Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also added on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said "temporarily out of stock", but let me add it to the cart and purchase it.
Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera part of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item the size of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, I never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost of an item in shipping - I find it locally instead of paying more than that.
Ohioguy wrote: > Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went > back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus > ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but > that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also > added on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said > "temporarily out of stock", but let me add it to the cart and > purchase it. > Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera > part of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item > the size of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, I never, ever pay more than 50% of the > cost of an item in > shipping - I find it locally instead of paying more than that. > Do I have any recourse?
Worth telling them that story like that and see if they will do anything about it.
They may consider it too trivial to bother with tho.
>> Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went >> back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus >> ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but >> that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also >> added on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said >> "temporarily out of stock", but let me add it to the cart and >> purchase it.
>> Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera >> part of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item >> the size of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, I never, ever pay more than 50% of the >> cost of an item in >> shipping - I find it locally instead of paying more than that.
>> Do I have any recourse?
> Worth telling them that story like that and see if they will do anything about it.
> They may consider it too trivial to bother with tho.
Don't tell them a sob story. Nobody wants to hear that.
Just tell 'em you have no use for the card without the camera, and if they had contacted you when they canceled the camera you would have canceled the card too. Then politely tell them (don't ask) that you are returning the SD card and expect a full refund. If they give you any guff, you call the credit card company and have them issue a "charge back".
On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went > back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus > ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but > that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also added > on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said "temporarily out of > stock", but let me add it to the cart and purchase it.
> Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera part > of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item the size > of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, I > never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost of an item in shipping - I > find it locally instead of paying more than that.
> Do I have any recourse?
It sounds like you are posting prematurely or incompletely. Have you contacted them? Have they separately reinstated the camera order? Did you request that with no shipping? Boy, you sure have plenty of trouble with cameras.
On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went > back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus > ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but > that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also added > on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said "temporarily out of > stock", but let me add it to the cart and purchase it.
> Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera part > of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item the size > of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, I > never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost of an item in shipping - I > find it locally instead of paying more than that.
What would you have paid locally for an SD card? More than $20.98 plus sales tax?
Of course you have recourse. Complain to the company! When they cancelled the camera, they should have notified you and given you the option to redo your entire order. if they did not do so, then you should return the card at their postage expense (ask for aN RTV number) and tell them you want all the expense associated with the card refunded.
> Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went > back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus > ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but > that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also > added > on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said "temporarily > out of > stock", but let me add it to the cart and purchase it. > Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera > part > of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item the size > of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, > I > never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost of an item in shipping - I > find it locally instead of paying more than that. > Do I have any recourse?
##-----------------------------------------------## Delivered via http://www.spendwize.comhttp://www.spendwize.com/groups/ Consumer News and Discussions Platform of the Net Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup - misc.consumers.frugal-living - 38180 messages and counting! ##-----------------------------------------------##
Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote: > Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went > back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus > ship.
Yikes, they're 2.25 out of 10 on resellerratings.
> They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but > that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also added > on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said "temporarily out of > stock", but let me add it to the cart and purchase it.
> Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera part > of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item the size > of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, I > never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost of an item in shipping - I > find it locally instead of paying more than that.
> Do I have any recourse?
Enter a review for ecost on resellerratings.com and describe the problem. They have someone reading those and responding, but if their rating is already that low it may mean they're not too worried about keeping customers happy.
> In article <pisIm.3122$Sw5.2...@newsfe16.iad>, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> > wrote:
> > Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went > > back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus > > ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but > > that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also added > > on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said "temporarily out of > > stock", but let me add it to the cart and purchase it.
> > Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera part > > of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item the size > > of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, I > > never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost of an item in shipping - I > > find it locally instead of paying more than that.
> > Do I have any recourse?
> What response did you get when you contacted eCost.com with your > complaint?
This is OG. He usually leaves critical facts out of the post for some reason. I went to ecost and they had 500+ cameras at $100 or less and not a single one of them showed out of stock. How did OG even find one out of stock, much less pick that over hundreds others? He leaves us spinning our wheels by jumping to early conclusions.
> On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> > Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went > > back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus > > ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but > > that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also added > > on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said "temporarily out of > > stock", but let me add it to the cart and purchase it.
> > Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera part > > of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item the size > > of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, I > > never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost of an item in shipping - I > > find it locally instead of paying more than that.
> > Do I have any recourse?
> It sounds like you are posting prematurely or incompletely. > Have you contacted them? > Have they separately reinstated the camera order? Did you request that > with no shipping? > Boy, you sure have plenty of trouble with cameras.
He has trouble with everything.
I've never seen a person so inept at just about everything.
> On Nov 5, 11:35 am, Al <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> > > Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went > > > back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus > > > ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but > > > that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also added > > > on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said "temporarily out of > > > stock", but let me add it to the cart and purchase it.
> > > Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera part > > > of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item the size > > > of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. As a rule, I > > > never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost of an item in shipping - I > > > find it locally instead of paying more than that.
> > > Do I have any recourse?
> > It sounds like you are posting prematurely or incompletely. > > Have you contacted them? > > Have they separately reinstated the camera order? Did you request that > > with no shipping? > > Boy, you sure have plenty of trouble with cameras.
> He has trouble with everything.
> I've never seen a person so inept at just about everything.
And he never reveals the follow up where he ends up spending more than people who never try to save. He will try to bargain for 5-6 pepper seeds through the mail and blow $150 on a Windows XP that won't validate and so forth. It goes on and on and the other groups have fun with him too. At times he purports to be somewhat computer savvy and then he reveals a tremendous lack of knowledge of his own computer. He changes names on the various groups, but mistakenly left his complete name and address in one place. The story I liked best is where he defended his use of the newly purchased beat-up $500 Ford van for a long distance family vacation by saying someone told him that in a nuclear attack, the electronics on that old van would still somehow function. Fifteen people in this group almost had to go for emergency hernia surgery from laughing so hard.
Bc112 wrote: > On Nov 5, 11:35 am, Al <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
>>> Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I went >>> back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for $99 plus >>> ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a little high, but >>> that's only about 11% of the order total, so I figured ok. I also >>> added on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The camera said >>> "temporarily out of stock", but let me add it to the cart and >>> purchase it.
>>> Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the camera >>> part of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a $10 item >>> the size of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put it mildly. >>> As a rule, I never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost of an item >>> in shipping - I find it locally instead of paying more than that.
>>> Do I have any recourse?
>> It sounds like you are posting prematurely or incompletely. >> Have you contacted them? >> Have they separately reinstated the camera order? Did you request >> that with no shipping? >> Boy, you sure have plenty of trouble with cameras.
> He has trouble with everything.
> I've never seen a person so inept at just about everything.
He does appear to have worked out how to change houses quite effectively.
Assuming it doesnt all go pear shaped before he moves in, anyway.
Al wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:00 am, Bc112 <s200hondas...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 5, 11:35 am, Al <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
>>>> Recently, we had our ~1 year old digital camera stolen, so I >>>> went back to ecost.com, to purchase another refurbished one for >>>> $99 plus ship. They charge $10.99 for shipping. It seemed a >>>> little high, but that's only about 11% of the order total, so I >>>> figured ok. I also added on a 4GB class 6 SD card for $9.99 The >>>> camera said "temporarily out of stock", but let me add it to the >>>> cart and purchase it.
>>>> Well, they decided to ship the SD card, and cancelled the >>>> camera part of my order. Now I have evidently paid $11 to ship a >>>> $10 item the size of a postage stamp. I'm rather annoyed, to put >>>> it mildly. As a rule, I never, ever pay more than 50% of the cost >>>> of an item in shipping - I find it locally instead of paying more >>>> than that.
>>>> Do I have any recourse?
>>> It sounds like you are posting prematurely or incompletely. >>> Have you contacted them? >>> Have they separately reinstated the camera order? Did you request >>> that with no shipping? >>> Boy, you sure have plenty of trouble with cameras.
>> He has trouble with everything.
>> I've never seen a person so inept at just about everything. > And he never reveals the follow up where he ends > up spending more than people who never try to save.
He did with the house change.
> He will try to bargain for 5-6 pepper > seeds through the mail and blow $150 on a Windows XP that won't > validate and so forth. It goes on and on and the other groups have fun > with him too. At times he purports to be somewhat computer savvy and > then he reveals a tremendous lack of knowledge of his own computer. > He changes names on the various groups, but mistakenly left his > complete name and address in one place. The story I liked best is > where he defended his use of the newly purchased beat-up $500 Ford van > for a long distance family vacation by saying someone told him that in > a nuclear attack, the electronics on that old van would still somehow > function. Fifteen people in this group almost had to go for emergency > hernia surgery from laughing so hard.
>Have you contacted them? >Have they separately reinstated the camera order? Did you request that
Yes, I contacted them at the appropriate email address about my issue. I explained that, without a camera, I have no use for the card. After 3 days, I have heard nothing back other than the automated email they send out to let you know they got your email...
> I've never seen a person so inept at just about everything.
That's because most people try to "hide" their mistakes. Sort of like how people brag about it when they do well in the stock market, but don't mention it to people when they lose money on a stock.
Rather than hiding mine, I enjoy writing, learning and hearing the opinions of others on how they would deal with a similar situation.
Ohioguy wrote: > >Have you contacted them? > >Have they separately reinstated the camera order? Did you request that
> Yes, I contacted them at the appropriate email address about my > issue. I explained that, without a camera, I have no use for the card. > After 3 days, I have heard nothing back other than the automated email > they send out to let you know they got your email...
Most companies (in my experience) ignore emails. You will get much better results calling them on the phone, or sometimes by using the "online chat" link on their webpage.
He will try to bargain for 5-6 pepper seeds through the mail and blow $150 on a Windows XP that won't validate and so forth.
I try to bargain on EVERYTHING. If you don't try, you always end up paying retail. Yes, I have been involved in trading seeds online. Many times, I have helped out people who want seeds I have, and I've avoided having to pay for new seeds myself. It's called the barter system.
Regarding the Windows XP, it actually didn't NEED to validate. It was evidently a corporate version of XP Professional that was meant to be installed on many computers. I bought it for an amount that I thought was legit, but it turned out to be a pirate copy. Tried to get a refund, but the guys who sold it to me were long gone. It actually worked out fine, though - I often upgrade my hardware, and my understanding is that a regular copy of Windows XP will assume you backed it up and installed it on a new PC if too many changes are made. I avoided all of that, since the XP Pro didn't care. Plus, when I preordered Windows 7 upgrade for $53 shipped at Best Buy recently, it didn't care that my old XP Pro wasn't legit - it allowed me to do a full install of Windows 7 Home Premium.
> At times he purports to be somewhat computer savvy and Well, at one time I did have a pretty good understanding of DOS and Windows '95. I even got my CompTIA A+ certificate as part of my tech support job at Systemax. However, things keep changing, and it is difficult to keep up with all of the changes all the time.
>then he reveals a tremendous lack of knowledge of his own computer. Revealing a lack of knowledge is how people learn - by asking questions. The alternative would be acting like a know-it-all, and rarely learning. I prefer the former.
>He changes names on the various groups, but mistakenly left his >complete name and address in one place. Actually, I've gone by OhioGuy for several years, and intend to keep doing so. When I initially changed ISP's a while back, I may have posted a couple of times with another one, but I can't really remember. Anyway, I used to simply use my email address, but I started getting WAY too much spam. Yes, I did post my whole name and address at one point, but that will be out of date in about 6 weeks, after we move. All I can say is that for a minute, I regressed to an earlier age, when I wasn't worried about spammers & such.
> saying someone told him that in a nuclear attack, the electronics on >that old van would still somehow function.
interesting read here: http://www.futurescience.com/emp.html <excerpt> "In the old Dark Angel television series, an EMP attack is supposed to have occurred on June 1, 2009, and the vehicles appear to be mostly pre-1980 and post-2009 models. There is a good reason for this. Many conventional gasoline vehicles produced since around 1980 may not function after an EMP attack due to their dependence upon electronics. This would obviously produce a huge problem for the United States after an EMP attack. Merely moving disabled vehicles off the road would be a major undertaking. Disabled traffic lights would add to the traffic problems."
Now, granted, I don't know for CERTAIN that this thing would still run - it depends a lot on where the warheads strike. For example, if they strike close, the van and I would be vaporized, so no, the van wouldn't run. However, my argument was mostly from the standpoint that the van is much simpler and more durable than most of today's vehicles. Since it was put together in 1968, it has no computer chips or small electronics that it depends on. Many things that are done electrically in newer vehicles, such as the windows and locks, are done manually on the van.
>I went to ecost and they had 500+ cameras at $100 or less and not a >single one of them showed out of stock. How did OG even find one out >of stock, much less pick that over hundreds others?
Sure, they have PLENTY of cheap cameras, but I wanted the same thing that we had previously. I use the camera to take photos to go along with the articles I submit to magazines, and often I get paid an extra $50-$100 if I include photos they can use along with the article.
However, I can't just use any cheap camera. Most of the sub-$100 cameras I see don't have anything close to the 10x optical zoom that lets me get decent photos of things that don't happen to be very close to me. The Fujifilm Finepix S700 is one of the less expensive cameras I've found that offers what I need. Most of what I need is a good optical zoom. However, I'm also used to the intuitive controls on the S700 after using it for more than a year, so it is worth it for me to try to find a refurb unit that I can get an extended warranty on. The fact that the entire zoom apparatus is enclosed on this camera is also a big plus, because I can use filters and other lenses, much like a more expensive SLR camera.
On Nov 7, 11:21 am, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> >Have you contacted them? > >Have they separately reinstated the camera order? Did you request that
> Yes, I contacted them at the appropriate email address about my > issue. I explained that, without a camera, I have no use for the card. > After 3 days, I have heard nothing back other than the automated email > they send out to let you know they got your email...
Their terms say that they have 30 days to complete an order so three days is not sufficient. They also say they do not guarantee that items will be in stock. If they don't fix it, I agree you got screwed and should cancel the charge on your credit card.
I appreciate your coming back with answers to all the questions and comments. Many people don't have the gumption to do that.
> He will try to bargain for 5-6 pepper seeds through the mail and blow > $150 on a Windows XP that won't validate and so forth.
> I try to bargain on EVERYTHING. If you don't try, you always end up > paying retail. Yes, I have been involved in trading seeds online. Many > times, I have helped out people who want seeds I have, and I've avoided > having to pay for new seeds myself. It's called the barter system.
> Regarding the Windows XP, it actually didn't NEED to validate. It > was evidently a corporate version of XP Professional that was meant to > be installed on many computers. I bought it for an amount that I > thought was legit, but it turned out to be a pirate copy. Tried to get > a refund, but the guys who sold it to me were long gone. It actually > worked out fine, though - I often upgrade my hardware, and my > understanding is that a regular copy of Windows XP will assume you > backed it up and installed it on a new PC if too many changes are made. > I avoided all of that, since the XP Pro didn't care. Plus, when I > preordered Windows 7 upgrade for $53 shipped at Best Buy recently, it > didn't care that my old XP Pro wasn't legit - it allowed me to do a full > install of Windows 7 Home Premium.
> > At times he purports to be somewhat computer savvy and > Well, at one time I did have a pretty good understanding of DOS and > Windows '95. I even got my CompTIA A+ certificate as part of my tech > support job at Systemax. However, things keep changing, and it is > difficult to keep up with all of the changes all the time.
> >then he reveals a tremendous lack of knowledge of his own computer. > Revealing a lack of knowledge is how people learn - by asking > questions. The alternative would be acting like a know-it-all, and > rarely learning. I prefer the former.
> >He changes names on the various groups, but mistakenly left his > >complete name and address in one place. > Actually, I've gone by OhioGuy for several years, and intend to keep > doing so. When I initially changed ISP's a while back, I may have > posted a couple of times with another one, but I can't really remember. > Anyway, I used to simply use my email address, but I started getting > WAY too much spam. Yes, I did post my whole name and address at one > point, but that will be out of date in about 6 weeks, after we move. > All I can say is that for a minute, I regressed to an earlier age, when > I wasn't worried about spammers & such.
> > saying someone told him that in a nuclear attack, the electronics on > >that old van would still somehow function.
> interesting read here:http://www.futurescience.com/emp.html > <excerpt> > "In the old Dark Angel television series, an EMP attack is supposed to > have occurred on June 1, 2009, and the vehicles appear to be mostly > pre-1980 and post-2009 models. There is a good reason for this. Many > conventional gasoline vehicles produced since around 1980 may not > function after an EMP attack due to their dependence upon electronics. > This would obviously produce a huge problem for the United States after > an EMP attack. Merely moving disabled vehicles off the road would be a > major undertaking. Disabled traffic lights would add to the traffic > problems."
> Now, granted, I don't know for CERTAIN that this thing would still > run - it depends a lot on where the warheads strike. For example, if > they strike close, the van and I would be vaporized, so no, the van > wouldn't run. However, my argument was mostly from the standpoint that > the van is much simpler and more durable than most of today's vehicles. > Since it was put together in 1968, it has no computer chips or small > electronics that it depends on. Many things that are done electrically > in newer vehicles, such as the windows and locks, are done manually on > the van.
As I stated elsewhere, I appreciate you coming back to answer comments. Some of your answers are clearly not true though. You have posted under many many names. This is how I spotted your complete name and address. And how dumb could you possibly be to think your NEW address would not be a matter of public record? You are not exactly in the witness protection program. I don't give a crap who you are. I'm just saying you act and post without thinking or knowing sometimes. Defending the 1968 van is really not that funny after the tenth time either.
