OK to lay into female Amazon.com customer via email -- or is it criminal threatening?

[jfost]

...
The connection between 1 and 2 is kind of beside the point. If you returned your weber grill to Walmart and Walmart said "here's your refund, don't worry about the missing pieces" and then Weber contacted you and bitched you out and said "send me the fucking pieces" you'd tell them to go fuck themselves and then post about it on TGR. And you'd be right on. That's closer to what this is than friggin eBay or gear swap.

this is fucking funny.

[Hugh Conway]

If you are seeing Amazon and eBay under the same light maybe you need some good lighting. Or just reread the first paragraph of the original post:

I sold a $60 CD box set through Amazon back in January. The woman buyer emailed me a few days after she received it saying she wanted to return it because she found a cheaper one. I never responded. Amazon stepped in and essentially awarded the woman the right to keep the box set and refunded her all the money (by deducting it from my account) aka I took it in the ass, lubeless

my experience selling things through amazon has been faultless from the CS perspective; they've done alright with returns. Costs are high. I don't see them "sanctioning fraud"

[RShea]

Well...a little raw at the moment thanks to PayPal and currently seeing Amazon under the same light while mulling over re-opening our Amazon and/or eBay stores......none of this is encouraging from our perspective, on top of other costs, requirements and controls seen in the past. Amazon appears to be seller beware.

For all those in love with Amazon policies, they have great deals on knee pads......

Terry, I understand part of what you are stating. The question of Amazon is what would they have done if the seller had replied, and stated the sale was completed? If they would still have expected the seller to play match the price (we have no guarantee of the other sellers lower priced item was the same condition, nor whether there is any way for a little guy selling on Amazon to say they will not price match like many retailers do within a reasonable time frame if they find an item for less. Amazon in this case was no different than a Credit Card companies offer of buyer protection too and it could had been the seller not replying to a Credit Card dispute and getting charged back. All commerce involves risk. You just have to reduce that risk and be on top of things in business.

[Alpinord]

Terry, I understand part of what you are stating. The question of Amazon is what would they have done if the seller had replied, and stated the sale was completed? If they would still have expected the seller to play match the price (we have no guarantee of the other sellers lower priced item was the same condition, nor whether there is any way for a little guy selling on Amazon to say they will not price match like many retailers do within a reasonable time frame if they find an item for less. Amazon in this case was no different than a Credit Card companies offer of buyer protection too and it could had been the seller not replying to a Credit Card dispute and getting charged back. All commerce involves risk. You just have to reduce that risk and be on top of things in business.

The to and return shipping costs and controls alone would kill you if also forced to play match the price on a regular basis. Cutting the risk, avoid additional headaches and huge amounts of time micro-managing hundreds of products, would mean cutting the Amazon option in that case.

[arewolfe]

Take home point: Buying anything through Amazon you simply can't lose. It's called the A to Z guarantee: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...?nodeId=537868

It would have been much simpler if Amazon had just sent me an email (when the woman first indicated she wanted a refund) spelling it out clearly: IF YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO BUYER'S EMAIL, SHE WILL BE AWARDED THE ITEM AND A FULL REFUND AT YOUR EXPENSE. How could I expect something that retarded to even be possible?

One of the reasons I never responded was because in the woman's initial email about the return, she specifically stated "I will be sending it back to you in a few days." I figured they'd show up in the mail (obviously this never happened). I guess she knew the rules, and when I didn't respond she knew what she could get away with and that was the end of it.

I've decided to not get involved with it any further. I did a google search of my name and city/state today and the amount of shit that comes up is scary. The last thing I need is some haggard cunt whose gash is all bunched up to know everything about me.

[TomCrac]

Her email stating that she will be returning gives you a pretty good leg, no?

[Long duc dong]

If she were a better person, she would have returned you the CD's, regardless.

This is a good reason not to use Amazon.

If you can, broadcast her name somewhere on the net, so that she would show up in a search. Be honest, and I don't think you should have a problem. If she threatens legal action, which she won't, make sure everything you say is true, and verifiable.

She deserves to be exposed as a snake. Just make sure anything you say is verifiable.

Or, just let it go. That's what I would probably do. She sounds like she deserves for the internet to know about her.

[arewolfe]

Her email stating that she will be returning gives you a pretty good leg, no?

Was just thinking about this, especially since Amazon tracks all communication between buyer/seller (i.e. they have access to all the emails, thereby making it easier for me to prove their ruling was relatively retarded).

Might give it a go with customer service and see if they can connect the dots themselves and realize the series was not logicallly conducive to the outcome:

Communication 1, Jan 22, 2012: woman wants to return CDs and says in her email she will send back in a few days.
Communication 2, Feb 23, 2012 (from Amazon): "This notice serves as confirmation that we have initiated a refund in the amount of $58.99 to Lisa ____ for the following item: [CD box set]. We will adjust your payment account accordingly."

[Garth Bimble]

It's pretty stupid for Amazon to offer such a liberal return policy on items that can be copied so easily. Even Wal-Mart requires that any CD's that are returned for refund be in the original package, and they'll take almost anything back.

That said, is it possible for you as a 3rd party seller to modify the return terms when you sell the item? I checked some of the other 3rd party sellers and when I clicked on the "return policy" link under the CD's they were selling it took me right to Amazon's blanket policy.

[arewolfe]

As far as I can tell, no. If you sell, you're bound by the A to Z horse shit.

I emailed Amazon again. Same response: "we cannot offer a refund, transaction closed."

[pointedem]

FYI: You fail.

[Hugh Conway]

As far as I can tell, no. If you sell, you're bound by the A to Z horse shit.

I emailed Amazon again. Same response: "we cannot offer a refund, transaction closed."

to expand on pointedem

Am I required to represent A-to-z Guarantee claims submitted against me?
No. However, if a seller does not respond to a claim, they are automatically held responsible and reimbursement for the claim will be debited from their account. If a seller believes they should not be held responsible for the claim, they should respond as quickly as possible to the claim notification and represent their version of the transaction.

[G]

If you can, broadcast her name somewhere on the net, so that she would show up in a search. Be honest, and I don't think you should have a problem. If she threatens legal action, which she won't, make sure everything you say is true, and verifiable.

She deserves to be exposed as a snake. Just make sure anything you say is verifiable.

Seriously, please do this!

[waltonhockey05]

Along the lines of sending her poop:

http://www.poopsenders.com/

And you can pick your choice of feces to send to her!

[lobstahmeatwad]

Corporations that institute policies where the customer is allowed to keep the crap they purchased and get refunded is asinine.
If the product is incorrect or damaged or not right, fine whatever, case by case it should be determined.
Creating this type of ethos in the consumer world is ruining purchasing and responsibility for all parties involved.
You don't get the money and the product. Its one or the other.

[iceman]

Somebody sends me a piece of shit and I have to go out of my way and mail the piece of shit back at my expense to get my money back? Okey dokey.

The situation played out the way it did because the dope ignored the initial email, end of story.

[Garbanzo]

Sounds like it is Amazon you should be sending poop to - not the chick. If Amazon told me I could keep your shit, I would.

You already sent her shit once. Why again?