Misleading Add

[Shaun001]

Good evening everyone. I am the seller of this item in discussion.

I feel this post is defamatory to my profile on BikeHub, since my profile can easily be found with the screenshot posted as I haven't removed/marked the add as sold yet and this is not a true reflection of our conversation.  

This is the very first time in my life of selling something that the buyer was unhappy. I believe that my add was not misleading as the fork does have the remote lockout damper and there isn't a lever on any of the photos of the add. The lever has always been a separate item in my mind. The Reba in discussion is available with two types of dampers - either a manual lockout or a remote lockout. The intention of the title was to indicate which one I am selling.

After the buyer received the fork today and was upset that the "remote lockout" was not included, my first response was that I am sorry for the misunderstanding and he is welcome to send the fork back if he is not happy and I will refund him. His responses were very aggressive and threatening as I was trying to explain that the fork does have remote lockout.

I am willing to refund him because he is unhappy, although I am not legally required to, but not willing to refund the shipping as the add was not false advertising as he claims. 

[Wil6]

7 hours ago, Shaun de Jager said:

Good evening everyone. I am the seller of this item in discussion.

I feel this post is defamatory to my profile on BikeHub, since my profile can easily be found with the screenshot posted as I haven't removed/marked the add as sold yet and this is not a true reflection of our conversation.  

This is the very first time in my life of selling something that the buyer was unhappy. I believe that my add was not misleading as the fork does have the remote lockout damper and there isn't a lever on any of the photos of the add. The lever has always been a separate item in my mind. The Reba in discussion is available with two types of dampers - either a manual lockout or a remote lockout. The intention of the title was to indicate which one I am selling.

After the buyer received the fork today and was upset that the "remote lockout" was not included, my first response was that I am sorry for the misunderstanding and he is welcome to send the fork back if he is not happy and I will refund him. His responses were very aggressive and threatening as I was trying to explain that the fork does have remote lockout.

I am willing to refund him because he is unhappy, although I am not legally required to, but not willing to refund the shipping as the add was not false advertising as he claims. 

I did not post any of your personal details and was asking for advise.

Very aggressive and threatening. That's far from the truth and with your permission I can post screenshots of our conversation?

[PhilipV]

7 hours ago, Shaun de Jager said:

Good evening everyone. I am the seller of this item in discussion.

I feel this post is defamatory to my profile on BikeHub, since my profile can easily be found with the screenshot posted as I haven't removed/marked the add as sold yet and this is not a true reflection of our conversation.  

This is the very first time in my life of selling something that the buyer was unhappy. I believe that my add was not misleading as the fork does have the remote lockout damper and there isn't a lever on any of the photos of the add. The lever has always been a separate item in my mind. The Reba in discussion is available with two types of dampers - either a manual lockout or a remote lockout. The intention of the title was to indicate which one I am selling.

After the buyer received the fork today and was upset that the "remote lockout" was not included, my first response was that I am sorry for the misunderstanding and he is welcome to send the fork back if he is not happy and I will refund him. His responses were very aggressive and threatening as I was trying to explain that the fork does have remote lockout.

I am willing to refund him because he is unhappy, although I am not legally required to, but not willing to refund the shipping as the add was not false advertising as he claims. 

No Shaun, you are wrong. 

When you buy a new fork, that has remote lockout, it comes with the remote and the cable in the box. You don't buy the remote as a seperate item. 

Just because it is seperate in your mind, does not make it the truth, or that you are correct. 

[PhilipV]

7 hours ago, Shaun de Jager said:

. The lever has always been a separate item in my mind. The Reba in discussion is available with two types of dampers - either a manual lockout or a remote lockout. The intention of the title was to indicate which one I am selling.

 

And just in case things have changed since I've worked in shops, I checked how forks are being sold nowadays. 

 

I think it will be best for what's left of your reputation if you make right and ship a remote to your customer. 

 

[Rolf Hansen]

I am going to have to agree with PhilipV.

I don't believe your intention was to mislead and the buyer could have (should have) confirmed but taking the advert on face value I would also have thought it to be included.

[Hairy]

Between the two, I would go with the buyer based on what has been shown in this thread.

I also feel that if one is selling something, that is either missing an item, or has a damaged item which is instrumental in the products function, then the onus is on the seller to highlight this very clearly in the advert. Why should a buyer have to ask the seller a 1001 questions, request additional pictures, do homework to make sure that the product being sold is "whole", this is BS. As much as people feel the buyer has a responsibility to do their homework before buying, the seller should have more of a responsibility of ensuring ALL the relevant information is present in the advert, and if there are photographs required to highlight certain damaged or missing / critical parts, then the onus should be on the seller to ensure this information is on the advert.

The seller initiated the advert, and should therefore take responsibility for what they are putting out. The buyer is reacting to what is being advertised.

 

[Pikey]

1 hour ago, Hairy said:

Between the two, I would go with the buyer based on what has been shown in this thread.

I also feel that if one is selling something, that is either missing an item, or has a damaged item which is instrumental in the products function, then the onus is on the seller to highlight this very clearly in the advert. Why should a buyer have to ask the seller a 1001 questions, request additional pictures, do homework to make sure that the product being sold is "whole", this is BS. As much as people feel the buyer has a responsibility to do their homework before buying, the seller should have more of a responsibility of ensuring ALL the relevant information is present in the advert, and if there are photographs required to highlight certain damaged or missing / critical parts, then the onus should be on the seller to ensure this information is on the advert.

The seller initiated the advert, and should therefore take responsibility for what they are putting out. The buyer is reacting to what is being advertised.

 

Amen to that brother 1000%. All to often the people question the buyer if they did there due diligence. It’s a 2 way street in that regard . The seller must take the time to add in any relevant info. Like “with remote lockout “ but not included.

Then the buyer knows, end of. But if there is any confusion or unhappiness, then what counts in my books is how the seller reacts after the sale that counts more. I

[Robbie Stewart]

Not taking sides, but I have not felt that I was missing out on any of my adventures when out cycling by not have a remote lockout lever. I find it simple enough to lean over and switch the lever on the fork, or even flip the dial on the shock by hand whenever needed. But that's me, and I have long arms to reach the fork and my shock is beneath the top tube, so I'm fortunate in that sense.

As for who's wrong and who's right, I find merit in both instances. Let the interweb be the judge.

But I also see both sides acting a bit like chops. R149.00 either side is not an issue, and for the incurred reputational harm all I can do is laugh. To me this looks like a bit of handbag swinging. How did this even become a thread.

[Trashy]

10 minutes ago, Robbie Stewart said:

How did this even become a thread.

No load shedding, needed something to complain about.

Don't worry, with load shedding back, we shouldn't see any more of these threads for a while.

[Steady Spin]

Buyer didn't ask. 
Seller didn't tell. 

Both at fault. Seller can refund the cost of a remote lever or buyer can buy one for the same price as the shipping he will have to pay. 

I'm looking at the advert and see two photos. Fork from the front and back. No close-ups of the stanctions or the undersides of the lowers. I would like to see both of these to check for wear and oil leaks + damage. 

When will people learn that when you buy something that requires shipping to do their due diligence and ask all the questions and request additional photos. 

[Shebeen]

28 minutes ago, Steady Spin said:

Buyer didn't ask. 
Seller didn't tell. 

Both at fault. Seller can refund the cost of a remote lever or buyer can buy one for the same price as the shipping he will have to pay. 

I'm looking at the advert and see two photos. Fork from the front and back. No close-ups of the stanctions or the undersides of the lowers. I would like to see both of these to check for wear and oil leaks + damage. 

When will people learn that when you buy something that requires shipping to do their due diligence and ask all the questions and request additional photos. 

100%

110%

[droo]

I'd call it ambiguous at worst. Best sorted out with a good old fashioned handbag duel at 10 paces.

OP - you could probably have made R 150 in the time and headspace it's taken you to type all of this. Send it back and move on.

Seller - be clear. Ambiguity will bite you cos people will always see what they want to, not what you want them to.

[DieselnDust]

The seller should provide the missing component. When selling a fork with a remote lock out top cap , that remote is required to provide full functionality of the fork. Its sold as excellent condition

"Still in Excellent condition. Removed from a new Trek top fuel 2021 model 2 months after purchase."

The Remote is part of the product SKU and therefore when sold it should be included or clearly stated as excluded. Its a missleading ad. I would not deal with this seller.  Thanks for flagging.

 

[DieselnDust]

48 minutes ago, Steady Spin said:

Buyer didn't ask. 
Seller didn't tell. 

Both at fault. Seller can refund the cost of a remote lever or buyer can buy one for the same price as the shipping he will have to pay. 

I'm looking at the advert and see two photos. Fork from the front and back. No close-ups of the stanctions or the undersides of the lowers. I would like to see both of these to check for wear and oil leaks + damage. 

When will people learn that when you buy something that requires shipping to do their due diligence and ask all the questions and request additional photos. 

The required Oneloc lever is around R1400 new..... #semanet

[DieselnDust]

Here's another example of a misleading ad whether the seller know it or not:

 

https://bikehub.co.za/classifieds/item/mountain-bike-forks/525462/cannondale-lefty-20-carbon-xlr-100mm-for-29

 

Talks to a Lefty 2.0 XLR.

All measurements indicate its for a Size Small Headtube of 97mm length but the ad claims it came off a 29" medium.

Cannondale never made a Lefty 2.0 XLR with crown spacing of 97mm for a size medium and it was not a 29er, but a 27.5.

Crown spacing for a medium is 112mm so this fork is a for Small frame and likely set up for a 27.5 wheel. It can be converted to 100mm travel for 29" wheel at some expense

So there's a lot of questions a prospective buyer needs to ask. BUT

 

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE NOT INTIMATE WITH THE PRODUCT?

Edited August 4, 2022 by DieselnDust

[NotSoBigBen]

13 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

The seller should provide the missing component. When selling a fork with a remote lock out top cap , that remote is required to provide full functionality of the fork. Its sold as excellent condition

"Still in Excellent condition. Removed from a new Trek top fuel 2021 model 2 months after purchase."

The Remote is part of the product SKU and therefore when sold it should be included or clearly stated as excluded. Its a missleading ad. I would not deal with this seller.  Thanks for flagging.

 

True it's not like you take the fork off and leave the lockout lever behind on the bar or something ...