on 11/24/04 9:53 AM, Chris Savage at zuiko@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I just submitted my very first dispute to those pally payers. Now, in
> the spirit of all left-footers I'm wondering whether I've been a little
> harsh.
>
> How would you feel buying a lens described as 'good condition' and
> receiving this:
>
> http://www.savvo.co.uk/14pb200766.jpg
> http://www.savvo.co.uk/14pb240909.jpg
>
> On top of which it's a different serial number (albeit higher) than the
> one pictured in the auction.
This lens appears to be a bit... dirty inside. Perhaps the seller is not a
photographer, and does not realize that the soiled debris inside will affect
the pictures...?
However, this isn't even a relevant issue. Obviously some innocent error has
been made by the seller, as he has mistakenly shipped you a different lens
than the one you bought at auction. The serial numbers are different...
perhaps pointing this out and offering to return this lens when the correct
lens arrives (you could volunteer to use the same package to send the
'wrong' one back) and since you've already paid postage once and its not
your error anyway the seller should stand the return postage as well as the
postage for the second (correct) lens's shipment.
[side note -- all you E, S, & L reader/writers have me wondering if I did
that right...]
A courteous and positively worded email pointing out the seller's error
should generate good results... be sure you copy e*ay just for protocol's
sake.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
