On Sunday, 18 November 2012 14:30:08 UTC, steve robinson wrote:
> Doctor Dave wrote: > On Sunday, 18 November 2012 02:35:02 UTC, drkirkby wrote: > > I bought a reconditioned item of electronic test equipment off of > > eBay from a very large international company (multi-billion > > dollar). This was a personal purchase, for personal use, and was > > not going to be used by any company. They have offices in the UK, > > US, Germany etc. The item was expensive. The price agreed was > > $17,736. The seller wanted me to use Paypal, even though I did not > > want to. The amount I had to pay Paypal was £11,463.74, so I got an > > exchange rate of 1.547 USD = 1 GBP. The Paypal transaction was > > funded from my bank account - not a credit or debit card. The goods > > arrives some 4 weeks later, and were faulty. I was told they needed > > to be repaired, and but there were also other firmware bugs on this > > instrument, which I did not think were going to get fixed. Anyway, > > I said to the seller the goods were not fit for purpose, and wanted > > a refund, to which they have agreed. The good were returned by UPS, > > and arrived 57 days days after the Paypal transaction had been > > made. By the time the seller had processed the return, this > > exceeded the 60 day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be > > cancelled. So the Paypal transaction can't be cancelled. Virtually > > all communicaation about this matter has been with the UK offices > > of the company. All emails come from the UK and are sent to the UK. > > Staff from the UK office have phoned me about the refund. A few > > days ago I got this from them. > > > ================================================= > > Dear David, Please be advised that our Accounts payable have > > confirmed that the refund payment can be made directly in GBP to > > your bank account. XXXXXX conversion rate for Nov’12 is 1.61078 > > (1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP). This would mean the you will receive a > > transfer of 11,010.84 GBP, and so would not incur any currency > > conversion bank charges ( $17,736.05 $ in GBP 11,010.84.). > > > ==================================================== > > The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct > > result of the good not being fit for purpose. Do I have any chance > > of taking action over this? If so, one what grounds? I suspect if > > it was sent to the small claims track of the court, the seller > > would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal fees would > > be more than £452.90, though given the size of the company, I > > expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid > > anyway, whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk. I've had > > zero control over the currency conversion fees. The company said > > they wanted me to use Paypal, so I have no control over that rate > > of 1 GBP = 1.547 USD. I have no control over their conversion > > rate. Where they get 1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP I don't know. For what > > it is worth, looking at historical data at xe.com, there has been > > negligable (< 0.001%) change in the $ vs pound on the days the > > payment was made to paypal, and the date they are using for the > > interest rate calculation. I feel since the goods were faulty, I > > should not be have to incur losses. Do I have any hope? > > > Dave > > There appears to be a reasonable body of opinion here stating the > view that you have been put back in the position that you were prior > to the contract and so that is the end of the matter. > > I however would pursue this further. This loss is an easily > forseeable result of their breach of contract and so I would be > pursuing them down those lines. > > The fact that they insisted you pay through PayPal and in dollars is > neither here nor there as you knew that when you entered into the > contract and so agreed to it. I would argue on the basis of the > point in the paragraph above (although jurisdiction and so on > unboubtedly complicate things). > > It is the sort of thing that is worth a punt for a litigant in > person. Might they argue that it was a B2B transaction? It is > highly unusual for individuals to purchase this sort of test > equipment themselves. > What breech of contract, the equipment was reconditioned they from my
> reading of the post were happy to correct any faults (something yuo can
> expect on second hand kit) the op never gave them the opportunity to remedy
> the situation instead requesting a refund which they complied with . The op
> recinded the contract
The breach resulting from the goods being unfit for the purpose for which they were sold. This was a product from a large multi-national. They therefore had a catalogue with easily accessible specifications for this item.
Presumably the OP used this specification when deciding that the item ought to have been suitable for his needs and more importantly, the vendor did not advise that the equipment being sold was subject to a different one. It seems that the OP subsequently discovered that the delivered item did not meet the published specification. We don't actually know what the fault was of course but I am assuming it was a substantial failing.
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 10:50:07 PM UTC, Doctor Dave wrote:
> Presumably the OP used this specification when deciding that the item ought to have been suitable for his needs and more importantly, the vendor did not advise that the equipment being sold was subject to a different one. It seems that the OP subsequently discovered that the delivered item did not meet the published specification. We don't actually know what the fault was of course but I am assuming it was a substantial failing.
Serious errors were reported by the system
* VCO1 unlocked
* ADC2 overloaded
A voltsge controlled oscillator (VCO) should not go unlocked. There is nothing I should have been able to do to cause that. An analgoue to digital converter (ADC) should never be overloaded unless one puts a signal into the VNA that is too large. But I got this error with no signal connected to the VNA.
The company selling this product, which someone else has worked out the exact make and model, believe that is a hardware fault, and the system board probably needs replacing. To quote from a support person in the control where this is manufactured.
=====================================================
Please have your unit send to Agilent UK for investigation. I suspect the system board may be causing the intermittent problem. If there's a repair needed, we will replace the board for you at free of charge.
So this portable vector network analyzer almost certainly had a hardware fault, for which I was advised to send it for repair. Bear in mind, I'd had the item only about 1-2 weeks.
Before this problem, there were various other problems.
* The specifications of the unit say it can be connected to a computer. A cable to connect it to the computer is provided. * When I wanted to enter data on a calibration kit, I was told I would need to connect it to a computer. I was advised the version of firmware in my unit was probably 5.51, and I should not update to 6.02 as it would stop working with a computer. But my unit was shipped with version 6.02, so in the state shipped, it would not connect to a computer, despite that being in the spec. * When I downgraded the firmware to an older version, as suggested by the support staff, one of the options I'd paid around $2500 would not work. I was told this was due to the firmware being too old.
So in many ways, this did not meet the specification when shipped to me.
* It would not connect to a computer - despite that being a feature. A feature one would expect of any test equipment costing this much money. * Error message, about ADCs overloading and VCOs going unlocked, were believed by the manufacturer to be hardware errors, which meant it needed repair. * Lots of firmware bugs I reported, too numerous to mention. * Given the cost, the market that this is aimed at, I felt it was unacceptable.
So when I say "fit for purpose", I do not mean it was simply unfit for what I wanted to do wtih it. It was unfit for *any* in that the errors often made any mesurements impossible. It did not meeth the spec of being able to connect to a computer.
Is that fairly clear that the problems were more than me being over-picky.
A typical radio ham does not have a lot of the things I play with. Whereas some might like to go to an amateur radio shop and spend £10,000 on a transceiver, personally I get more enjoyment from using older ones, and spening similar money on test equipment for my hobby.
> and the disputed amount, as distinct from the
> transaction amount, is far less than the ceiling for the small claims track
> but for reasons of complexity I also doubt it would proceed in that track.
Thank you.
> > What does thier contract say , if your buying from abroad you expect
> > currency transfer costs you chose to buy from the USA
> From Dave's remarks I guess this was the reconditioned FieldFox sold by
> A typical radio ham does not have a lot of the things I play with.
> Whereas some might like to go to an amateur radio shop and spend
> £10,000 on a transceiver, personally I get more enjoyment from using
> older ones, and spening similar money on test equipment for my hobby.
> > and the disputed amount, as distinct from the
> > transaction amount, is far less than the ceiling for the small
> > claims track
> > but for reasons of complexity I also doubt it would proceed in that
> > track.
> Thank you.
> > > What does thier contract say , if your buying from abroad you
> > > expect
> > > currency transfer costs you chose to buy from the USA
> > From Dave's remarks I guess this was the reconditioned FieldFox
> > sold by
The eBay account for their shop says the member location is "United States", if that helps. Also, on the item they mention that shipping to the USA is free, and for "International" subject to quotation.
-- Roland Perry
7e. Disputes arising in connection with these Terms will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
7g. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods will not apply to these Terms.
However, I don't recall it saying that on the auction I won.
I have received a "Sales order Acknowledgement" from Agilent UK, in which there is nothing about it subject to US law. Here it is in full. Note there is no quoation number listed - that section is blank.
In message <a21d2111-717d-4c0f-8239-af6d2ddb545d@googlegroups.com>, at 10:05:02 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012, drkirkby <drkir...@gmail.com> remarked:
>If you read it, the item was located in Malasia, not the USA.
That's not relevant to which country the sale took place. It's a bit of eBay consumer protectionism to make it clear to buyers how long shipping might take, and whether there might be customs/duty issues.
fwiw the last thing I bought on eBay (a cellphone battery) said it would be shipped from China, but in fact came from Derbyshire with a UK postage 'stamp'. The thing before that really did come from China, and only took a week.
-- Roland Perry
On Nov 18, 6:19 pm, "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
wrote:
> drkirkby wrote:
> > The seller knew it was going to the UK, and in fact charged 20% VAT
> They can do that if they have a UK VAT number many international
> companies do this
> > on the purchase price. I was initially concerned about this, but they
> > assured me the VAT would be paid in advance, and quickly cleared
> > through customs, without me paying again.
> If they hadnt paid the vat yuo would have recieved a bill
And would have had a whole lot more grief in reclaiming the VAT?
On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:40:08 AM UTC, Man at B&Q wrote:
> On Nov 18, 6:19 pm, "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > drkirkby wrote:
> > > The seller knew it was going to the UK, and in fact charged 20% VAT
> > They can do that if they have a UK VAT number many international
> > companies do this
> > > on the purchase price. I was initially concerned about this, but they
> > > assured me the VAT would be paid in advance, and quickly cleared
> > > through customs, without me paying again.
> > If they hadnt paid the vat yuo would have recieved a bill
> And would have had a whole lot more grief in reclaiming the VAT?
> MBQ
Perhaps though, I would have been better off. The VAT can be reclaimed (I've done it before), and at least I would not have lost as much, as whatever losses I have incurred, are 20% higher than they would be if I reclaimed all the VAT. I've lost on the currency difference of the VAT.
I'm still puzzled if this is really covered by US laws. Agilent might have a hard time producing any evidence I'd agreed to a set of conditions on the eBay web site which are no longer there. I've not signed anything. The only documentation I have from Agilent is from their UK offices. That consists of
On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:40:08 AM UTC, Man at B&Q wrote:
> On Nov 18, 6:19 pm, "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > drkirkby wrote:
> > > The seller knew it was going to the UK, and in fact charged 20% VAT
> > They can do that if they have a UK VAT number many international
> > companies do this
> > > on the purchase price. I was initially concerned about this, but they
> > > assured me the VAT would be paid in advance, and quickly cleared
> > > through customs, without me paying again.
> > If they hadnt paid the vat yuo would have recieved a bill
> And would have had a whole lot more grief in reclaiming the VAT?
> MBQ
This has raised an intersting point.
The unit was made in Malasia, and will almost certainly be returned to Malasia to be reconditioned at the factor where it was made. VAT has been paid on this, but Agilent will be able to reclaim that VAT.
Does that mean I have incurred losses on the VAT component of this, which Agilent will reclaim, when it is exported back to Malasia?
I have asked Agilent to comment on this. Perhaps I can at least recover 20% of my losses, with Agilent sorting it all out, not me.
> Does that mean I have incurred losses on the VAT component of this,
> which Agilent will reclaim, when it is exported back to Malasia?
> I have asked Agilent to comment on this. Perhaps I can at least
> recover 20% of my losses, with Agilent sorting it all out, not me.
I do not understand the question. The document to which you have posted
a link shows VAT included in the total of $17,736. Your original post
referred to a refund of $17,736.05. So you have not paid any VAT
direct. Agilent have dealt with the VAT and with the refund of the VAT
as part and parcel of the sale and refund. IIRC they are perfectly
entitled to do so in USD.
PS
Why the difference of 5 cents?
PPS
I note the document is document is headed "Order Reacknowledgement" and
includes "Dear valued customer, a recent change to your confirmed sales
order with Agilent Technologies has been indicated below by your
Customer Service Representative." The implication is that there was an
earlier acknowledgement. Did you get that?
In any event, I would have expected the terms of your contract to have
been determined when you entered into the contract by bidding (or using
"buy it now") on eBay. Neither party can just impose them later.
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:35:02 AM UTC, drkirkby wrote: > The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result of the good not being fit for purpose.
The matter has been solved. I have just got this from Agilent:
================================
Dear David,
We would like to offer you compensation for the loss you have incurred from the Paypal transactions you made. On top of the refund of £11,010.84 we will also give you a further £500 refund to cover the difference. These refunds should be in your account within 10 days.
We hope that this will mean that you have not lost any money as a result of the refund.
=================================
So they are paying my loses plus another forty odd pounds on top.
drkirkby <drkir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:35:02 AM UTC, drkirkby wrote: >> The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result
>> of the good not being fit for purpose.
> The matter has been solved. I have just got this from Agilent:
> ===============================Dear David,
> We would like to offer you compensation for the loss you have incurred
> from the Paypal transactions you made. On top of the refund of £11,010.84
> we will also give you a further £500 refund to cover the difference.
> These refunds should be in your account within 10 days.
> We hope that this will mean that you have not lost any money as a result of the refund.
> ================================
> So they are paying my loses plus another forty odd pounds on top.
> As you can apprecaite, I'm happy about this.
> Thank you everyone who has given me advice.
Generous of them and generous of you to acknowledge their customer service.
Hopefully it will work as they hope and persuade others that they are a
reputable business.
drkirkby wrote:
> I bought a reconditioned item of electronic test equipment off of
> eBay from a very large international company (multi-billion dollar).
> This was a personal purchase, for personal use, and was not going to
> be used by any company.
> They have offices in the UK, US, Germany etc. The item was expensive.
> The price agreed was $17,736. The seller wanted me to use Paypal,
> even though I did not want to. The amount I had to pay Paypal was
> £11,463.74, so I got an exchange rate of 1.547 USD = 1 GBP. The
> Paypal transaction was funded from my bank account - not a credit or
> debit card.
> The goods arrives some 4 weeks later, and were faulty. I was told
> they needed to be repaired, and but there were also other firmware
> bugs on this instrument, which I did not think were going to get
> fixed.
> Anyway, I said to the seller the goods were not fit for purpose, and
> wanted a refund, to which they have agreed.
> The good were returned by UPS, and arrived 57 days days after the
> Paypal transaction had been made.
> By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60
> day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the
> Paypal transaction can't be cancelled.
> Virtually all communicaation about this matter has been with the UK
> offices of the company. All emails come from the UK and are sent to
> the UK. Staff from the UK office have phoned me about the refund.
> Please be advised that our Accounts payable have confirmed that the
> refund payment can be made directly in GBP to your bank account.
> XXXXXX conversion rate for Nov’12 is 1.61078 (1.61078 USD = 1.00
> GBP).
> This would mean the you will receive a transfer of 11,010.84 GBP, and
> so would not incur any currency conversion bank charges (
> $17,736.05 $ in GBP 11,010.84.).
> ====================================================
> The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct
> result of the good not being fit for purpose.
> Do I have any chance of taking action over this? If so, one what
> grounds?
> I suspect if it was sent to the small claims track of the court, the
> seller would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal fees
> would be more than £452.90, though given the size of the company, I
> expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid anyway,
> whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk.
> I've had zero control over the currency conversion fees. The company
> said they wanted me to use Paypal, so I have no control over that
> rate of 1 GBP = 1.547 USD. I have no control over their conversion
> rate. Where they get 1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP I don't know.
> For what it is worth, looking at historical data at xe.com, there has
> been negligable (< 0.001%) change in the $ vs pound on the days the
> payment was made to paypal, and the date they are using for the
> interest rate calculation.
> I feel since the goods were faulty, I should not be have to incur
> losses.
If exchange rates had gone the other way and you had made a profit on the refund, would you have offered it back to the company?
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:00:05 AM UTC, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> If exchange rates had gone the other way and you had made a profit on the
> refund, would you have offered it back to the company?
This was nothing to do with the exchange rate change, which at least according to xe.com was only 0.001% different between the day I paid Paypal, and the day Agilent based the exchange rate on.
It was all down to Paypal and bank fees.
To be honest, had the exchange rate shifted dramatically, so I could have made a profit, I would probably not have said anything to Agilent.
But had Agilent raised this either before or after paying me, I would not have tried to force them to pay me back the $'s I'd paid. I would have refunded any difference without hesitation.
There is in fact a difference of $0.05 on what they were offering paying me, as someone else noticed. I've not said anything to them, as I'm sure it would cost them more to correct than the $0.05.
For reasons I can't understand, I've had several bits of paper from Agilent, with 4 different prices on them.
* The correct amount of $17,736
* $0.01 less than the correct amount at $17,735.99
* $0.01 more than the correct amount at $17,736.01
* $0.05 more than the correct amount at $17,736.05
I can't understand how Agilent can get 4 different, but very close prices.
Anyway, I can only praise them now. They have been very fair. Not only have they covered all the transaction fees, but by compensating me £500, I have actually gained a bit. But it was their choice to offer me £500.
I know one thing for sure though, if I buy anything else from Agilent from eBay, it will have to be on the condition I can pay Agilent UK in GBP. I'm not be going down the Paypal route for such large transactions in future.
Anyway, Agilent will be getting some money from me soon. I have something which sometimes fails the calibration routine in a spectrum analzyer. I think it is just one module needs calibration, so I'll get Agilent to calibrate that module, hoping it will fix the problem. If not, I'll need to get another module off of eBay, as the item is quite old, and obsolete. But Agilent will still calibrate it until 2015.
drkirkby wrote:
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:35:02 AM UTC, drkirkby wrote: > > The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct
> > result of the good not being fit for purpose.
> The matter has been solved. I have just got this from Agilent:
> ================================
> Dear David,
> We would like to offer you compensation for the loss you have
> incurred from the Paypal transactions you made. On top of the refund
> of £11,010.84 we will also give you a further £500 refund to cover
> the difference. These refunds should be in your account within 10
> days. We hope that this will mean that you have not lost any money
> as a result of the refund. =================================
> So they are paying my loses plus another forty odd pounds on top.
drkirkby wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:00:05 AM UTC, AlwaysAskingQuestions
> wrote: > > If exchange rates had gone the other way and you had made a profit
> > on the
> > refund, would you have offered it back to the company?
> This was nothing to do with the exchange rate change, which at least
> according to xe.com was only 0.001% different between the day I paid
> Paypal, and the day Agilent based the exchange rate on.
> It was all down to Paypal and bank fees.
> To be honest, had the exchange rate shifted dramatically, so I could
> have made a profit, I would probably not have said anything to
> Agilent.
> But had Agilent raised this either before or after paying me, I would
> not have tried to force them to pay me back the $'s I'd paid. I would
> have refunded any difference without hesitation.
> There is in fact a difference of $0.05 on what they were offering
> paying me, as someone else noticed. I've not said anything to them,
> as I'm sure it would cost them more to correct than the $0.05.
> For reasons I can't understand, I've had several bits of paper from
> Agilent, with 4 different prices on them.
> * The correct amount of $17,736
> * $0.01 less than the correct amount at $17,735.99
> * $0.01 more than the correct amount at $17,736.01
> * $0.05 more than the correct amount at $17,736.05
> I can't understand how Agilent can get 4 different, but very close
> prices.
> Anyway, I can only praise them now. They have been very fair. Not
> only have they covered all the transaction fees, but by compensating
> me £500, I have actually gained a bit. But it was their choice to
> offer me £500.
> I know one thing for sure though, if I buy anything else from Agilent
> from eBay, it will have to be on the condition I can pay Agilent UK
> in GBP. I'm not be going down the Paypal route for such large
> transactions in future.
> Anyway, Agilent will be getting some money from me soon. I have
> something which sometimes fails the calibration routine in a spectrum
> analzyer. I think it is just one module needs calibration, so I'll
> get Agilent to calibrate that module, hoping it will fix the problem.
> If not, I'll need to get another module off of eBay, as the item is
> quite old, and obsolete. But Agilent will still calibrate it until
> 2015.
> Dave
I have visions of you sitting in a semi darkened room with lots of
gadgets flashing and popping a liitle bit the mad proff of many
school boy comics :)
What was the original piece of equipments function
> By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60
> day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the
> Paypal transaction can't be cancelled.
Just going off at a tangent. Are you saying that all foreign currency transactions within paypal can be cancelled without charge within 60 days? Even when they are just money transfers between friends? That means they are offering a free option, and in principle there is *MUCH* money to be made here.
Suppose that you send me $15,000 to be converted into sterling and at the same time I send you £10,000 to be converted into $. (Roughly the same values at the moment.) Paypal takes their 3% cut, so we make an immediate 3% loss.
But, after 59 days, we see how the exchange rate has moved. If it has moved less than 3%, we cancel both transactions. If the exchange rate has moved more than 3%, one of the transactions will be showing a profit, even after charges. So, we keep that one and cancel the other.
