An unscrupulous seller sold me a “mint” E-1 with a defective circuit board. It took me a few days to figure out that there was something wrong but just what I didn’t know; so I sent it off to the Olympus Service Center where I learned that the repairs would cost $259.92. Olympus gave me three choices: I could have it repaired, they could send it back to me unrepaired, or they could destroy it in an environmentally safe manner and give me a generous allowance on a refurbished camera of my choice.
Silly me, I took what seemed the most reasonable course and had it repaired. When I got the service report and learned about the defective circuit board I thought the seller should pay for those repairs. I had hard evidence that what he sold me was defective. But he thought I should have jumped through eBay’s procedural hoops and returned the camera to him. What he would have done with it, it seems, was irrelevant. I should have made things easy for him. I thought I was the aggrieved party, but he didn’t think so and eBay backed him up.
I told him and later when it was escalated to the eBay resolution board (which I am sure has been outsourced to some third-world country) repeated, that since the seller had not sold me a mint-condition camera as his eBay description claimed, but instead had sold me a defective camera, he should pay for the repairs.
No, no, he and his eBay resolution board cohort exclaimed. There was no rule covering what I did; so the repairs must be on me. The unscrupulous seller gets to keep his ill-gotten gains. Crime paid and there was a sucker born every minute (moi among them!)
But enough of that. I got the repaired E-1 returned to me yesterday and since the seller sold me a lens (a Sigma 18-125mm) at the same time I feared it too would be defective, but it appears to be okay. See for yourself:
A shot at 125mm of the Scientology Castle on the other side of the river:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment