>If you know that you shipped something in proper working order, then you
>should insist that the _buyer_ pay for the repair, with the repariman
>and/or shipping company deciding who is at fault.
I was once the victim of an interesting scam (I think it was a scam)
where the seller of what I'm sure was a defective piece of equipment had
gone to the trouble of getting a "certification of working order" from
his local repair shop (and partner in crime, I'll bet) before shipping to
me. When I received the defective item, he was able to produce a slip of
paper from a repair shop that "proved" the item was in excellent working
condition when he sent it to me. What struck me was how the seller had
planned for my response ahead of time. After a long wrangle, the shipper
settled with the seller, and I finally got my money back. Nonetheless the
lesson wasn't lost on me, because this tactic of obtaining a verification
of working order before shipping could be used ethically as well as
unethically.
For buyers: this may be old news to everyone, but paying with a U.S.
Postal Service Money Order is a somewhat safer way of paying (in the
U.S.), because a 'bad deal' paid for with a USPS is then taken seriously
as 'mail fraud' and the USPS actually has the manpower and willpower
(I've been told) to pursue the defrauder whereas other venues do not
(again, as I've been told; enlighten me if you've had direct experience).
Not sure how this works for international orders.
> most people are honest.
One of my own research studies, conducted at a major research university,
was to determine what verbal patterns were used by people who were lying.
We initially thought it would be difficult to obtain a sufficiently large
number of people who would actually lie in a laboratory situation, and so
our entire research team was surprised when we found only one person out
of approximately 200 who was truthful. But, that was the case when 1) the
situation was such that the person could benefit from the lie and 2)
people believed that they could 'get away with it' with no consequence --
not exactly the case with mail fraud. Still, caveat emptor, as always.
================================================================
Dr. Kelton Rhoads kelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Consulting Psychologist Pager: 310/243-5114
================================================================
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|