Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Mal1905, a seller can be trust.
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:04 pm    Post subject: Mal1905, a seller can be trust. Reply with quote

Absolute a good seller. Package didn't arrive and refund the money through PayPal.

Last edited by lawlaichiu on Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:27 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ive dealt with mal and found him to be honest and pretty quick and responsive. i do think he travels a fair amount. also, dont know if youre in u.s., but if so, international shipments to here have been greatly delayed since the bomb was found on the fedex plane. its not unusual for it to takes 4-6 weeks now...


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even if this delay is normal to USA at this time, Mal did refund buyer money already , which is a mistake in my opinion. Mal also did report buyer did contact only once to him right after his purchase. I look forward buyer report once he will get this lens , buyer should refund Mal's money.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:20 am    Post subject: Re: Mal1905, BAD SELLER? Last Post got deleted Reply with quote

lawlaichiu wrote:
Tried to E-mail him, no response.


Lawlaichiu, Mal says that he only received one email from you, on the day of purchase.
Please note that if what you wrote above is not true, it's serious. We don't like untrue statements about other members.

Orio
admin.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For what it's worth, I've refunded the money for this lens. The PayPal acknowledgement of transferred funds is available for any who wish to see it...


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



This is the E-mail between me and mal.
Don't know what is happening but miscommunication.
Sorry for opening this post. I will correct the title right now.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Even if this delay is normal to USA at this time, Mal did refund buyer money already , which is a mistake in my opinion. Mal also did report buyer did contact only once to him right after his purchase. I look forward buyer report once he will get this lens , buyer should refund Mal's money.

Will return back the money if it comes up.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lawlaichiu wrote:
Attila wrote:
Even if this delay is normal to USA at this time, Mal did refund buyer money already , which is a mistake in my opinion. Mal also did report buyer did contact only once to him right after his purchase. I look forward buyer report once he will get this lens , buyer should refund Mal's money.

Will return back the money if it comes up.


We did understood why did your open this thread , no problem.

I hope finally you will get the lens and Mail get back his money and finally will see a happy end, finger crossed!


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
lawlaichiu wrote:
Attila wrote:
Even if this delay is normal to USA at this time, Mal did refund buyer money already , which is a mistake in my opinion. Mal also did report buyer did contact only once to him right after his purchase. I look forward buyer report once he will get this lens , buyer should refund Mal's money.

Will return back the money if it comes up.


Good , thank you!

Although I am new here, doesn't mean I cannot be trust. I know mal being here for a long time. In this case, if you don't know mal or me, what will you think. In the thread, I only tell my situation, package didn't arrive, no response from seller. Lens bought from the same time arrived 3 weeks ago already which came from Poland and another Europe country. If you guys have your own "Buyer Sources", why opening a real Buyer Sources?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lawlaichiu wrote:
Attila wrote:
lawlaichiu wrote:
Attila wrote:
Even if this delay is normal to USA at this time, Mal did refund buyer money already , which is a mistake in my opinion. Mal also did report buyer did contact only once to him right after his purchase. I look forward buyer report once he will get this lens , buyer should refund Mal's money.

Will return back the money if it comes up.


Good , thank you!

Although I am new here, doesn't mean I cannot be trust. I know mal being here for a long time. In this case, if you don't know mal or me, what will you think. In the thread, I only tell my situation, package didn't arrive, no response from seller. Lens bought from the same time arrived 3 weeks ago already which came from Poland and another Europe country. If you guys have your own "Buyer Sources", why opening a real Buyer Sources?


This rude comment wasn't necessary if we don't have 'real buyer sources' you can't post anything here ! Some of us simple delete your post immediately with your account! It is didn't happened we left your post here for days , and delete your account when you did start to flooding forum with one words posts to reach 100 posts and entry to MFL Club and even this 'rude' behavior I did gave your a second chance to register your self again and open this thread , even if I did trust 100% in Mal, because we have real 'Buyer Sources' !

Think about 2x before post similar things like this.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lawlaichiu, I understand your feeling. I hope packet will arrived soon. so You send back refund.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It has to be mentioned that it was very generous of Mal to refund so quickly.
If there is no insurance chosen on the package, the seller does not need to refund at all!

If I sell a lens and the buyer does not want an insured shipping (although I always insist on an insurance!), I would not refund anything if the package gets lost.

If something gets lost on the way, it's not the responsibility of the seller.
The buyer has to take the risk if he does not want an insurance.

If the package was sent with an insurance, that's a different case.

But even then everybody needs to accept a certain period for sending. I have had cases where my package needed two months to get to the destination!


PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

is the British postal service known to be not all that reliable?
recently had an issue of an item sent within the U.K. not arriving ( not insured, it was a cheap item, and thus not refunded.)


PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
It has to be mentioned that it was very generous of Mal to refund so quickly.


I don't want to talk about Mal since I am not familiar with his situation. However I would like to discuss a couple of matters - at least as far as they relate to UK sellers.

Quote:
If there is no insurance chosen on the package, the seller does not need to refund at all!


Notwithstanding any moral obligations on the part of a seller, the relevant UK Act of Parliament states ...

It is the duty of the seller to deliver the goods ...

Many people take the view that delivery does not simply mean handing an item to the Post Office or other courier. Until the buyer has the item in his or her hands the item has not been delivered. If the item is not delivered there is a dispute, between the buyer and the seller, for non-delivery. The UK Act of Parliament states that...

The buyer may sue for non delivery
and
The buyer may sue to recover any money paid to the seller.

If the non-delivery is due to the failure of the Post Office or other third part then there may be a dispute between it and the seller. However the resposibility for obtaining recompense (if any) cannot be transferred to the buyer.

Quote:
If I sell a lens and the buyer does not want an insured shipping (although I always insist on an insurance!), I would not refund anything if the package gets lost.

If something gets lost on the way, it's not the responsibility of the seller.
The buyer has to take the risk if he does not want an insurance.


Here the rights of the buyer, at least as they exist in the UK, are being removed. Under another UK Act of Parliament this is illegal. A buyer cannot agree to terms which remove his or her rights. Or, if he or she does, those terms are not enforcible.

Of course I am not a lawyer and you can find completely contrary positions at various websites. And things might be different in Germany and elswhere. However I would urge UK sellers to act with caution.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what's legal and illegal -- hmm - that is a difficult question

I really like "parliamentary statements" - hehe I think every country in this globe suffers from such a statements Smile

there are many cases that legally allow you to use illegal force - weird, isn't? Confused

Never mind --

1 - Mal has issued a refund
2 - the buyer has stopped accusing Mal from being not responsive

so what?

all is between Mal and buyer.

this thread need to be locked (?)

tf


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd agree with sichko, with one important caveat. There is a big difference between a "professional" seller and a casual seller. We can write pages about the difference and the limits between one and the other. But someone who advertises on eBay as PowerSeller, or has a profile with thousands of transactions a year (as a seller) is hardly casual in my mind and in that case, yes, I don't agree with the "it's not me, it's the Post Office"...

Specifically on Mal: I wrote it already, I had one transaction with him and it went OK, whether communication, delivery, ad, etc. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the matter is not as John puts it down.
Anyway it's too long to debate and does not really belong to this thread.
Which - I agree with Stan - now must be locked. Which I do.