(05-10-2012, 09:03 AM)jt65 Wrote: Looking at this from the sellers' point of view. You were editorializing and accusing the seller of being shady and unwilling to refund, neither of which may be true. The seller could have used the opportunity to explain what happened and perhaps offer a full or partial refund, but it's hard to blame him for being grumpy after that attack. As far as filing claims go, that should only be done if the seller is not cooperative dealing with a return/refund. All it takes is a few unnecessarily opened cases for a seller to lose the "best seller" badge or even get suspended.
I filed the claim, sent the card back (with signature required of course) and the seller did give me back my money...so I just closed the claim and will have no more dealings with that person.
But in response to your comment, I didn't accuse him of being shady and unwilling until he replied to my initial contact which ONLY read "I'm a little disappointed in the condition of the card. You didn't disclose that there is a chip in the back of card, on the right middle. This really brings down the value of the card." That's when he/she went off on me with "I dare you to find one of these for 200 or less." So was I in the wrong? Do I not have a right to be just as "grumpy" about the whole deal?!
By the way, just as an update, the seller listed the card again...with the same picture of the card in the case, the same statements in the auction that the card is "nr-mt to mint condition," and NOT disclosing the chip on the back. So do you think that me calling the deal "shady" is still inappropriate?!