Thus far, I’ve shared some pretty magnificent examples of eBay eDiots, most of whom screw themselves over by not doing a bare minimal amount of research (i.e.: reading the item description) and then use insanity to control reality. Most of the time, I’ve managed to escape the black hole of their ignorance relatively unscathed, with only some negative feedback or a minor refund involved. However, even with the best efforts, you can’t win them all. Our next example is the very personification of the eBay eDiot and her journey through irrationality wherein she somehow emerged victorious.

It started out with the purchase of a Nerf brand electronic target board. I had been finding the things at thrift stores, so I decided to try and sell one on Amazon. The problem, or rather an incidental, was the item was supposed to come with a Nerf gun, which I didn’t have. Figuring that anyone who buys the item would want it for the target board, I put in the item description that it didn’t have a gun, but I would send a replacement free of charge. If the fact that the price was half that of a new unit and the item condition was set at the lowest possible setting, I didn’t think there would be any problems. So the item sold and shipped.

A few weeks later, I received a nasty e-mail from S. Crudo informing me that the item was not up to her expectations and she demanded the situation be taken care of, or else. She told me that the included gun was a “cheap imitation” and listed more information about it than necessary, as if I had no idea that there was a “cheap imitation” in the package and the real gun was taken by the evil dart gun fairies en route.

Clearly, she committed the usual eBay eDiot sin of not reading the item description and then taking the not-in-new-condition item as an affront to her. I e-mailed her the item description and gave her the usually offer of sending the item back for a 50% refund, since it was her fault.

Of course, the burden of guilt couldn’t take hold, and S. Crudo couldn’t comprehend that she was the one who did something boneheaded. She angrily rejected the offer and asked if I “was out of my mind,” and told me she was contacting Amazon. Things started getting a little nastier from here. You can view most of the correspondence between S. Crudo, myself, and Amazon here. If you want to follow along, feel free, or you can read the entire thing at once.

So an A-z Claim was filed against me. Keep in mind her only complaint was the part about the gun not being the right one. It’s this fact that makes the work of fiction S. Crudo produced even more fantastic, and makes the final results of this conflict all the more aggravating.

The claim stated that she ordered a new item, but received an “old defective and used item,” a tall tale that was not mentioned at all in any e-mail and doesn’t even mention the real problem. She also threw in the bit about me ripping her off with the refund after maliciously sending her an inferior item to garnish her fairy tale. I responded with a lengthy letter stating that the item was what was promised and justified the other claims. When you stack up my letter next to S. Crudo’s rant, the case should have been in my favor. After all, I had won a claim regarding a missing shipment, so a claim involving a stupid customer who developed temporary illiteracy should be no problem, right?

While this was going on, S. Crudo sent me a somewhat apologetic letter in an attempt to sound less insane. She still didn’t get how Amazon worked, and clung to the fact that the stock photo should show the exact item she’s getting. She shared a sob story about how her son got a gift certificate and is now disappointed; shame on me for ruining his childhood! She justified her mistake on inexperience, an excuse I wasn’t going to let fly. She concluded by questioning my fees and integrity.

So what we have here is a fault on Amazon’s part, since buyers have no way of checking the item descriptions after they pay up; a problem I’ve run into before. I responded with another long letter, which, among other things, explained the fees, the workings of Amazon, and how it isn’t a seller’s responsibility to take losses until the buyer gets with the program. Despite my resolution, I offered to cut the fees in half in order to encourage her S. Crudo to keep using Amazon, hoping that she had learned her lesson.

My feelings of self-righteousness, however, took a severe hit when Amazon announced its decision in the matter: I was in the wrong because they claimed what I was selling was a “partial model” or an older model, depending on which e-mail I was to follow. The idiocy here is many, many items on Amazon could be considered “partial models” if you were anal retentive enough. Any CD that’s missing its inserts or a book missing a dust jacket is technically a “partial model,” and yet these aren’t targeted. That’s why Amazon has an item description, which, as experience proves, is useless when foiled by clueless customers. They also stated that “it is not sufficient to list the differences in the comments,” which, to me, kind of defeats the purpose of having an item description. What also bugs me is Amazon used my own information against me, but it’s better than remaining silent or lying, which is what S. Crudo resorted to.

So Amazon decided, FOR MY CONVIENENCE, to refund all of S. Crudo’s money without warning. What bothers me is the part about the buyer not being required to send the item back, seeing how they got ripped off by an evil rogue seller. If you think about it, it would be fairly easy to order something expensive, and then file a false claim stating that the item differed from the listing, getting the item for free. I could have easily lied and said that the gun was the right one, a defense that might have worked better than being honest.

But I really have to give S. Crudo some credit, since she sent the item back at her own expense, and it appeared to be unused, which doesn’t support the claim that it was defective (how would she know unless she tried it out?), but at least I got it back to sell another day. She may be insane and a liar, but at least she’s not a thief.

So let this be a lesson to sellers who have A-z Claims against them: losing packages in the mail is good, but selling an item that isn’t complete is bad, even if the item description indicates this.