Shel was satisfied enough to keep the lens and not reverse the transaction. . .
The point was not really whether Shel was satisfied or not, it was that he left out the part about reaching a settlement they both must have thought was equitable, which casts a much darker shadow over the whole affair. >From Shel's later post, it's apparent he would not mention it all if he had it to do over. Tom C. ----Original Message Follows---- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:24:11 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: Dealing with eBay vendors. Was: Re: The JCO survey > > The part Shel left out was, that in the end, the transaction was > handled to > their mutual satisfaction. Define "mutual satisfaction". If I buy something that is defective out of the box, and I return it to the store for an adjustment, it is entirely possible that the transaction will not be resolved to my satisfaction. If the vendor is abusive, or makes the situation as difficult as possible to resolve before resolving it, then there is no mutual satisfaction, even if I get a replacement product or refund. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
