Yet again, ye old subjectivity (or not, read below) chestnut strikes...
So I see an ad for a Garmin Fenix 6S listed by someone who's been a member for 8 years, described as "Brand new condition, my wife only wore it for a few training sessions and wants to go back to Forerunner".
I think "Cool, this is good value at R7k, it's a discount of R2.5k from new for losing the warranty, but that's fine if it's in brand new condition".
At this stage, the phrase "brand new condition" evokes an image of what I imagine to be a reasonable definition. What's that, you ask? In exactly the same condition as new, but has been unboxed and maybe used three times carefully, but still indistinguishable from new to the naked eye. Maybe there's a drop of sweat on it, if you're nitpicking. Fair?
I pay, the buyer sends it via Postnet, and I excitedly collect it this morning, As I open the box, I see the images below.
Nope, not brand new after all.
What do I do? I message the buyer and in short this is what happens:
Me: "I'm really sorry, but I'm very particular about my stuff and this is not in the condition it was described to be. I'm happy to pay the postage back to you, can we please reverse the transaction?"
Him: "I'm sorry, didn't realise, will get my wife to contact you."
His wife: "Sorry, but I've already replaced it with a Forerunner so we can't take it back. It's a voetstoots sale on Facebook (Ed: No, it was on here) and there is nothing wrong with it. May have a few marks but I trained with it so that's normal."
Me: "It's disappointing to hear that you're not willing to do the right thing. It was described by your husband as "brand new condition", which clearly is a misrepresentation of the facts. It's in good condition, sure, but not brand new. See for example the scratch on the lens. I'll pay the shipping back to you with pleasure. I've sold and bought many items on BikeHub over the years and the system is based on trust, which is different to FB Marketplace. I hope you can appreciate that."
His wife: "Stop bullying me, I physically cannot afford it right now. Will let you know when I can, but that's not now."
Me: "Erm, OK, didn't realise I was "bullying" you, but OK. I'm simply going to give your husband a poor review. Enjoy the Forerunner!"
Her: "OK"
________
Really?
I message the husband again saying that I'm disappointed in how they're handling it. Guess what his response is:
"I said she wore it, did not say it was in the box and never used. My view of what's brand new seem to be different to yours. Mine is used, that one is very good and the price also".
No shoot, Sherlock! Very clearly your view of what's brand new differs from mine...
This was a lapse in my judgement, I should have known better. People can be amazingly divergent in their perceptions of quality and condition, and I know this. I should have peppered with him questions and requests for up close photos. I was sloppy....
Still not cool though. What gets me most (again, I know this is common) is how someone who thinks they can afford a R9.5k sports watch literally doesn't have enough money (according to them) to temporarily float the value of a second watch. The mind boggles.
UPDATE: As of 18 May, I managed to determine (because the seller eventually told me) that the Fenix was originally bought somewhere (their memory failed them) mid 2021, so in all likelihood it was close to a year old when sold to me.
SUMMARY: I would dissuade all who read this from buying anything from [I've removed their names], in all the dealings I have had with them they have been dishonest, dismissive and evasive about the facts at hand.
UPDATE August 1st 2023: The seller's wife contacted me and apologised for how the situation was handled originally, and offered to reimburse me for the difference in what the value should have realistically been (I estimate R5.5k instead of R7k). I declined, but said that I'll remove their names regardless, and hopefully everyone learns something from this. I learnt that one absolutely cannot trust the opinions of strangers on anything that requires a subjective assessment (this is such an obvious thing, duh) and hopefully they've learnt that misrepresenting facts and then refusing to back down is not a lekker thing to do. Here's hoping some good karma was spread...
