Seller Refund Policy: Fair, Ethical?

[dvdcrr]

I was surfing the web and stumbled across this little gem:

No refunds are given if the weapon is not transferable

So I believe this means of the item is shipped and cannot be transferred for one reason or another the buyer will not get their money back. It makes no mention of what would become of the firearm. If the firearm were shipped back by the receiving FFL is it fair for the seller to keep the item and the full payment without refund?

 

[mgkdrgn]

1) The receiving FFL would not ship it back "blind" (at least the ones with brains anyway). If they do ... then ya, maybe the selling FFL gets a free gun. They didn't authorize the return.

2) The prohibited buyer (and they should have known that) will have three choices:
a) negotiate a return with the seller. This will likely involve a restocking fee
b) have the receiving FFL sell it for them on consignment.
c) see if they receiving FFL will hold it while they appeal the denial

 

[AlexanderA]

The seller is shipping the gun to the buyer's local FFL. From the seller's point of view, the transfer is complete when the FFL receives the gun, and the seller doesn't want to see or bother with it again. Now, if the buyer goes to pick up the gun from the FFL, and fails the NICS check, then it appears that the FFL is stuck with it. He can try to sell it to someone else for the buyer's account, after deducting a profit for himself. This is a messy situation. I don't blame FFL's for not accepting shipments from non-FFL's.

 

[mgkdrgn]

The seller is shipping the gun to the buyer's local FFL. From the seller's point of view, the transfer is complete when the FFL receives the gun, and the seller doesn't want to see or bother with it again. Now, if the buyer goes to pick up the gun from the FFL, and fails the NICS check, then it appears that the FFL is stuck with it. He can try to sell it to someone else for the buyer's account, after deducting a profit for himself. This is a messy situation. I don't blame FFL's for not accepting shipments from non-FFL's.

Ahh, missed that twist.

If the SELLER is not an FFL, the receiving FFL CAN'T ship it back, no matter how much the buyer screams.

 

[rdhood]

This is not as clearcut as it seems. I was a buyer who was denied receiving an internet purchse for AN ENTIRE YEAR while the state of GA and the NICS databases got their acts together after a wrongful denial. It took me about 10 minutes to prove my point... after the US and state govt took almost 6 months to state WHY I was denied, it took me about 10 minutes to determine what went wrong and ANOTHER 6 months to get the state and the federal govt to fix their databases. Thus, statements like:

The prohibited buyer (and they should have known that)

are just BS spewing out of the keyboards of the clueless who THINK that they know what they are talking about.

This is a messy situation.

Bingo. It might NOT be the buyer's fault, the seller's fault, or the FFL's fault. In my case, it was the STATE's fault, propogated to the NICS database.

Let me repeat this more clearly: the NICS database is full of errors. Throw that into the OP's post and THEN start the "what if" process. So, before you go spewing (or thinking) that you know everything about this or any other transaction involving an FFL, remember that the buyer/seller and FFL are not the only parties in this transaction. Both the state and federal governments are ALSO parties on this transaction. Do not assume that the buyer should have known ANYTHING, or even that he is prohibited.

In my case, the FFL was willing to hold the gun for an entire year. Had that not happened, who should be responsible for the failure of the of the NICS system? Me? The seller? the FFL? Who should take the loss for government failures?

Things are not always as they seem. THINK before you write.


p.s. I am adamant about this because I was wrongfully denied. But the poster who made the "The prohibited buyer (and they should have known that)" statement is obviously associated with an FFL (look at his signature) and he has clearly already passed judgment on the buyer. Thus, I would NEVER use :

COLUMBIA ARMS
LEXINGTON, SC
Transfers ($20), CONSIGNMENT SALES (15% commission)

as an FFL if I lived near this guy as he would have judged me a prohibited person and dismissed me as a criminal without a second thought.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I was surfing the web and stumbled across this little gem:

No refunds are given if the weapon is not transferable

So I believe this means of the item is shipped and cannot be transferred for one reason or another the buyer will not get their money back. It makes no mention of what would become of the firearm. If the firearm were shipped back by the receiving FFL is it fair for the seller to keep the item and the full payment without refund?

The terms of the transaction were disclosed. If the item can not be transferred it's the buyer's problem, not the seller's.

If you buy you agree to those terms. If the terms are not acceptable to you, don't buy.

...who should be responsible for the failure of the of the NICS system? Me? The seller? the FFL? Who should take the loss for government failures...

There is no "cosmic" right or wrong. It is a matter that may be open to negotiation.

In the case outlined by the OP, on the terms the seller offers, the risk is clearly stated to fall on the buyer. A potential buyer can either accept those terms and do business with the seller; or, if he is unwilling to accept the risk, find another seller with whom to deal.

 

[dvdcrr]

Whether or not to accept the seller's terms is beyond the scope of the question posed. The question posed is whether or not the policy is fair or ethical.

 

[browningguy]

Seems fair to me, even if the seller is an FFL the cost of logging in and out multiple times etc probably eats up most of the actual profit in the gun. And it helps dissuade people that can't pass a NICS check from ordering.

Honestly I just don't have much sympathy for people that can't pass a NICS check. I know there are sometimes errors in the system, but I think the majority of the time they just can't pass because of their background.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Whether or not to accept the seller's terms is beyond the scope of the question posed. The question posed is whether or not the policy is fair or ethical.

As long as a term is fully disclosed and the buyer is free to accept it or reject it, there is no issue of fairness or ethics.

 

[claiborne]

The funny thing is that no where in this post does the OP seem to assume the buyer is prohibited. Like this giant assumption from mgkdrgn does :

2) The prohibited buyer (and they should have known that)

That's a pretty bold assumption, I too would never do business with that FFL or one like it.
I used to frequent a local pawn shop and made many firearms purchases. I went in there one day and "the new guy" called in my info. My background check came back "denied". The new guy kept my money and told me "prohibited persons" were not welcome, leave the store now....... The next day I went back to the store with a police officer and talked to the manager. Turns out the "new guy" made a mistake and transposed a couple letters or numbers or something on the form. Corrections were made, back ground went through and I left with my new rifle. It was too bad I had to prove I was not a prohibited person and fortunately the officer I knew convinced those clowns to double check their work.

 

[Ed Ames]

Not to distract from the NICS bashing, but some people would use exactly that wording if something about the weapon could prevent transfer...E.g. a defaced serial number for a worst case,. Once it got to your FFL they would swear up and down the gun was fine when it left their hands, and if your FFL won't transfer it that's your problem.

I should say I have never seen that happen with a gun, but I have seen similar in non-firearm contexts. With all the different state laws I could see someone saying, "If when the dealer gets her hands on this she refuses to deliver it because of some nuance of law that doesn't apply to me and I don't know about, that's between you and the dealer."

 

[dvdcrr]

Recently an unconverted saiga was shipped to a state with new restrictions. In this case the receiving ffl did not complete the transfer and the rifle was returned , I presume for some kind of refund, so it does happen. And not always for reasons that could have been foreseen.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Recently an unconverted saiga was shipped to a state with new restrictions. In this case the receiving ffl did not complete the transfer...so it does happen. And not always for reasons that could have been foreseen.

Of course it could be foreseen. The buyer could reasonably be expected to know the laws of his State and whether a particular gun is legal. Certainly the buyer is in a better position to know the gun laws of the State he lives in than a seller in a different State.

...some people would use exactly that wording if something about the weapon could prevent transfer...E.g. a defaced serial number...

I can completely understand a seller shifting the risk to the buyer in general. Why should the seller assume the risk that the buyer can pass the background check? Why should the seller assume the risk that the gun is legal in the buyer's State?

On the other hand, if the gun is illegal under federal law to possess (e. g., a gun with a defaced serial number or a rifle with a 15 inch barrel not transferred in accordance with NFA formalities), the seller has violated federal law; and the transaction is void, or voidable, no matter what the terms of sale were.

 

[TennJed]

Whether or not to accept the seller's terms is beyond the scope of the question posed. The question posed is whether or not the policy is fair or ethical.

If disclosed on the front end it is completely fair and ethical, why wouldn't it be?

 

[Al Thompson]

That's a pretty bold assumption, I too would never do business with that FFL or one like it.

Full disclosure: I know and like mgkdrgn on a personal basis and I'm an employee at a competing LGS.

99 % of the time (around here anyway), the prohibited person suspects they are prohibited and are just trying the system out to see if they can slide through. YMMV in other areas of the country. I literally see this once a month or so. The last one departed the store in handcuffs as they had a warrant they "forgot" about.

 

[dvdcrr]

How could the application of this policy be fair? In what scenario does it treat all parties fairly when applied?

 

[dvdcrr]

Mgkdrgn thanks for the info. Its insightful.

 

[Ed Ames]

On the other hand, if the gun is illegal under federal law to possess (e. g., a gun with a defaced serial number or a rifle with a 15 inch barrel not transferred in accordance with NFA formalities), the seller has violated federal law; and the transaction is void, or voidable, no matter what the terms of sale were.

Agreed.

I have seen too many people who are "clever" (think they are, anyway) and think Hot Potato is a legal theory. I'm jaded. Still, it took the talk away from NICS denials that may or may not be germane when the clause was about the weapon not being transferable. Or maybe not...but the point is NICS denials aren't the whole picture.

 

[Frank Ettin]

How could the application of this policy be fair? In what scenario does it treat all parties fairly when applied?

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder (or, it depends on whose ox is gored).

No matter how a deal is structured, someone will bear some risk:

1. The buyer assumes the risk he'll be out the money and stuck holding the bag a gun he can't take possession of and needs to dispose of in some way.
   
   
2. Or the seller has to take back a gun he wanted to sell, and thought he had sold, and go to the trouble and expense and uncertainty of trying to find another buyer.
   
   
3. Or the consequences of a failed transfer become subject to various "it depends" and "conditions" and "to be agreed upons" like to result in a dispute, depending on who thinks he's coming out on the short end.

If you know the terms ahead of time, you have the choice of making the deal or looking elsewhere. And that is fair and ethical.

 

[dvdcrr]

If a return were initiated by the receiving ffl due to a, possibly incorrect, interpretation of an intentionally vague law, or if the item were refused or failed to deliver would not a restocking fee be the fair option? How do you reasonably justify keeping ALL the money in all cases? Again the issue is the fairness of the policy in this thread. This is not about disclosure, or whether or not you should do business with the dealer. It is about the intrinsic fairness of the policy.

 

[dvdcrr]

A separate discussion would be: " As long as it is fully disclosed up front is any and every policy fair and ethical?"

But I did not pose that question in this thread.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If a return were initiated by the receiving ffl due to a, possibly incorrect, interpretation of an intentionally vague law,...

Who decides if a law is vague? Who decides if a law is intentionally vague? Who decides if the FFL's interpretation is incorrect?

Of course any dispute could be resolved in court or by arbitration -- which would cost, at a minimum, several thousand dollars. Who would pay?

...or if the item were refused or failed to deliver would not a restocking fee be the fair option?...

Fair to whom? The seller who must now find another buyer because the first buyer just decided not to accept the gun.

...How do you reasonably justify keeping ALL the money in all cases?

Because those would have been the terms of the deal known by and accepted by the buyer. The buyer was free to look elsewhere but, of his own free will, decided to go ahead with a transaction on certain terms of which he was fully aware.

Of course, not all sellers sell guns on those terms. Some sellers allow an inspection period during which a gun may be returned and the selling price refunded (usually less shipping and, perhaps a restocking fee). Other sellers might be open to negotiating some terms, sometime perhaps subject to price adjustment.

But as long as the buyer knows the terms and is free to buy or to not buy on those terms, he can't really complain that those terms are unfair or unethical.

A separate discussion would be: " As long as it is fully disclosed up front is any and every policy fair and ethical?"

But I did not pose that question in this thread.

That discussion is unavoidable in the context of the question you did ask. Because at the end of the day one answer, and in my view the best answer is: As long as the terms were fully disclosed upfront and the buyer was free to buy or not buy on those terms, the terms raise no fairness or ethics issues.

My sense, from the OP's comments in this thread, is that he has concluded that the terms of sale he described are unfair or unethical; and he is looking for confirmation. He appears dissatisfied when he doesn't get that confirmation.

 

[HexHead]

Honestly I just don't have much sympathy for people that can't pass a NICS check. I know there are sometimes errors in the system, but I think the majority of the time they just can't pass because of their background.

Nonsense. My LGS says 95% of denials are overturned when appealed.

 

[dvdcrr]

Frank Ettin I think its fair to say that as the OP I understand your views, I thank you for posting, and would welcome other discussion on the matter.

 

[K0ZZZ]

I always believed there's a complete difference between ownership and possession.

You put your credit card in the website, click purchase, and the seller ships the gun, congratulations, you own the gun. It's all yours.

However, until you pass the 4473 check, you just can't possess it. It's not the sellers problem, that transaction has completed. As long as the item is functional and as advertised, why should they accept your return? If you can't possess the gun, then you have to negotiate with the FFL to hold it for a few days while you find a new buyer, or put it up for consignment with the FFL if they have that service.

At least, that's how I understand it, and where most folks go wrong is thinking firearm law is like everything else, where ownership and possession go hand in hand.