It is absolutely ridiculous to rationalize that KRNAZNBOY should receive anything less than what he is due -- the goods or the value of the goods as described -- because of the so-called "inherent value" of the product he did receive. He was not buying $150 worth of lasers. No, he was buying the products in the condition agreed upon. Period.I'm still of the mind that it's inappropriate to ask for the full amount (less $50) back. It sounds like you've certainly received more than $50 worth. From an ethical perspective, I don't think it's right for this guy, sketchy as he may be, to receive only $50 for possessions that clearly had more value than $50.
It is absolutely ridiculous to rationalize that KRNAZNBOY should receive anything less than what he is due -- the goods or the value of the goods as described -- because of the so-called "inherent value" of the product he did receive. He was not buying $150 worth of lasers. No, he was buying the products in the condition agreed upon. Period.
Did Laser83 come visit this post or try to work things out with KRNAZNBOY? Did he offer a refund? Did he even post an explanation? No. Instead, he edited his post to cover up the evidence. He should receive nothing and lose everything in this transaction.
Anyway, that "value" is entirely relative. What if KRNAZNBOY was more (only) interested in the green or 445nm lasers, not so much some red or violet that were effectively just bonuses? What if he can't sell the lasers he did receive to recoup the value he supposedly received? What if he can't repair the parts into working order despite them being considered an "easy fix" by others? What if he needed the parts and lasers within a certain time-table and finding replacements lasers (possibly from funds made by selling) takes too much time? (Kiyoukan effectively did that with me). Often even refunds leave you in a worse place than if you hadn't bothered at all.
Even if the buyer was getting a "great deal" and knew it, he should receive what was agreed upon, not settle for some lesser deal. You don't go buy some food with "50%" more only to find they fraudulently advertised it, and then just accept the no-extra-value price as given. No. You were buying the product because it was a good deal. The company or seller deceiving people should be penalized for their misdeeds. In this forum, we're generally even nicer about it and let people off by allowing them to refund the amount, but what has Laser83 done about it?
KRNAZNBOY: Don't settle for less than what you were originally trying to buy. False advertising and fraud should be met with punishment to discourage it.
You noted that Laser83 didn't come visit this post or try to work things out with KRNAZNBOY. I get that. In fact, I noted that resolving this amicably would require some cooperation on Laser83's part.From a practical perspective, I'm not sure how PayPal works (when it's a non-ebay item) for disputes of quality. I know they're good with disputes of non-receipt.
Putting this all together, I'm left thinking that your best course of action is to somehow resolve this directly. Of course, that requires some cooperation on his side. But maybe he could simply provide you with a full refund, for a full return of the goods. Then he could resell them, ACCURATELY described, for whatever the market thinks those goods worth.
Even when you win the dispute you can get short changed I've found. Back in 2007 I bought a 230mW green pen from a member for $220. It never arrived and he no longer responded to any of my PMs/emails. I started a dispute and eventually won. I guess he had no money left in his PayPal because I ended up getting nothing even after winning the dispute.PayPal does NOT support refunds for "item not as described" outside of eBay
I learned that on a >$400 buy from a now banned member
I was not disagreeing with the second half of your response that meeting somewhere in the middle may in fact earn you more than a no-compromise stance. That's why I didn't quote it.BB:
You quoted part of what I said, but not all of it. Let me complete the picture:
That's all. No drama intended. I don't know these parties, or what the skirmish in the original thread was about. I do know that when you stop thinking in a black and white, non-compromising, polarized manner, you'll in aggregate get better results in the face of adversity and dispute.