Oooooo. New and clever PayPal scam....

[MovieStuff]

Only because the lawyers do not see it as a lucrative field.

Any time there is a relationship between parties there is always the chance that one of the parties can be held legally responsible for the actions of one of the other parties. Buyer/seller/eBay/PayPal is a four way relationship. If your purchase of a $100 S8 cam goes sour and you want to sue eBay you probably have to do it in small claims court in San Francisco. Not worth the hassle. On the other hand a dispute involving a $14,000,000 jet would probably bring the lawyers running.

But we're talking about two totally different things. You're talking about what it would take to interest a lawyer to get involved. As you say, if enough money is on the line, a lawyer might try anything. What I am talking about is how the general public views liability based on common sense and a decent set of ethics.

Ebay merely rents the advertising space, just like a television station lets advertisers buy air time. If a local car dealer decides to run a fraudulent ad on a car he doesn't really have to sell, how is the television station responsible? It isn't. Could a lawyer get involved and attempt to make a case that it is simply because the station has deep pockets? Sure. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Because of that, most law suits aren't about justice but, rather, how much hassle one person can cause another financially until one party gives up. Thus, even if a lawyer successfully navigated a loop hole that somehow made the station part liable in this particular case it is a one time technical victory, not an ethical precedent, because common sense is often at odds with legal judgements. Long after the trial is over, common sense will still (hopefully) govern most people's actions, except for the few that always feel their problems are the responsibility of others around them.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[ccortez]

I expect these to be urban legend. Even for the USA. Like crocodiles in the Paris sewersystem or solving rust using Coca-cola (tm etc).

But funny.

Exactly right regarding the burgler thing, AJ. But as for the other two... alligators have found their way into suburban homes in Florida through the septic system and you can strip many types of metal coatings using soda pop. When my brother gets a new golf driver, he'll sometimes soak it in coca cola to strip the finish and make it mean and ugly looking. Strange (the story , also my brother) but true. No idea about rust tho...

[ccortez]

the surpreme court this week voted 5-4 that a local municipality can take your property (land, home, etc.) and pay you "fair market value" in order to provide right-of-way to a private business that seeks to put up an office park that the local municipality figures will be good for the local economy.

new london, CT intends to do just that to several families.

proving once and for all that you can prove anything in court. and the higher the court, the more ridiculous a thing one can attempt to prove, and the higher the likelihood it will succeed.

[Scotness]

I expect these to be urban legend. Even for the USA. Like crocodiles in the Paris sewersystem or solving rust using Coca-cola (tm etc).

But funny.

There was a case on the Gold Coast not far from here a year or two ago where a guy got drunk at a party and jumped off a fence into the water canal on the other side of the fence - he broke his neck when he hit the bottom on the shallow edge and then sucessfully sued his friend (!) because there was no warning sign saying don't jump off the fence.

It was sucessfully over turned on appeal a year later - thank goodness.

Scot

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I expect these to be urban legend. Even for the USA. Like crocodiles in the Paris sewersystem or solving rust using Coca-cola (tm etc).

But funny.

There was a case on the Gold Coast not far from here a year or two ago where a guy got drunk at a party and jumped off a fence into the water canal on the other side of the fence - he broke his neck when he hit the bottom on the shallow edge and then sucessfully sued his friend (!) because there was no warning sign saying don't jump off the fence.

It was sucessfully over turned on appeal a year later - thank goodness.

Scot

My god how idiotic people and "justice" can be. As if every fence in the world would need a sign on it not to jump from the fence... :roll:

One of the most stupid things I have heard of in a long time.

[camera8mm]

I dont agree with ebay and paypal not being responsible since valuable bank and credit infromation is involved.

[MovieStuff]

I dont agree with ebay and paypal not being responsible since valuable bank and credit infromation is involved.

Why would they be responsible for a bad transaction just because they have my bank and credit information? If I gave you my credit card info and asked you to pay a bill for me while I was away, would you be responsible if my credit card turned out to be bad? Perhaps I don't understand what you mean.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Patrick]

Interesting how a lot of the people on this thread people seem satisifed with the majority of their ebay transactions - implying that most ebay sellers are good honest people.

Most of the cameras that I have bought off ebay I have had to return, despite my asking very specific questions regarding the working condition of the cameras. And these same sellers had mostly good feedback too.

[MovieStuff]

Interesting how a lot of the people on this thread people seem satisifed with the majority of their ebay transactions - implying that most ebay sellers are good honest people.

Most of the cameras that I have bought off ebay I have had to return, despite my asking very specific questions regarding the working condition of the cameras. And these same sellers had mostly good feedback too.

But does that reflect on their honesty or their lack of knowledge about the product they are selling?

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Evan Kubota]

"Interesting how a lot of the people on this thread people seem satisifed with the majority of their ebay transactions - implying that most ebay sellers are good honest people.

Most of the cameras that I have bought off ebay I have had to return, despite my asking very specific questions regarding the working condition of the cameras. And these same sellers had mostly good feedback too."

I can kind of agree with you on the second point - seemingly good sellers can try to pass off really shoddy items. A recent case which I posted about here involved a seller with 100 percent positive feedback who sold me a Canon 318 which was advertised as working perfectly. Of course, when it arrived the lightmeter was nonfunctional and the motor barely ran. The overall condition was also poor. When I asked him for a refund, he acted like it was unbelievable that I wasn't satisfied with the condition of the item, and tried to imply that I was somehow unusually choosy for stating that the item was DOA and it would have to be returned.

The other bad experience involved a Nizo S56 advertised as being in excellent condition, again from a seller with 100 percent positive feedback. Can you guess what shape the camera arrived in? Sure enough, it was beaten and scratched, the optics were cloudy, and the lens was not tightly attached to the body. The power zoom was also not fully functional. Again, the guy tried to give me crap about a refund, claiming that "it wasn't like that when I shipped it". I find it hard to believe that the box arrives in perfect condition but somehow the item inside, which had formerly been pristine, had suddenly accrued 30 years of abuse or wear and tear.

Coincidentally, I had never had a bad experience on eBay until I started buying S8 cameras. Whether it boils down to dishonesty or lack of knowledge is not relevant, IMO. These sellers who claim items to be fully functional shouldn't make such claims if they lack the knowledge to back them up. I really don't care whether a seller was intentionally being deceptive or not when the item was not as described - I need my money back promptly, and that's all. Either way, I would certainly not deal with that seller again.

As for the nature of eBay's services - IMO, eBay has a problem with its feedback system. The reciprocal nature invites abuse, as in the aforementioned cases involving sellers with no negative feedback who nonetheless turned out to be 'bad apples'. I bet they have had dissatisfied buyers who didn't want to leave honest feedback for fear of retribution.

Nonetheless, I'm glad eBay exists, and the services they provide in conjunction with PayPal are greatly appreciated by many people who buy and sell online. The system can obviously be improved, but exactly how to accomplish this remains uncertain. For now, I intend to only purchase cameras and projectors from photo shops selling on eBay, or people who appear to have technical knowledge, rather than old ladies clearing out their attic who can rightfully claim "it worked when I last tested it" (35 years ago).

Apologies for any typos, grammatical oddities, etc. I'm not in my home country and I've had too much Lagavulin.

[Angus]

I'm with Roger, I think a lot of people selling super 8 gear are basically honest but not familiar with the equipment. The same goes for old TVs, computers, tape recorders and other "vintage" technology items I've bought or looked at.

We cannot all be experts, and when somebody finds themselves selling an item they're not familiar with they often try their best to accurately describe it's condition and function but are not able to do so.

You can usually tell a genuine seller who is ignorant of the equipment...look at their recent auctions and see if they have sold anything else similar...and look at the descriptions. If somebdoy who's sold a truck load of cameras in working condition suddenly says "I haven't got the film to test this but I think it is working" then shy away. On the other hand if the vendor says exactly the same thing but normally sells clothes you can probably assume they're honest.

Let's face it, most people are not going to fork out £13 to test a camera.

I've bought quite a few cine camears on eBay, I'd say the only time I was disappointed was when a plastic Kodak model stopped working within minutes of receiving it...plastic cog broken. But it *was* working when I received it and I have to assume the seller didn't know that cog was going to break.

[Evan Kubota]

”Let's face it, most people are not going to fork out £13 to test a camera. ”

True, but many sellers don't even go to the effort to put batteries in the camera and check if the motor runs, etc. Normally if the lightmeter and motor are OK, film will be exposed reasonably well.

[Angus]

”Let's face it, most people are not going to fork out £13 to test a camera. ”

True, but many sellers don't even go to the effort to put batteries in the camera and check if the motor runs, etc. Normally if the lightmeter and motor are OK, film will be exposed reasonably well.

Well I have to say if the advert says that the vendor has no idea if it is working then I won't bid. The only time I did was with a lot of 9 cameras (assorted 8mm and super) where the vendor didn't have time time...I think all worked and I sold most of them on.

Usually a vendor will say "I put batteries in and everything seemed to work". I suppose in the case of eBay auctions I am prepared to bid only what I am prepared to lose if an item does turn out to be a dud.

[Patrick]

My gosh, Evan, sounds like you have dealt with some very deceptive sellers. I once bought a Canon EOS film SLR off a pawn shop via eBay for a cheap price. Though I do admit that a pawn shop is not the most reputable dealer of photographic equipment but I was looking for a bargain. Seller claimed in his e-mails to me that the camera had been tested. When the camera arrived, it was dead. Nothing worked. The autofocus didnt work, the shutter release didnt fire - there were no LEDs displayed in the viewfinder and no information on the LCD panel except this one symbol which indicated that film was inside the camera. So this film symbol indicated that the camera was at least receiving power from the batteries even though everything else was dead. Loading fresh batteries made no difference.

I e-mailed the seller about the faults and reminded him that in his earlier e-mail, before the camera arrived, that he had stated that this camera has been tested. He replied that at his shop, they only give products a brief test and then give the 'okay' based on the results. Though how can someone checking out the camera not notice the fact that it was dead and devoid of functions?? Unless the person doing the testing was blind and deaf.