely work? Pardon me here, but even for a relatively new used watch, I would not do that.

That been said, now what you need to do is to assess the cost of replacement - how much to fix the damaged part?

It was stripped out when sold. I agree with your watch assessment. Even the installer felt bad and tried to ask him to compromise but he essentially told him to 'mind your own business'. *sigh*
Cost of replacement in excess of $600. Not so much the cost but the principle of it that bugs me so and the thought he might pull this on some other unsuspecting soul.

 

[hcsiow]

Re: Is this fair?

1) While I don't want to get into the thorny issue of `what if your electrical guys tested it first before installing it' .... must say that the cost of repairing/replacing is not fixed while refunding is. Moreover, the seller does not manufacture these things, and neither is he a dealer. The cost of replacing or repairing should not be within the normal customary practice for forum transactions. And the rules of trade should operate within the normal accepted customary practice in a certain category of transaction. This discussion has shown that the normal customary practice is `caveat emptor' and therefore, though I sympathize with you, I think a refund is well within customary practice and therefore acceptable.

2) In your desiring compensation of the installation cost, you want to go beyond the customary practice. You want to treat the forum transaction as a risk-free transaction, but it cannot be. In my opinion, forum transactions have an element of risk which, in going ahead with the transaction, you impliedly agreed to the customary transaction terms.

If I spent 280K on a Cayman and it's a Lemon, and cannot solve in even 3 months of crazy trouble, I'd be overjoyed to get a refund or replacement. I wouldn't even think of getting compensation additional to a refund with interest on the downpayment. No I will not settle for partial repair, but that `partial repair' is in no way analogous to your case. Why so generous? Simple. We have to work within rules, and in these gray areas, the customary rules of transaction within a class of transaction, should hold sway. I'm very rule based, so I'm sorry, that's my position. Will I screw Stuttgart in the transaction? no. Because they worked within the rules, and while I may mention this in the forums, but there is no extra prejudice.

Again, HC, I'm sorry that this happened to you, but honestly, the first thought in my mind, why didn't they test the unit before putting it in? Anyway, you asked for an opinion of fairness and I gave it, I hope you don't hold it against me. I am not friends with the seller for sure, coz I don't know who it is. And I don't know who you are. So, fair opinion.

hehe, no need to apologize or be defensive about it. I am pretty sure I didn't buy it from you . I do appreciate all comments for or against which is why this thread was started in the first place.
While I appreciate your wanting to stick to rules, written or implied; may I point out that misrepresentation of product does not provide immunity to the caveat emptor rule. We expect the product to work as advertised. If it fails 1 week from purchase..too bad. BUT NOT on purchase.
I sincerely doubt that if you spent $70K pursuing your lemon claim, you would be happy with a full refund only. I wager you will ask for compensation for miscellaneous costs in the pursuit of the claim which may or may not come up to the full 70K.