My thoughts:
First, "chomping at the bit" is as correct as "champing".
Second, I come down on the side that believes the auction house here was being deceptive and I think it was intentional. I can't fathom that they would not have a company standard as to the DPI card scans should be. The fact that the scans in this auction are so much smaller than those in other auctions tells me they were being intentionally deceptive with their choice of scan size. Yes, it takes longer to do a larger scan - a could seconds at the absolute most. Choosing a smaller scan is deceptive.
Third, I think the auction house should have offered a full refund and no other options. I just fundamentally don't believe in partial refunds.
Fourth, I absolutely do NOT agree that the buyer had any obligation to ask for a better deception or larger scan.
Ch.ris Ta.bar
Last edited by Leon; 12-08-2013 at 08:07 AM.
Reason: added name per rules
|