Jim Brokaw wrote:
>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.
>>
>>
>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.
>
>
It now appears you're right. I had an email form him overnight saying "I
think I sent you the wrong lens, what serial no. is it?" So now I feel
like going in the garden and breakfasting on worms and molluscs before
slipping on the hair shirt until Good Friday.
His email arrived shortly before the one from PP saying return the lens
and get a full refund. So either way, it's going back.
>[side note -- all you E, S, & L reader/writers have me wondering if I did
>that right...]
>
>
English, Spanish & Latin?
>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.
>
>
That's what I thought on Saturday morning. C'est la guerre.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|