Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
A seller isn't under any obligation to guarantee any outcome of a third party grader's inspection. If you do, then that has nothing to do with the buyer deciding to play the TPG game.
Buyers are free to play the gamble game on auctions that state a refund of the purchase price will be given if the item fails authenticaton. But a guarantee isn't a gamble or an if. And if you are going to guarantee something, then I don't see what the issue is with putting your money where your mouth is.
|
You said it earlier in that it's a matter of semantics, and more importantly, unstated assumptions as to the extent of the "guarantee." If the seller is okay with being on the hook for whatever authentication you choose to submit the item to, and
tells you that he is okay with that, then obviously that's a favorable situation for you as the buyer. Plenty have given reasons here why it doesn't make business sense for the seller to subject themselves to that hook, but if the seller wants to knowingly leave themselves open to whatever authentication fees you may choose to throw on top of the deal, that's their right.
More important though is that you get those semantic gray areas cleared up BEFORE completing the transaction. Too often deals go bad because someone made an incorrect assumption and then wants to hold the other party to that assumption. If you don't ask for clarification, you don't have any right to hold a seller to anything more than was stated in their listing, and if you're working from a different definition of the extent of "guaranteed to pass xyz" than most sellers (and you are, judging by the previous posts), you owe it to them as a responsible buyer to clear that up beforehand. It's fine if you want to argue semantics, but do so before money has changed hands.