Full Version: Board Of Inquiry
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#9]
11 Feb 2006
To: aj [#1] Unread
Ray,
It's difficult to say, if what you experienced, has happened here before or not.
We don't know what happened to you.
If you're not comfortable telling your story in public, which you seem to be a proponent of, according to your mention of the others site's Board of Inquiry, I'd like to hear your complaint privately, to measure the severity of your grievance.
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#10]
12 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#9] 12 Feb 2006
David , I dont think the members of this board and the board it'self are or should be champions of the poor underdog
This airing of dirty laundry is never a good thing , its like getting involved in some other couples marital strife.
This looks like a private matter between 2 ppl on the board , it does not seem to be a vendor trying to scam ppl , a vendor who uses the boards commecial advertising or a banner to entice board members and uses the advertising etc as establishement of their bona fides , that is perhaps a different thing.
Why should anyone here get involved in this , we do not put ourselves up as a policing sturcture and no one here is even qualified to judge anyone elses case , their business morals or personall morals. There are far more qualified forums to take these type greivances and winges to.
To be honest , the IMHO original poster is also somewhat of a troll ,
If you want to say something , say it , dont make veiled references to board members or unnamed vendors and their machinations and dissembling and then ask others to do your dirty business or comment or enforce some hypothetical situation. So now a little hornets nest is stirred up and a whole lot of speculation and behind the scenes hoo-haa is developing. Sheesh!!!
I recon if you cant fight your own battles in business and are not wary enough about deals that you get taken , then you shouldnt be in business. S--T happens - deal with it and move on and anything it's cost you , write off to school fees. Unless you real stupid , you wont do it again and it teaches one a valuable lesson.
I really like the way it is here , an easy sense of community and mainly a technical board with an international flavor
Getting into board of enquiries and ratings etc makes it very localised and it can start to feel restrictive as well , very much a big brother approach with the board as the stick.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#11]
12 Feb 2006
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#10] 12 Feb 2006
Rodney,
The questions I've posed to Ray, in a couple of posts, show as unread.
Personally, if I were to bring a case of such high import to the forum, I'd be very interested in its progress.
I agree, that, until we know what Ray's specific grievance is, either publicly or privately, it's a dead issue.
EDITED: 12 Feb 2006 by DGL
From: UncleSteve [#12]
12 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#11] 12 Feb 2006
I would like your opinion as to whether the following scenario should be "vented" in the forum. Names, product and companies are withheld out of fairness to all parties.
A vendor sells a system to a customer that consists of a piece of hardware and the supplies required to produce a product. The hardware arrives fine, but the supplies don't show up for a month and the customer wants to return everything if/when the supplies ever arrive.
Points:
1. multiple promises that the supplies were already shipped are given by the vendor to the customer.
2. customer repeatedly told to "keep the hardware since the supplies were shipped and then reshipped." NO TRACKING RECORD FOR THE SHIPMENTS EXIST.
3. the vendor turns out to be a "reseller" or middleman and never had possesion of the supplies but rather ordered the equipment and supplies and was "only" passing on the information that the dropshipper was giving them.
4. the two companies (the vendor and the mfg/dropshipper) have relatively good reputation in the forum and general marketplace and the buyer is a regular participant with a similar good reputation.
Now to the question:
Is it fair for the reseller/vendor who never bought/possessed the supplies to charge a 25% restocking fee (amounting to a few hundred dollars) for something they never had in stock or even saw when the transaction went sour?
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13]
12 Feb 2006
To: UncleSteve [#12] 12 Feb 2006
Steve,
In my opinion, if the restocking fee is the policy of the equipment manufacturer, which is being collected, in exact dollar amount, by the middleman, to be forwarded to the equipment manufacturer, it's fine for the middleman to be the collector of the fee.
If, as you're implying, the middle man is imposing his own restocking fee, separate and regardless of an equipment manufacturer's policy, and has never taken physical custody of the equipment, it's not right.
EDITED: 12 Feb 2006 by DGL
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#14]
12 Feb 2006
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#10] 12 Feb 2006
Have to agree with you 100% here Rodney.
The rule is always first and formost "let the buyer beware". "You" have to be responsible for what "you" buy, and who "you " buy from. Do the research that is necessary if "you" are making a transaction that would affect "your" business in a big way.
I think it's way too easy to blame everyone else for not doing the research that you should have done on a company before buying.
I have always believed that it's best to work out your problems with the entity that is causing your problem. If that doesnt work on a one to one level....It's the reason why we have a legal system in this country. Is it fun? No!, but it's the way to handle a problem ethicaly. Yes unfortunately you get to be the bigger person when acting ethicaly, but isn't that just acting out what you believe to be important anyway?
I think so....
my .02
From: UncleSteve [#15]
12 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#13] 12 Feb 2006
The problem I have is that the equipment showed up immediatly (shipped right away) and it took over a month with the vendor stalling, for the supplies that were required to make the product (it was sold as a package) to show up. The vendor was on notice that the buyer wanted to return the hardware withing 10 days of receipt since they believed they were being lied to/mislead/stalled just so they couldn't return it without the penalty.
Also, no restocking charge was mentioned until it was time to send it back. The vendor just didn't want to lose the sale I guess.
No, it wasn't me involved as seller, distributor or buyer.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#16]
12 Feb 2006
To: UncleSteve [#15] 12 Feb 2006
Steve,
From what you've said, the vendor didn't go out of his/her way to provide tracking numbers for the supplies, which, surely could have been provided, if, in fact, the supplies had been sent.
There's a big difference between lip service and customer service.
A little bit of honesty, goes a long way in business, no matter how humbling.
From: UncleSteve [#17]
12 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#16] 12 Feb 2006
That is why I question ANYONE enforcing a restocking fee if they were not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! :-(
That is also why I am not fond of buying from someone that doesn't stock the item I am buying...
I understand some items like an engraving machine, other large/heavy/bulky items or something that has to be customized prior to shipping may be dropshipped, but I want to know that before I place my order. Like the difference between buying a new car off the lot (I know it is there when I buy it) and ordering a vehicle with my choice of options which may have to be factory installed.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#18]
12 Feb 2006
To: UncleSteve [#17] 12 Feb 2006
Steve,
There are unprovable aspects of this case.
At most, if pressed for a straight answer, I would expect the salesperson to admit to the less aggregious act of not telling the truth about if/when the supplies were shipped, (maybe shift the blame to the mfg.) than admit to a purposeful act of attempting to run out the statute of limitations (10 days) on a return policy.
EDITED: 12 Feb 2006 by DGL
From: spudislander (WILLM) [#19]
13 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#18] 13 Feb 2006
David,
There are as many scenarios as there are members on this board.
if I were to write a lengthy opinion on the subject, it would parrallel Rodney's well written opinion.
I would recommend that the forum continue in the direction as a technical forum and stay out of individual's complaints regarding suppliers. They have many other legal recources to follow.
Will :O
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20]
13 Feb 2006
To: spudislander (WILLM) [#19] 13 Feb 2006
I agree with what you say, although there are some bona fide "snakes in the grass" which aren't allowed access to the forum, but those actions weren't taken until after they did their damage.
A couple of scam artists and a sociopathic con man.
The case Steve layed out, had no definitive solution.
From: Jim (RETAIL74) [#21]
13 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 13 Feb 2006
Would using an account like Paypal help? Another suggestion would be using credit cards. They have built-in buyer protection. It sounds like the forum is doing what it can to eliminate problem members.
Unfortunately, some transactions go bad. It's difficult for a technical forum to police members. Your setting yourself up to bear the blame for future problems. Members who are wronged could expect to be compensated since the forum failed to protect them.
On another note, I have always had a problem with restocking fees. It's good for a company to have a policy that prevents abuse. However I hate the thought of paying a fee if my purchase was made in good faith. I buy goods and supplies on the internet. Sometimes the products just don't meet my needs.
An unnecessary restocking fee is a guaranteed way to lose a customer. If the goods are returned and restitution is made on the shipping charges, I feel that I can re-sell that product to a qualified customer in the future.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#22]
13 Feb 2006
To: Jim (RETAIL74) [#21] 14 Feb 2006
I agree. Fortunately, we run, (essentially), trouble-free.
I'm not proposing "policing" members, but when we find a verifiably bad apple, or scammer, I won't hesitate to bring it to the attention of the forum members.
A great deal of my motivation for starting this forum, was based in disgust of the censorship and intimidation I witnessed through other online forums.
I don't want to invite lawsuits, but at the same time, I don't believe in becoming unduly paralyzed by the potential.
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#23]
15 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#20] 15 Feb 2006
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#24]
15 Feb 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#23] 16 Feb 2006
Must not be on. Either that, or I'm clueless as to what that means.
Could be either. :-)
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#25]
15 Feb 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#23] 16 Feb 2006
EDITED: 15 Feb 2006 by HARVEY-ONLY
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#26]
15 Feb 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#25] 15 Feb 2006
No, but I have a couple of pets that have been wormed. They feel much better now. :-)
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#27]
16 Feb 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#24] 16 Feb 2006
:)
Was just teasin..........Figured it would be funny....Hope someone got a laugh out of it. (Other than me anyway)
Brian
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#28]
16 Feb 2006
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#25] 16 Feb 2006
Funny how only admins are responding.......hmmmmmmmmmm :)
Just kiddin Harvey. I've only tried to post when I have something "positive" to add to conversations. I enjoy my participation much more now than the verbal arm wrestling of the past.
Brian
EDITED: 16 Feb 2006 by RALLYGUY1
Show messages: 1-8 9-28 29-48 49-61