Ebay: am I in the wrong here?

[Chu]

Another vote to he's definatly in the wrong (it's the picture that does it) but you really should be more careful.

If you already paid and need an antenna though - I have one that i'll sell you dirt cheap. It still works - but the hinge broke so it needs duct tape to hold it up.

-Chu

 

[Colt45]

ANTENNA ANTENNA ANTENNA

GOD DAMN

 

[CRXican]

Originally posted by: Chu
Another vote to he's definatly in the wrong (it's the picture that does it) but you really should be more careful.

If you already paid and need an antenna though - I have one that i'll sell you dirt cheap. It still works - but the hinge broke so it needs duct tape to hold it up.

-Chu

You better post a picutre so he can be sure it's actually broken

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: Hammer
you're wrong.

So what am I supposed to do? Throw out $55 on something that's broken??? Wtf, yes, I'm probably wrong but I could care less he should've stated that the unit was broken and will require an anthena.

ITS NOT BORKEN!!! just buy a freaking antenna ( ANTENNA!!!) and screw it on.

sheesh

 

[whalen]

More than likely he didnt have a picture of the WET11 without an antenna, so he got the stock photo, and then put "NOT INCLUDED" in the description to make sure the bidder would know it wasnt included.

I highly doubt he is doing this diliberately to rip you off. You can tell by his other auctions that he indeed is some kind of Wireless ISP, and very likely wouldnt have the rubber duck antenna that comes with the WET11.

I happen to run a WISP as well, and would be happy to send you an antenna for free if you quit your bitching and pay the shipping costs.

Thank you,
Ryan

 

[HonkeyDonk]

Argo, the seller does not deserve a negative.

You were the one who read the auction wrong and he did nothing wrong. Just because he put a picture of a bridge w/ an antenna doesn't mean that is solid proof of what he is selling. And you calling other ppl "f&cktards, etc" doesn't help your case.

Also, the wireless bridge will still work. The antenna is used to help boost/grab/send the wireless signal. Withouth it, the thing will still function normal. So stop saying it's broken, because it isn't. And all your analogies (cell phone, car, etc) are so far fetched they can't relate to this situation.

Anyways, instead of threatening the seller w/ negative feedback and whatnot, email him and ask him if you can back out. Try settling the problem w/o any agression.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: whalen
More than likely he didnt have a picture of the WET11 without an antenna, so he got the stock photo, and then put "NOT INCLUDED" in the description to make sure the bidder would know it wasnt included.

I highly doubt he is doing this diliberately to rip you off. You can tell by his other auctions that he indeed is some kind of Wireless ISP, and very likely wouldnt have the rubber duck antenna that comes with the WET11.

I happen to run a WISP as well, and would be happy to send you an antenna for free if you quit your bitching and pay the shipping costs.

Thank you,
Ryan

PWNED.

 

[lizardboy]

Originally posted by: Yossarian
you deserve a negative for consistenly spelling it "anthena"

 

[lizardboy]

Originally posted by: Argo
Ok, everybody thank you for your input. I appreciate those who took their time to point out my mistake. Obviously some people here need to make themselves feel better by calling me "idiot", "stupid" and adding me to their ignore list. Well, no harm done.

Have a good day gentlemen, thanks for stopping by.

Let me help - you're a fvckign moron!

 

[Azraele]

Why don't you just buy the antenna separately?

 

[Trygve]

Originally posted by: slag

As I stated, its extremely common to put a stock picture out there and then say in your description that this is the item you are selling with the following circumstances: X
That is what the seller did.

There is no misrepresentation whatsoever. A "normal or reasonable" person would read everything in the auction before placing a bid. Its called researching the item.

Personally, I much prefer it when the seller includes a picture of the actual item, but it's hugely common for it to be a stock photo. This seems even more common when it's a high-volume seller. Sometimes they may say "this is not a photo of the actual item" or similar language, but 90% of the time they don't. Even without such a disclaimer, it's very, very common for auctions to use a stock photo and then mention all the stuff that's not included, whether it's physically damaged, or whatever.

Would a normal or reasonable person--at least one who had some past experience dealing with Ebay auctions--find this auction misleading? I have to say, "no."

 

[kermalou]

you can use it without an antenna buddy

 

[bcterps]

The seller could have made it a bit more clear, you could have asked more questions before you bid. No one is blameless here, but you are the one more at fault. Suck it up and pay the man. Lesson learned.

Oh, and maybe you should retitle your thread. It really should read "I got screwed on eBay, don't post in this thread if you don't agree with me". You asked for opinions, what did you expect?

 

[NetWareHead]

Argo, your logic resembles closely the morons who bet on my auctions. In plain view, I put No paypal accepted...only money orders and yet I get some schmuck who demands I accept paypal. :roll: Anyway learn to read better next time and you won't be such a idiot.

 

[apac]

Originally posted by: Vic
I disagree with the popular consensus here.

In addition to using a picture showing the antenna, the seller also included the comment:

Retails for over $85 at any given store. For more information and proof, go to: http://www.digiconcepts.com/linksys_networkwireless_05.htm

Which links to an online reseller who sells the product with antenna for $85.38

While the unit is NOT defective, an replacement antenna will cost around $12.95 plus shipping Text

In addition to representing a picture of the product that includes the antenna, the seller also represented a cost savings against a similar product that includes the antenna. A cost savings that the seller knew for fact was not accurate. In a court of law, this would be an open-and-shut of misrepresentation against the seller.
Ebay, however, does not care about the law (primarily because losses this small never get to court), which is why so many people have soured against the online auction service.

IMO, Argo, you should just avoid the hassle and potential for negative feedback and buy the product anyway, but I do think that you would have been better off buying it from a reputable vendor.


edit: For those who don't get it, pictures and graphics ARE legal representations. You can't just say, "Antenna: not included", you have to include the clause "Actual product not shown". Also, if the product is not complete, you can't say that install is a snap, and you can't price-compare to another vendor selling the complete product. All of these are misrepresentations.

Bingo.

 

[DT4K]

I agree that the seller did say the antenna was not included and Argo should probably just pay the guy and be done with it. Especially since the antennas seem to be pretty cheap.

But I still haven't heard anyone give me a good reason why it's ok for the seller to link to a vendor's ad for a unit that does have the antenna to claim that this unit retails for $85. The obvious implication there is that what you are selling is the same thing.

It is not just the picture, but also the link to the $85 item and the statement about how all you have to do is plug it in and configure it, that made me think this seller was trying to deceive without breaking any ebay rules.

 

[Argo]

I paid for the item. I hope the collective minds of ATOT police feel better now.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: NetWareHead
Argo, your logic resembles closely the morons who bet on my auctions. In plain view, I put No paypal accepted...only money orders and yet I get some schmuck who demands I accept paypal. :roll: Anyway learn to read better next time and you won't be such a idiot.

It's not the same thing at all unless you have a picture of a paypal icon and a link on your page to paypal.com in addition to stating that no paypal is accepted.
Your auctions do not somehow give the impression that paypal is accepted, then state that it is not.

 

[cronos]

iyou're wrong.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Shanti
No, they are supposed to caption the picture saying it is not the actual item for sale. Especially if the item you are selling does not even come with one of the integral parts clearly shown in the stock photo.

And what about the fact that the seller claimed the item retails for $85 and linked to a vendor selling the item WITH an antenna. You don't think that was fradulent?

Fraud requires intent to deceive. The auction can be misleading (although only to the lowest bracket of IQ levels, IMO), however using "stock" photos of items is very common practice, and many people do not put disclaimers indicating so, regardless of whether or not they are legally required to do so.

The guy may have violated a law or an Ebay policy, but there's no evidence at all that the auction was intentionally deceptive. There's no fraud here.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Vic
Ughh... you pimple-faces obviously don't understand errors of omission or misrepresentation.

Let me help. The legal litmus test is: "Would a normal person, representative of the common public, have been misled by the advertising?"

The answer in this case is clearly yes.

How so? The overwhelming majority of respondents to this thread feel that the contents of the auction were clear. Sure, this thread isn't a valid statistical sample, but I don't think ATOT is significantly removed from "normal people" in interpreting and understanding this auction.

 

[NetWareHead]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: NetWareHead
Argo, your logic resembles closely the morons who bet on my auctions. In plain view, I put No paypal accepted...only money orders and yet I get some schmuck who demands I accept paypal. :roll: Anyway learn to read better next time and you won't be such a idiot.

It's not the same thing at all unless you have a picture of a paypal icon and a link on your page to paypal.com in addition to stating that no paypal is accepted.
Your auctions do not somehow give the impression that paypal is accepted, then state that it is not.

I disagree...my auctions don't give the impression that I accept paypal at all. On the same note a disclaimer warning the unit does not come with an antenna should be more than enough to cover the seller. Its spelled in plain english that the antenna isn't included! What else do you guys want?? The main point here is that people look like retards because they fail to pay attention to what they are bidding on.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Shanti
No, they are supposed to caption the picture saying it is not the actual item for sale. Especially if the item you are selling does not even come with one of the integral parts clearly shown in the stock photo.

And what about the fact that the seller claimed the item retails for $85 and linked to a vendor selling the item WITH an antenna. You don't think that was fradulent?

Fraud requires intent to deceive. The auction can be misleading (although only to the lowest bracket of IQ levels, IMO), however using "stock" photos of items is very common practice, and many people do not put disclaimers indicating so, regardless of whether or not they are legally required to do so.

The guy may have violated a law or an Ebay policy, but there's no evidence at all that the auction was intentionally deceptive. There's no fraud here.

Maybe not fraud, but still misleading, and intentionally IMO.

 

[Argo]

Heh, what do you know, the seller is actually from ATOT and was reading the thread all along...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Vic
Ughh... you pimple-faces obviously don't understand errors of omission or misrepresentation.

Let me help. The legal litmus test is: "Would a normal person, representative of the common public, have been misled by the advertising?"

The answer in this case is clearly yes.

How so? The overwhelming majority of respondents to this thread feel that the contents of the auction were clear. Sure, this thread isn't a valid statistical sample, but I don't think ATOT is significantly removed from "normal people" in interpreting and understanding this auction.

I think it could be easily proven that the ATOT crowd is far more knowledgeable with regard to both Ebay and networking products than the common populace. So yeah, I think that given this particular example, ATOT is significantly removed.

I think a better example would be, given the wordings and representations made in the auction listing, "Would your mother have known that this product would require an antenna in order to work properly?"
Almost certainly not.

Contrary to popular myth, not even bold print disclaimers work to protect the seller if an advertisement is otherwise blatantly misrepresentative.

edit: misrepresentation != fraud
As you stated, fraud requires intent and is criminal. Misrepresentation does not and is not (but can lead to civil damages).