www.super8camera-shop.com - please help!

[jean]

Prices are difficult to judge, since the gap is so wide between the $0.99 ebay auctions and $199 that a dealer charges. While that sounds hefty, if I had to calculate possible returns including refund of shippings and a 2 year warranty for the cameras, plus my work in checking and servicing them - then my prices would be probably in the same range.

For example I bought a pile of cells for the beaulieu batteries. They all worked fine, but obviosly have been on the dealer's shelf for a long while, and 50% crapped out within the next 6 months. Imagine how screwed I'd been had I sold them to other people! I get them replaced by the manufacturer of course, but alone the postage costs for the batteries going back to me for service and then back to the customer would have defeated the whole purpose of making a humble profit.

[Alex]

Cameras are all about the lens. Selling a camera without revealing that it has a scratched lens is unacceptable under any condition and no sophistry about "near mint", "sorta mint" or "almost mint" will justify leaving the scratch out of the product description. Whether left out on purpose or by oversight, the existence of the scratch justifies a full refund, especially if the camera description used the term "mint" in any form, because it implies a level of quality that would never encompass a scratched lens, even if that scratch does not affect the final image. If he knew about the scratch, then he deserves no degree of compensation. If he did not know about the scratch, then this loss will be an object lesson in why he needs to inspect his products better before selling them. If the seller is honorable, he will give you a full refund, including shipping.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

My point was 25% refund would have been pretty decent. As it stands, the seller will be reselling the camera at only a 16% markdown, and it appears that the most the seller offered the buyer was a 16% refund.

I still don't understand how the original claim was there would be a 25% to 40% discount when in actuality the offered discount was never more than 16%!

If the camera had been originally listed as being in good cosmetic shape with a minor scratch on the lens, the sale price would still have been approximately $50.00 dollars U.S. higher than what I had suggested.

The question becomes, how much less is the camera worth if it has a scratch on the lens versus no scratch. About a 100 bucks seems reasonable to me, AND avoids any further hassles for the buyer.

Now, charging the paypal fee to the customer, that is a no no. But to me that just shows that the mark up on the camera isn't enough to absorb pay pal charges, so getting a hundred bucks back in my opinion is reasonable provided the camera is functional.

Perhaps the buyer felt panic at first because the seller didn't really want the camera back at all, so instead of having a real choice between a discount or camera return, the buyer felt unease at not having a choice.

[MovieStuff]

If the camera had been originally listed as being in good cosmetic shape with minor scratch on lens, the sale price would still have been approximately $50.00 dollars U.S. higher than what I had suggested.

I have a saying that I have operated by for most of my adult life: "No one wants to spend more money than they have to but not getting what you need at half the price is not a bargain."

Thus it isn't just about the price but about getting what you want. If the scratch had been mentioned in the description, the buyer would be making an informed decision about whether to buy the camera at all, not just whether the price is good relative to a scratched lens. So the alternate value once the scratch is known is rather meaningless if the buyer did not want a camera with a scratched lens at any price.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Alex]

If the camera had been originally listed as being in good cosmetic shape with minor scratch on lens, the sale price would still have been approximately $50.00 dollars U.S. higher than what I had suggested.

I have a saying that I have operated by for most of my adult life: "No one wants to spend more money than they have to but not getting what you need at half the price is not a bargain."

Thus it isn't just about the price but about getting what you want. If the scratch had been mentioned in the description, the buyer would be making an informed decision about whether to buy the camera at all, not just whether the price is good relative to a scratched lens. So the alternate value once the scratch is known is rather meaningless if the buyer did not want a camera with a scratched lens at any price.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

Good sayings to live by but does it completely fit the situation at hand? There are two battles to consider, standing by your principles or getting the best deal and moving on.

If the seller had sent an entirely different camera model and the "value" was the same, and then offered to give a 50% discount afterwards, your saying would work perfectly.

Your saying also helps prevent dishonesty and carelessness from springing up. So if the buyer is on a mission to prevent carelessness and potential dishonesty from increasing in the world, by all means return the camera, it's the principled thing to do.

But if the goal is to get good value for a camera and not waste too much more time and inconvenience doing it, then a 25% refund would have been decent.

I just wish the original information posted would have been more accurate as it relates to what the refund really was. 16% is significantly less than the 25-40% that the author claimed the seller offered them.

[Andersens Tears]

Sorry to have confused you Alex, We were negaotiating a refund - he offered me a 25% rebate on the cost of the camera alone to keep the camera. That's fine, but I've still got the costs of PayPal fees he charged me and shipping costs on top. 25% off the cost of the camera might be ok if you've not had these extra costs. Why would you get a camera that you're not gonna be happy with shipped across a continent for just a 25% rebate?

In the end I decided to just return the camera. In this situation both battles were under consdieration - standing by your principles or getting the best deal and moving on, and not one or the other. Both You and Roger have raised valied points.

I'm glad that both of you have raised them and posted on this thread.

Thank you.

Andersens Tears

[Andersens Tears]

Thus it isn't just about the price but about getting what you want. If the scratch had been mentioned in the description, the buyer would be making an informed decision about whether to buy the camera at all, not just whether the price is good relative to a scratched lens. So the alternate value once the scratch is known is rather meaningless if the buyer did not want a camera with a scratched lens at any price.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

I agree 100% with you Roger. Had I known about the scratch, I would have looked elsewhere. I did not want a camera with a scratched lens.

Andersens Tears

[mattias]

I've still got the costs of PayPal fees he charged me

again, you can probably get that back by simply reporting him to paypal. he's not allowed to.

/matt

[Andersens Tears]

I've still got the costs of PayPal fees he charged me

again, you can probably get that back by simply reporting him to paypal. he's not allowed to.

/matt

Yes Matt , I took note of your advice. Want to keep this as a card up my sleave, should I need it.

Will make a point of talking to Paypal in the future if this situation come up again!

Tears'

[Alex]

Hi Alex,

The total including the shipping costs, and PayPal fees that the seller charged me, which I've now found out, he should not have, was actually £243. The camera itself was 300 Euros which came to £204 about $400 - he only offered me 50 Euros about $65 in rebate on the cost of the camera alone. So that's 40% of just the camera and not the total cost to me.

Your numbers don't add up.

It's possible that for your purposes no amount of a partial refund may have made you happy because your expectations were not met, and there's nothing wrong with that, you spend your money based on a claim, you should be happy with what you receive, but, it is important to know what you were really offered.

You were offered a 16.66% refund, not a 40% refund.

[bulion]

Do you still have the details of this guy? eBay name, contact details? Sounds familiar to me, please PM me or post it here, Thank You.

Goddamn. I would say it's karma (j/k) but I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I bought a Nizo 4080 awhile ago from a guy in Germany who claimed it was in "perfect mechanical and optical condition".

It was DOA. It looked new, not a mark on it, even "smelt" new. But nopes, nothing. This isn't my first sound Nizo either so I know how to operate the things.

He gave me his address to send it back, which I did, waited for three months when the camera was "returned to sender", the address was a phoney. I had paid by direct bank transfer.

So not only was I out price of the camera but I ended up having to pay for postage twice. I was less than impressed.

I agree with what's said here, if the camera was sold as *mint* (for he sure set his price to reflect that) than don't bother testing it. Get a refund.

I wouldn't care if it "didn't affect the film". For 250squid I'd want what I paid for, no argument.

Take Care,
A.

Hope you can get it all sorted!