Superspeed Not as Described on Classifieds

Was instructed by admin to post here for a dispute on Superspeed purchased in Classifieds. Here is the original post where seller describes condition of item as “never used”: 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1821061/fs-titleist-917-d3-9-5-w-veylix-rome-588-rainbow-finish#latest

   I returned the item because there was above average wear, seller claimed that item was not used during the time he had it, seller issued a refund, I subsequently asked him to reimburse me for return shipping costs, which he refused to do. 

He reposted the same item yesterday, with a more accurate description, 20 days after original post:

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/1824549/fs-little-bit-of-everything-club-glove-superspeed-cobra-f9-and-shaft-lot#latest

   To me, this is a clear case of deception and also a violation of relisting rules. To claim that an item was unused during the time it was in the seller’s possession is just ridiculous. The condition of an item its’ condition, period. Listing an item as “never used” does not equate to the relisting of the same item as having “light shop wear”. Is it unreasonable for me to ask the seller to reimburse me for the costs of return shipping?

Let me get on the front end of this, the superspeed system was never used, period. The buyer received the item, and right away said it has been used can I send it back; I gladly accepted. I received the item back and there were no marks scratches, scuffs or use marks on the superspeed system.

I will admit I did not read the BST rules clear enough, I should have waited the 30 days to repost them.

The original buyer is now asking for shipping refund, which should have been done beforehand not 10 days later.

I think the second listing might have been deleted.

But yes, that's obviously an artfully-worded, eye-rolling deception. Your request is not unreasonable. Even if the wear is quite light (say, the grips are a little grungy), you didn't get what you reasonably thought you were getting.

More broadly, this place is supposed to be a community. I should hope that this sort of thing is not tolerated.

I agree with you. "Never used" to me means "new". If something hasn't been used, it's new, period (open box at worse). I won't jump to the conclusion that he was trying to be deceptive, he could have just been careless in the creation of his ad. Still, whether he was trying to deceive or being careless it's his fault entirely and he should do right thing and refund you the shipping costs.

Sellers response on April 7th, before I sent the item back and response today 4/22/20 after requesting refund for return shipping costs:

Apr 7, 2020 9:22am

I never used them, they sat in my living room for a month. There was no scuffing chips on the shafts when they were sent. Feel free to send them back for a full refund.

Today @ 5:24am

I did use them, sorry I didn’t know they had shop wear. I’m not refunding you.

Today @ 5:25am

*didn’t.

You never requested return shipping refund, until last night after I had relisted them. We exchanged messages regarding the correct address, and then you stated that you dropped it at the local FedEx store

Meh I would just ask for a partial refund. Who cares about a bit of wear on speed sticks? They don't hit balls. Why send them back?

I didn’t ask for return shipping costs beforehand because I didn’t recall the wording of the original posting and thought maybe I made a mistake in reading it. I was able to retrieve it last night and the listing did state “never used”.

I don’t think you would be saying this if you actually saw the condition of the item in question. PM me if you want to discuss.

It the condition was that bad, please post pictures of what you recieved.

Post the pics! It's hard to believe something described as unused or maybe used a bit and isn't meant to hit a ball or even touch the ground could be so bad

I didn’t think I would need to. Why didn’t you post close up pics of the item in the original post when you described them as “never used” as you do on most all of your other posts?

so were they or weren't they used? i'm confused now.

Paypal reimburses for return shipping up to 12 times per year, assuming you paid in full with paypal. You just need to activate it before any transactions are made for which you need to utilize it. It may not help you out in this case but you can use it going forward.

I (seller) never used them.

Seller shipped them CA, buyer stated they have " There are clear signs of usage on all 3 of the clubs. Scratches on the heads and scuffs/chips on the shafts. The grips also show clear signs of usage."

Buyer asks to return, Seller accepts.

Buyer returns items, Seller issue full refund.

14 days later Buyer asks for return shipping refund, after seller relisted.

I think you're going a little overboard with the "above average wear" narrative. Are these brand spanking new? No, but you've done a poor job convincing me the wear is anything more than very minimal.

That said, the item description as "brand new" was not correct, and I understand you feel you need to be made whole. But your characterization of the wear was more misleading than the seller's description in the original ad.

Agreed, maybe above average wear was not the proper term but 2 of the 3 were clearly in a bag clattering around, the head in the heaviest club had the most signs of usage. Shafts had scuffs and the grips seemed a faded (maybe the manufacturer used cheap grips). “Never used” implies new. The pics in this thread were never used in either For Sale post.

I don't understand why anyone would care if they have been used or not. What difference does it make? Principle or not, who cares. You swing these things to get faster, not show off to your friends. I'e had a set for almost 20 months now and I beat the heck out of them. I just don't understand the logic. Its not a Circle T Cameron we're talking about.

The difference is the item was described as “never used”.

You just asked me to post pictures, hence why they weren't used in the FS post.

Your response doesn’t make any sense, why didn’t you use these pics in the original For Sale Post? Because they were “never used”? How did they go from “never used” in original post to “light shop wear” in 2nd post?

Maybe the buyer was planning on gifting them to someone?

I get what you're saying, but I think the principle matters more than you're making it out here. The guy sold an item that with a posting containing a lie of omission. That's not cool. Why should the buyer be stuck with the shipping costs?

The pictures were not used in the for sale ad.

OP. Those don't look nearly as "used" as you claim. Perhaps the ad was miss-stated, you got a refund, carry on with your life. Not worth all this fuss

I received mine from the factory and they were in similar condition to those in the pictures. If I was relisting the item, I would put "light shop wear" on them the 2nd time in order to avoid any issues going forward so the next person to buy them has no leg to stand on if they want to complainA partial refund for the item would have settled everything in this situation

He shouldn't be on the hook for return charges on an item that was not nearly as described, but I also question why it took fourteen days to make the request. This should have been hashed out before the return was sent, but you sent on your own dime before addressing who would pay the charges. Bad move.

That’s my point, you should have used them so Interested buyers could determine for themselves if they were “never used”.

People are going mad these days.

I have owned a ton of graphite shafted clubs in my day so I think I know the difference between “never used” and “light shop wear”. Ever buy anything advertised as “never used” and received with “light shop wear”? You would be OK with it?