> Guy buys an widget from me at the end of July ($120 sale, vintage
electronic
> item, about 20 years old). The auction listed the item as being in
> functional condition , because.... it worked. I tested it myself, and also
> had a minor repair professionally done prior to sale, and it was given a
> good chek-over when it was getting repaired. The repair shop even
commented
> on the excellent condition of it... The item was also sold as-is however,
> because it is 20 years old, and it was clearly marked as an "as-is" sale,
in
> a normal font, no trickery with tiny fonts or legal-ese, or anything like
> that.

> He paid for the item on Aug 9th, (money order), I shipped it out to him
the
> same day, it got to his place on the 12th according to the tracking info.
On
> the 20th, he gives me a positive feedback, saying he's more then happy
with
> the item (this was 8 days after it arrived), I respond with a positive
> feedback, saying he made prompt payment, good communication, etc...

> On the 27th (15 days after he received the item), he emails me and tells
me
> the widget isn't working properly, and he's taken it in to a repair shop.
> They've told him it needs $160 worth of repairs for a worn component. (a
> beta vcr "head")

> I emailed him back, and explained that I was perplexed that this problem
has
> arised, as I'd tested the item myself, and found it to be working fine,
and
> also had it professionally serviced prior to sale, and I couldn't
understand
> how the head could have suddenly become worn in the span of less then a
> month. (He tells me that it's impossible to see anything on the screen,
but
> there was no issue when it was here...) I explained the item was sold
as-is,
> however if he sends me a copy of the invoice, I'd take it to the shop
where
> I had the widget refurbished, and ask them for any suggestions, and try to
> come to an amicable agreement.

> He emailed me again, saying that I had a "legal responsibility", and was
> "legally liable" to either fix his widget or refund all of his money
> (including shipping),  or he'd go to eBay or Squaretrade. I'm still trying
> to be helpfull at this point, but this email really rubbed me the wrong
way.
> I explained clearly that the widget was sold as-is, and was functioning
when
> sold, and must have been functioning for at least some period of time
after
> he got it, because he left positive feedback explaining how happy he was
> with it 8 days after receiving the item. I again offered to show the
invoice
> to the shop where I had the item refurbished for suggestions. I also
> explained that I'd be more then happy to allow squaretrade to mediate the
> issue.

> He emailed me back with this "No further communication is necessary as it
is
> a waste of my time and yours. I will file complaints with both Ebay and
> Square Trade.  In my view your actions are fraudulent and I will proceed
> accordingly."

> I don't care about him complaining to eBay or squaretrade, I don't feel
I've
> done anything wrong, and I've tried to be helpfull with this guy; in fact
if
> he'd had a different attitude, I'd have offered a discount of some sort at
> the very least, or send him a replacement part if I could source one at a
> reasonable price, regardless of the fact the auction was as-is, and it's
> been in his house for half a month. I don't want anyone to get burned on a
> buy, but I also don't know what this guy has done to the widget in the
half
> month he's had it.  What *really* pisses me off is this guy saying my
> actions are fraudulent.

> Sigh... What to do, What to do....