5D mk3 looking flash drive selling for $1700+

Andrushka wrote in post #16969750
Can a seller actually deny a return/refund request - won't Ebay/Paypal override them by yanking the balance from the account anyway?

I have to agree that the listing is very clear its not an actual camera kit

He has it listed correctly and no returns are accepted, and under the money back guarantee they will only take action if the listing is inaccurate or the item isn't as described. This listing is accurate.

driftyyy wrote in post #16969753
He has it listed correctly and no returns are accepted, and under the money back guarantee they will only take action if the listing is inaccurate or the item isn't as described. This listing is accurate.

Someone is in for a real surprise then hahahaha

driftyyy wrote in post #16969753
He has it listed correctly and no returns are accepted, and under the money back guarantee they will only take action if the listing is inaccurate or the item isn't as described. This listing is accurate.

ebay/paypal also has a history of being very, very pro-buyer. Frankly, I think that just the main title of the listing itself ("Canon EOS 5d Mark III MKIII mk3 - 8GB Flash Drive - Limited Release" note that it leads with the 5D, and "flash drive" is literally a secondary description) might be enough for ebay/pp to side with the buyer.

WhyFi wrote in post #16969774
ebay/paypal also has a history of being very, very pro-buyer. Frankly, I think that just the main title of the listing itself ("Canon EOS 5d Mark III MKIII mk3 - 8GB Flash Drive - Limited Release" note that it leads with the 5D, and "flash drive" is literally a secondary description) might be enough for ebay/pp to side with the buyer.

This is a great point however, it's clearly reported in the description 3 or 4 times, and it's listed as a photo accessory not as a camera.

I understand what you are saying but he's not trying to pass it off as a camera, you know? Most cases like that are shady people being shady.

Well ebay Canada has an identical item that sold for $102 .... so .... I don't know. It does seem that someone bid it up thinking it was the real camera. I will say that the person selling the camera on ebay.ca makes it extremely clear that the bid is NOT for a camera and so does the other site ... actually seems to be the same seller and in ebay.ca the winning bid was about 10x less!

http://www.ebay.ca …ted-Release-/301188882243

In the theoretical situation where the buy pays and receives it, couldn't they just claim it was faulty or didn't work? The listing doesn't say "as is" anywhere I don't think

It'll be really sad if Ebay protects the irresponsible winning bidder. It's their responsibility to carefully read what they're buying before placing a bid. We all should be held responsible for our own actions.

Andrushka wrote in post #16969784
In the theoretical situation where the buy pays and receives it, couldn't they just claim it was faulty or didn't work? The listing doesn't say "as is" anywhere I don't think

The listing claims it's flash drive clearly and returns are not accepted. I'm certain the flash drive will work upon delivery just fine.

driftyyy wrote in post #16969797
The listing claims it's flash drive clearly and returns are not accepted. I'm certain the flash drive will work upon delivery just fine.

Oh I think it will too - just throwing out a theoretical.

Andrushka wrote in post #16969804
Oh I think it will too - just throwing out a theoretical.

Negligent buyer doesn't fall under defective - that would make sense if he advertised it in a different way. I would hope eBay doesn't side with the buyer if they pay and make a claim...

WhyFi wrote in post #16969698
So is that a "yes" or not? I think that the fact that you're squirming under a simple hypothetical shows that you know full well where denying the request would land on the ol' dishonesty scale.

You have a weird/wrong way of twisting things to fit your views. Is the listing dishonest/misleading/l​ying? No... Is it the person's fault for not reading the listing? Yes, Is that the seller's fault that they read it wrong? No...

Like everyone else on this thread, it's the buyer's responsibility for their actions. Do I feel bad for the buyer? Yes, but they made the decision and they have the pay (literally) for the consequences. We can't baby everyone and giver "do overs" all the time. I'd like to get the difference in money back between a private college and public college tuition because the recruiter said I would have a more enjoyable experience and they had a lot more to offer.

Heh - that's still not a "yes" or "no." Don't worry - I'll stop hounding you for an answer; I'm fairly certain that I know what it would be, anyway.

I couldn't help myself -- I just bought one!

(buy it now for $99)

MakisM1 wrote in post #16969604
Looks like a classic scam... The first bidder bids it up against himself 8 times from $27 to $360, then a second accomplice picks it up from $420 to $700 then a third one in 11 bids $800 to $1600... so that some sucker will think that he got a bargain at $1999

Do I understand something wrong?

Those aren't bids against themselves, I don't believe. I think those are just auto proxy bids toward the person's stated maximum bid.

The strange thing is the 2 highest bids are dated June 9. If they (auto bids) were placed on June 9, why didn't they show up then?