Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Advice needed: list transaction going poorly

Subject: [OM] Re: Advice needed: list transaction going poorly
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:14:11 -0500
I should probably stay out of this entirely but since I don't know 
either of you personally and have no reason to favor one over the other 
I'll give you my two cents as an arbiter.

 From Paul's standpoint, a USPS insurance claim appears to be without 
merit because the packaging appears to be undamaged.  And I agree, if 
true, the USPS will certainly deny the claim.

 From Scott's standpoint, an undamaged package means it's unlikely to 
have suffered any significant trauma.  Paul's description of the 
condition doesn't jibe at all with Scott's view of the condition before 
it was sent (ignoring the aperture ring which may be interpretation).

The problem with this scenario is that both views may be valid but only 
Paul knows the actual condition of lens and packaging.  That may or may 
not be the same way Scott would evaluate it *if* he could see it.  Paul 
has become judge and jury to a condition statement that Scott sees as 
unlikely.

I think any money should be returned and the lens and packaging (inside 
a larger package) should be returned to Scott at Scott's expense.  The 
reason that Scott should pay the return postage is that, allowing for 
honest assessments on both ends) damage to the lens without damage to 
the package (insufficient crush distance) seems the most likely outcome. 
  No damage claim can be made at Scott's end but this will serve to 
verify Paul's claim that the packaging is undamaged and that an 
insurance claim will be useless in any case.  Scott can then evaluate 
the condition of the lens and verify that it is or is not as he sent it.

Once returned a new sale negotiation can be made if desired.

My two cents,
Chuck Norcutt



Paul Martinez wrote:
> I agree, the problem here though it that Scott is insisting on either being
> dependant on the insurance claim; which I feel has no merit (see my post of
> the box condition). He's not willing to do either in a timely manner, saying
> both need to be processed through the USPS claim service first!
> 
> Paul

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz