Amazon seller threatening to sue me because I won a warranty claim

[Mass_Shyster]

I'm not seeing that anywhere in their literature. As well CameronNewport has posted something that argues the exact opposite. I see the purchase of a used item through Amazon basically the same as eBay. As such, unless somebody can show something that obligates a buyer to not having the item returned, I see no reason the seller cannot demand the item be returned.

The Amazon A to Z warranty is a warranty (contract) between the buyer and Amazon. Buyer fulfilled his contractual obligation to seller when s/he paid for the item.

Seller is not a party to the contract (A to Z warranty) between Amazon and Buyer. Under the terms of that agreement, Amazon paid the buyer. Whatever mechanism Amazon used to obtain reimbursement from seller is part of the contract between Amazon and Seller.

Seller's recourse is with Amazon.

Buyer should tell seller to pound sand.

 

[BL]

The Amazon A to Z warranty is a warranty (contract) between the buyer and Amazon. Buyer fulfilled his contractual obligation to seller when s/he paid for the item.

Seller is not a party to the contract (A to Z warranty) between Amazon and Buyer. Under the terms of that agreement, Amazon paid the buyer. Whatever mechanism Amazon used to obtain reimbursement from seller is part of the contract between Amazon and Seller.

Seller's recourse is with Amazon.

Buyer should tell seller to pound sand.

Sellers should know this.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=13832201#what

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Sellers should know this.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=13832201#what

This section is particularly relevant:

My buyer won't return the item they filed a claim for -- what do I do?

Buyers are expected to work with you to make return arrangements for merchandise before filing a claim. If the buyer has received an item that is materially different and have not received a response from you with return instructions, he or she may file a Guarantee claim for the purchase. Once a customer is reimbursed for an order via the A-to-z Guarantee, Amazon.com does not obligate that customer to return the item they received. However, you are welcome to contact your customer directly to arrange for a return of the item.

 

[BL]

This section is particularly relevant:

Yes and in this case,the seller wanted to buyer to pay for return shipping AND pay for the item to be insured..

He basically did tell the seller to pound sand in a way.

I'm with the buyer.

 

[justalayman]

The Amazon A to Z warranty is a warranty (contract) between the buyer and Amazon. Buyer fulfilled his contractual obligation to seller when s/he paid for the item.

Seller is not a party to the contract (A to Z warranty) between Amazon and Buyer. Under the terms of that agreement, Amazon paid the buyer. Whatever mechanism Amazon used to obtain reimbursement from seller is part of the contract between Amazon and Seller.

Seller's recourse is with Amazon.

Buyer should tell seller to pound sand.

. I have seen nothing to show that is mandated by the A-Z Guarantee as imposed on the seller the buyer has the right to retain the property. Others have shown information contradicting that idea.

Please correct me if you can find something different.

Ya see stevef, the money is not the issue here. The buyer retaining the property once he has been reimbursed is the concern. At that point, barring a contractual action imposed on the seller, the buyer is obligated to return the item (although shipping cost would likely be born by the seller given the claimed misrepresentation) if the seller so desires its return. Failing to return the item would be conversion.

 

[justalayman]

Yes and in this case,the seller wanted to buyer to pay for return shipping AND pay for the item to be insured..

.

did I miss something in this thread? I couldn't find any such statement although I will admit OP's writing is a bit droll so I might have missed it.


and by the way amazon guy:

When the seller signed up to sell on Amazon he agreed to follow their listing guidelines and it's no different from a PayPal dispute or a credit card dispute where PayPal or the card issuer finds in favor of the consumer.

PayPal and all credit card companies require the return of the merchandise is one is attempting to dispute the charges. So, if you want to base your actions on PayPal or any of the credit card companies, you need to return the merchandise.

 

[BL]

did I miss something in this thread? I couldn't find any such statement although I will admit OP's writing is a bit droll so I might have missed it.


and by the way amazon guy:

PayPal and all credit card companies require the return of the merchandise is one is attempting to dispute the charges. So, if you want to base your actions on PayPal or any of the credit card companies, you need to return the merchandise.

# 39 . It wasn't a long post either so it wasn't buried.

 

[BL]

. I have seen nothing to show that is mandated by the A-Z Guarantee as imposed on the seller the buyer has the right to retain the property. Others have shown information contradicting that idea.

Please correct me if you can find something different.

Ya see stevef, the money is not the issue here. The buyer retaining the property once he has been reimbursed is the concern. At that point, barring a contractual action imposed on the seller, the buyer is obligated to return the item (although shipping cost would likely be born by the seller given the claimed misrepresentation) if the seller so desires its return. Failing to return the item would be conversion.

< lightbulb > Per post # 39 ,the seller wanted the buyer to pay return shipping AND insure the item too , as I stated .

Seller lost and loses.

 

[justalayman]

< lightbulb > Per post # 39 ,the seller wanted the buyer to pay return shipping AND insure the item too , as I stated .

Seller lost and loses.

Yes, the third page, post 39. Don't know how I overlooked it.


That in itself does not make OP the winner. It would depend on what happened after that. Besides that, we don't know if OP had disposed of the item by that time which would make a difference in sellers claim as well. If OP had disposed of the item prior to that demand, OP loses. If OP had not, then it all depends on the communication after that.

 

[BL]

Yes, the third page, post 39. Don't know how I overlooked it.


That in itself does not make OP the winner. It would depend on what happened after that. Besides that, we don't know if OP had disposed of the item by that time which would make a difference in sellers claim as well. If OP had disposed of the item prior to that demand, OP loses. If OP had not, then it all depends on the communication after that.

Well I'm about done with this thread. I have read this thread.Once the A-Z Amazon claim has been decided it it's finality the case is closed.

Buyer said he received a letter of threat to sue.

That's all we know and that's what I have based my replies by.

 

[justalayman]

Once the A-Z Amazon claim has been decided it it's finality the case is closed.
.

I am still waiting for anybody to prove that. Yapping about it is meaningless. Show me something in print on the Amazon site.

 

[utmostpriority]

I am also about to be done with this thread

Well I'm about done with this thread. I have read this thread.Once the A-Z Amazon claim has been decided it it's finality the case is closed.

Buyer said he received a letter of threat to sue.

That's all we know and that's what I have based my replies by.

All who have contributed to this thread has argued for their own thought about this case.
And I am sorry if I have offended anyone except the original poster.
But, I can't still see any honesty from the part of the OP.

Anyway, I believe that it is morally and ethically right for the buyer to return the camera to the seller, even if there has been a bit of cold war between them, since the buyer got his money back.
I wish everything would go well for both parties.

 

[Proseguru]

Ignore the guy's letter is my advice. Do not contact him any further. Do not post anything more regarding your potential case as it may be used against you in court.