Bad GunBroker Transaction, Am I Wrong?


PDA






Shweboner
October 20, 2006, 10:11 PM
Here is how it began.

Last year or so I bought an Excellent condition Arsenal refinished Mosin Nagant 91/30 with 'laminated' stock/hex rec. from Century


I decided that I was going to sell it a few weeks ago, I wanted an M38 instead.


I listed the 91/30 as I described above, a link is posted below.

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?item=57428922

Keep in mind that all the things I said in the auction were true, (round count, etc.)

The buyer first complains that the rifle does not look like the picture. Although he acknowledges that he knew I had used a stock photo.

He then emails me today that he took the rifle to a gunsmith, an "expert in milsurps and MNs". The gunsmith tells him that the rifle does not have a laminated stock, the bore is shot out and pitted and the muzzle measures .327 dia. (+/- .015 too big). Quote the dealer, I am guilty of "fraud".

I know this is silly to ask you guys considering you have not seen the rifle. But considering the information given, the description in the listing and the fact that twice in the listing I gave potential buyers the opportunity to see detailed pics or to ask any questions.

Did I mislead the guy? Did he not have the opportunity to ask info on details that were of such grave importance to him?

Personally I feel that he is over reacting, and that for the $95 he paid, it was a damn nice rifle. I think he is just upset with himself for expecting something in particular and not asking questions before bidding. the rifle is not flawed and shot really well... Especially for a rifle built in the 30's.

Am I wrong? Are we both at fault? is he a jerk?

If you enjoyed reading about "Bad GunBroker Transaction, Am I Wrong?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Critter183
October 20, 2006, 10:21 PM
I do not see where you said in the ad that this was stock photo and not an image of the actual rifle.

Hanzo581
October 20, 2006, 10:32 PM
You should have stated the picture was not of your actual rifle.

Shweboner
October 20, 2006, 10:35 PM
The buyer knew it was a stock photo by the way.




But I never said that it was an actual photo. And it is obviously stock.

Hanzo581
October 20, 2006, 10:37 PM
well why didn't you just post actual pitures of the rifle then?

R.W.Dale
October 20, 2006, 10:41 PM
I voted both, You were wrong in using a stock photo and not saying so ( I never bid on stock photo'ed guns) The other feller is a jerk for expecting a benchrest rifle for 95 bucks. Besides sumpin smells fishy who in the world would pay a gunsmith $45 to evaluate a $95 rifle:scrutiny:

Next time don't over describe the rifle. just say sumpin like; Used Mosin Nagant 91/30 Shoots good some minor dents and dings. And then add some GOOD photographs. I've sold many rifles on the net, and GOOD pictures are what does the selling for you. Another thing I do is I ALWAYS underrate the condition of the gun in question, helps keep buyers happy

daysleeprx
October 20, 2006, 10:41 PM
well why didn't you just post actual pitures of the rifle then?

Good call.

And regardless of whether or not he knew it was a stock photo, you still should have mentioned it in your ad. Now you have no way of proving that he knew that...he could easily say you were advertising the rifle in the stock photo.

Shweboner
October 20, 2006, 10:47 PM
my camera doesnt take the greatest of pictures. I felt that the stock photo accurately depicted my rifle better than my digital could do.

Its actually the same picture shown when I originally bought the rifle, I felt that it was a good one at the time, thats why I saved it, and used it in this auction. It is stock, but its darn close to the rifle I had.

javacodeman
October 20, 2006, 10:51 PM
Let me just say that while I've never bought a firearm online, I have bought and sold a good many items on eBay. I think that it is overwhelmingly obvious that you used a stock photo to anyone that has spent more than five minutes purusing an online auction. I have even used stock photos in some of my auctions. That being said, I only use them in items like DVDs where an actual photo serves little purpose. That being said, while it may make you a more savvy seller to use actual photos, I don't think it makes you a fraudulent seller to obvious stock photos.

In the end, you fairly represented your rifle in your word description and used a stock photo. If the buyer wanted more info, he/she should have emailed you and asked for it.

javacodeman
October 20, 2006, 10:57 PM
Shweboner,

I just realized that this was the over due rifle you talk about here http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=228049. I'm throwing the proverbial "cow poo" flag here on the buyer. I think this is a clear cut case of buyer's remorse. Your rifle takes a while to arrive. In the intervening time, your buyer wishes that he/she didn't make the purchase. Now he/she is scraping up any excuse to get his/her money back.:fire:

Shweboner
October 20, 2006, 11:01 PM
javacodeman, I had considered that very same possibility.

Hoploholic
October 20, 2006, 11:24 PM
You were not forthright in your item description through the use of a stock photo and no mention of same. When someone points this out, you try to rationalize your misrepresentation. The buyer should have probably asked more questions. Not having seen the firearm in question, there is no telling what condition it was in.

Here is my question for you. What is the intent of this thread? Where you hoping to get a bunch of Roaders to take your side and then throw the thread at the buyer in the hopes of somehow justifying your stand?

I think you made a mistake. Personally, I would suggest you admit as much to yourself, learn from the experience and strive to be a better seller in the future. Call me a bung hole of the jaded variety, but I have a strong adversion to people not owning up to their own actions. I would try to meet the seller half way if he is willing and not a total jerk. If he wanted to send the rifle back on his dime for a refund I think that would be fare. I would also make sure that the rifle was the same I sent him as it looks like he is a dealer and might be trying to pull a fast one. Your milage may vary.

Shweboner
October 20, 2006, 11:38 PM
What is the intent of this thread?


The buyer and I have been conversing via email back and forth some, He has accused me of fraud and several other violations of GB policy. I was just wondering what you guys thought of the situation seeing as how all of us are gun buyers & sellers.

I have no intention of talking about this thread with the buyer. Really I am done talking to him all together, his daily 4 paragraph emails have not made me want to say anything more at all.:banghead:

TimboKhan
October 20, 2006, 11:47 PM
I don't know that I would call it fraud, exactly, but it seems like maybe you weren't absolutely clear. I mean, buyer beware, but you advertised that the rifle had "1000's of rounds left in it", and obviously his gunsmith disagrees. Unfortunatly, I think your inching your way into the wrong. Is a $95.00 gun worth all the hassle and damage to your reputation? You have a thread on him here, but who is to say he doesn't have a thread on you somewhere? Given the low value of the gun, I think I would refund him his purchase money, take the gun back and relist it with a more accurate ad. He can eat the cost of the inspection, and to mollify him, you can eat the cost of the shipping.

Also, I personally would not buy ANYTHING with a stock photo, unless it were being bought new and from a reputable company, IE Cabelas, or Midway or whatever. Call me silly, but if I am buying from a private person, I want pictures that show me exactly what I am getting.

Majic
October 21, 2006, 12:12 AM
Well you said it was a great rifle in awesome shape. Is the bore actually shot out and pitted? Was the stock picture a honest representation of the actual rifle?

PinnedAndRecessed
October 21, 2006, 12:21 AM
It is a greeat rifle in awesome shape, and had 1000s of rounds left in it.


If his appraisal is accurate, then you misrepresented the rifle. I think you should give him his money back, including shipping. After all, you misrepresented the rifle (if his appraisal is accurate).

However, just by looking at the ad, I would have no way of knowing that the picture is not the same rifle for sale.

I think you should do the right thing.

OldBillThundercheif
October 21, 2006, 12:54 AM
If he is right about the condition you ripped him off. A bad photo of the rifle would have been better than a photo of some random rifle you found on the internet.

From your description and your asking price he had the right to expect a rifle in immaculate condition with a perfect bore.

You need to refund his cash and the shipping $$$.

yongxingfreesty
October 21, 2006, 12:58 AM
95 bucks is nothing, if it is in the condition you said it is in.

if it is messed up, then you were wrong. can look at this both ways.

MisterPX
October 21, 2006, 01:52 AM
From what I see, he can ping you on the stock, and that's about it. Your ad does say arsenal refinished, and that sure doesn't mean new. The bore should be expected of a used surplus rifle. Did he ask for pics? Ask questions? Anyhow, I'd tell him you'll take the rifle back, he covers shipping, as you'll have to cover the transfer at your end.

Just another reason I look at pics of the actual rifle I'm buying, and ask questions.

Remander
October 21, 2006, 02:10 AM
The ad says: I bought this arsenal refinished rifle a while back, it has seen less than 100 rounds since then.If you need detailed pictures of certain areas or want more info, please feel free to ask.

That indicates to me that the rifle in the pic is THIS rifle for sale. Perhaps folks who are used to being scammed on the internet know to ask if it is a lie and that the real rifle for sale is not THIS rifle as represented, but I can't fault a man for taking the advertiser at his (false) word.

Give the man his freaking $95 back. It'd be a shame to go to hell over so little money.

P.S. Would you be a little PO'd if you bought a car based on a beautiful stock pic, but the actual car was scratched and dented? I thought so.

steelhead
October 21, 2006, 02:13 AM
You should have clearly stated it was a stock photo. You always need to account for the lowest common denominator. Some may have known it was a stock photo but many probably thought it was the rifle they were getting. However, if the seller contacted you before buying, and you told him it was a stock photo then that isn't so bad.

Based on your willingness to let local bidders view the rifle, in person before bidding, gives you a lot of credibility. It shows that you had nothing to hide and the rifle was as advertised.

My guess is this wingnut doesn't know what to expect in a milsurp and is BS'ing you on the appraisal from a local smith.

razorburn
October 21, 2006, 05:11 AM
If the gun is in the condition he described, then you absolutely need to return his money and take the gun back. If you originally bought the gun in that condition when it was also described as being almost pristine, then it's sad and regrettable that you got cheated. But it doesn't give you immunity when you pass it onto another person, you take the gun back and take it up with the guy who sold it to you. The gun is described as being in 99% condition. If it's like that, it's clearly not.

larry starling
October 21, 2006, 09:43 AM
Your auction was misleading you should have posted a picture of your rifle. Never assume that buyers proff read the listings. They look at the picture and bid....:scrutiny:

hso
October 21, 2006, 10:57 AM
I think you need to refund his money.

Shweboner
October 21, 2006, 11:30 AM
The buyer claims to be a collector of milsurps, especially MNs, and I did infact ship to his C&R. Also, he told me that HE KNEW it was a stock pic.

I do not believe his gunsmith story, that rifle was immaculate. I offered to pay a 3rd party gunsmith in his area to look at it, he has yet to respond to my offer.

He has not asked for a refund or a new rifle, just complaining and making accusations.

If he takes my offer of having an uninterested 'smith check it out on my $, and that gunsmith can verify the condition of the rifle, also verify the serial #'s (just in case this collector is trying to ditch a crappy MN on me) Then I will refund his money including shipping, pay for shipping back to me, and try to find him another rifle...


thanks for all the responses, I appreciate it.

Werewolf
October 21, 2006, 11:38 AM
Posted above the auction picture... I bought this arsenal refinished rifle a while back, Seemed to me that that was a pic of what you were selling not an example of what you were selling. You didnt' say you bought an arsenal refinished rifle like the one pictured below - you said, "I bought this arsenal refinished rifle".

It might seem that saying detailed pics were available would be enough for anyone to nuke out that the displayed rifle was not the one being sold but that assumes a lot about a viewer's ability to read the seller's mind.

Don't leave anything in doubt that might cause confusion when writing a seller's description. As far as I know there isn't a mystical mind link established between seller and buyer just because something is posted on the internet.

Shweboner
October 21, 2006, 11:52 AM
It might seem that saying detailed pics were available would be enough for anyone to nuke out that the displayed rifle was not the one being sold

once again, he knew it was a stock photo b e f o r e bidding, and he is a collector.



Obviously if the buyer were not a collector or someone deep into guns then we wouldnt be having this conversation. This man is no stranger to MNs and is no stranger to buying milsurp rifles. He knew he was buying a rifle sight-unseen ke knew he passed up the chance to get detailed pics, or to ask questions.

I am asking these questions based on the above facts, knowing that he didnt ask questions, and the fact the he knew it was not an actual photo.

Zonamo
October 21, 2006, 12:09 PM
Negative feedback is a killer over there. You already have a couple of neutrals and two negatives.

I think you made enough mistakes that you should seriously weigh the cost of making good with this guy vs. the cost of having his nasty comment stuck to your feedback.

Lupinus
October 21, 2006, 12:26 PM
95 is a good price from what I have looked around for them.

IMO this is an old rifle. military surplus, which for much of its shooting life was probably subjected to corrosive ammo. IMO when you buy online you take the gamble esspecialy with milsurps that it may or may not be as top notch as you were expecting. Now I am not talking about being misled that it is an excelent condition rifle and being shipped a worn down heavily used shooter grade piece of garbage, simply not quiet living up to full expectations.

Thats the gamble you take when you buy sight unseen without being able to make a close hands on inspection. If you want close hands on inspections to know every little thing before you buy do it in person, if you are buying online be willing to take the gamble it is not 100% perfect.

So no, IMO you didn't mislead the guy.

steelhead
October 21, 2006, 12:55 PM
If he takes my offer of having an uninterested 'smith check it out on my $, and that gunsmith can verify the condition of the rifle, also verify the serial #'s (just in case this collector is trying to ditch a crappy MN on me) Then I will refund his money including shipping, pay for shipping back to me, and try to find him another rifle...


Sounds reasonable.

Peet
October 21, 2006, 04:26 PM
And this, campers, is why I never buy from online auctions.

Talk all you want about the great deals out there; I don't care. All it takes is one -- um -- ah -- "mistake" and all the "savings" from dealing with online auctions for the past year or two are lost.

Alex, I'll take "Local, reputable dealers" for three hundred dollars.

...

What is "How not to get ripped off."

P.

peaceful99
October 21, 2006, 09:15 PM
Shweboner
The rifle was missing for a week. It's easy to tell a laminated stock from other construction. It sounds to me the rifle he received may not be the rifle you sent. If that's so, I don't know what you can do about it.

Can he send you a picture of what he received? Does the serial number match?
Maybe UPS would make good on the deal if this is what happened.

A long shot, but maybe....

Aguila Blanca
October 21, 2006, 09:52 PM
my camera doesnt take the greatest of pictures. I felt that the stock photo accurately depicted my rifle better than my digital could do.

Its actually the same picture shown when I originally bought the rifle, I felt that it was a good one at the time, thats why I saved it, and used it in this auction. It is stock, but its darn close to the rifle I had.
A stock photo doesn't depict your rifle at all -- it depicts whatever rifle it is a picture of. It is misleading to use a stock photo without stating that it is not a photo of the actual firearm being offered.

vynx
October 21, 2006, 10:07 PM
Does it have a laminated stock or not? Forget if its a good price is it what was advertised?

I don't know about the bore but you should have been able to id a laminated stock?

Shweboner
October 21, 2006, 10:12 PM
To the best of my knowledge it was a laminate stock, that is what I bought it as from Century, and it looked vastly different (nicer) from my other MNs.

My rifle didn't look near as dark as some of the regular hardwood stocked MNs I have seen online.

Majic
October 22, 2006, 12:07 AM
the rifle is not flawed and shot really well..
that rifle was immaculate.
Since you say nothing is wrong with the rifle and obviously the buyer isn't pleased with it why suggest another gunsmith to look at it? You don't believe the first gunsmith why would you believe the second one as you won't know that person either? Just refund the money, rethink your ad, and put the rifle back up for sale.

mosttoyswins
October 22, 2006, 12:18 AM
In the end, you fairly represented your rifle in your word description and used a stock photo. If the buyer wanted more info, he/she should have emailed you and asked for it.


This about sums it up for me.

EVERYTIME I buy something on line and it is not the actual picture, I ask for pictures of the actual item.

If the seller will not provide actual pictures, I DO NOT BUY IT.

Sounds like the buyers fault to me.

Shweboner
October 22, 2006, 01:10 AM
Since you say nothing is wrong with the rifle and obviously the buyer isn't pleased with it why suggest another gunsmith to look at it?


I offered this to call his bluff on the gunsmith story. FWIW he declined the offer.



And for an update...

The buyer and I have come to an agreement to resolve our problems. Should be taken care of by the middle of next week. And it will result in my getting Pos feedback. So everyone is happy.

Thanks for all the input guys.

TimboKhan
October 22, 2006, 03:31 AM
I guess it's none of my beeswax, but what was the compromise?

Shweboner
October 22, 2006, 04:12 AM
I gave him twenty bucks.:rolleyes:

Tim Burke
October 22, 2006, 10:03 AM
He wouldn't let a 3rd party gunsmith evaluate the weapon, and he was bought off for $20.
I've made my mind up.

redneck2
October 22, 2006, 10:30 AM
Lots of anguish and messing around for $20

steelhead
October 22, 2006, 11:34 AM
The guy was a schmuck pure and simple.....

Zen21Tao
October 22, 2006, 12:45 PM
Sorry, I had to vote that you are at fault and that your discriprion was missleading. However, I think "fraud" is a little too much though.

First, yes you used a stock photo and didn't site this. A reasonable person could have expected to receive the rifle in the photo.

Second, you basically resited the perks of the gun from what Century said (God knows I don't like Century for just such business practices) without determining for yourself whether their statements were true or not. You may not have meant to but you passed on bad info nonetheless.

As for your defense that he expected a prestine gun for $95:
I don't find this unreasonable AT ALL. Mil Surp prices on 91/30s run around $69 from places that do sell very nice pieces (e.g. AIM, SOG, etc.). The thing with 91/30s is that you pretty much take a gamble when you buy one. How much action did it see in the war and how was it treated? You may get a pristine piece barely used or a beater. A person buing from you will be AT LEAST the third owner of the weapon and it is reasonable for him to believe you if you said you ended up with a pristine piece. In fact, he did pay as much as (not less than) what he could have gotten one from an importer for. In his mind he could have chosed to pay a little more and go with you over the imported based on his belief in your description of the rifle.

NOTE: All of this is assuming that the rifle really did have the problems he says it did. If not, then it could be that he is just trying to scam you out of some $$$.

Shweboner
October 22, 2006, 01:10 PM
First, yes you used a stock photo and didn't site this. A reasonable person could have expected to receive the rifle in the photo.


I dont know how many ways I can say this so that people can understand it... HE KNEW IT WAS A STOCK PHOTO BEFORE HE BID... So that argument holds no water. Now if he thought it was an actual photo, well things would be different. But it is not the case here.



Second, you basically resited the perks of the gun from what Century said (God knows I don't like Century for just such business practices) without determining for yourself whether their statements were true or not.

Century may not be able to build a rifle to save their lives, but all they did was import these things. It was an arsenal refinish with +/- 100 rounds through it, perfect condition all around. The only question pertaining to the picture was that of the stock, which was only slightly darker than the pic... too close to tell in my opinion.


As for your defense that he expected a prestine gun for $95:


It was pristine, thats what I have been getting at. This guy is BSing me.

If I really intended to trick this guy into buying a POS, I wouldnt be wasting my time talking about it endlessly with the buyer, especially not on here. My point is that I sent this guy a really nice rifle and hes telling me that what he got looked like it was found at the bottom of the ocean. The rifle described was what I sent, he is hassling me abuot details that wouldnt even have been noticable had I taken an actual pic, things that are only distinguishable in person, etc... Secondly I provided an opportunity for buyers to request more information and to request other photos which he declined to do despite knowing the photo was not of the actual rifle... see my point.

But all is said and done, hes getting his $20 (not to mention I already discounted his shipping by $13) All will be well.

BigO01
October 22, 2006, 02:44 PM
The guys a jerk if he wanted a pristine collector grade weapon he would have demaned actual photos , not a stock one . Plain and simple he bought a 50+ year old Milsurplus probably found one at a local shop for less bought it and wants his money back from you .

I bet he wants you to eat shipping both ways also .

However you too are at fault as you should have included the great little line of "AS IS , NO REFUNDS , NO WARRANTIES real , expressed , or implied in any way , ALL SALES FINAL" This would have covered your Tail and avoided all of this garbage with A-HOLES .

Snagglepuss
October 22, 2006, 03:08 PM
I understand that he knew it was a stock photo but....... Who would buy off the internet without seeing a photo of the actual gun. (his fault for not requesting photos). I would always, no matter how crummy your photos are, post acutal pics (your responsibility). That way there is no excuse for him to complain. I would also include the as is or no returns in your description if that is your plan.

I recently sold a Browning Pro 9 on GB. It was brand new from the dealer, my local GS. I never fired it or put a loaded mag in the gun. The buyer had it shipped to a Cabela's where he asked them to inspect it. They told him that there were too many brass marks and too much powder residue for only being test fired. He mentioned it to me but was not that concerned as the gun was pristine. I was honest and described the gun to the best of my knowledge. It was the receiving dealer that put the negative thoughts in the buyers mind. This could have happened to you also with the gunsmith.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bad GunBroker Transaction, Am I Wrong?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!