What would you do about this Gunbroker mistake?

[madoka]

[kygen]

In the auction info, did it state it was only a stock photo? or did it state it was the actual gun?

[madoka]

In the auction info, did it state it was only a stock photo? or did it state it was the actual gun?

There were 27 bullet points of text.

Bullet point #26 stated: "New gun listings may use stock photos. Serial numbers in pictures may not be the same as the gun shipped. . . "

Right above the picture itself it said "Pictures for Item # 46416xxxx"

[caliberetta]

Since they made the proper disclosures, then the responsible thing to do is to cover their $14 auction fee, apologize for the mistake and get on with your lives.

[kygen]

They seemed to have covered their *** with bullet point #26.

Seems to me you are on the hook for the $14

[kygen]

unless you want to try and finagle something with the seller and split it, you can always try that first.

[Killer Bee]

something similar to this happened to me once.. it is true that there are 'lost' auction fees although they are reasonable in my opinion.. but I'm not entirely sure if there isn't an appeal process in which GB might refund the sellers fees since he's not actually selling the gun.. I didn't ask back then..

however, for such a small amount, I would suck it up and save the good name of the CA gun buyer by sending him his auction fees and maybe applying to the sensibility of the GB moderators for a refund if anything..

I don't think anyone intends to profit from an honest oversight but the road to refund may be fraught with obstacles.. best thing to do, again in my opinion, would be to just send them the money [like I did ] and chalk it up to a cheap lesson.. especially since it seems like he at least had his ad drafted with a disclosure regarding the photo..

these are the trials sellers face with CA laws and some other states.. likely the reason we see so many 'no CA sales' in the national ads.. I have appealed to some of these and won auctions where it was legal for me to make the purchase, but some are steadfast against it.. whatever you do, please don't push another seller away

good luck

[madoka]

They seemed to have covered their *** with bullet point #26.

Seems to me you are on the hook for the $14

I seems kinda crappy to bury the fact that it "may or may not" be pics of the actual gun in a stream of text and then hide behind that excuse when they put the wrong gun up.

[drkphibr]

Same person who clicked buy now before reading all the details should pay the fees. That's the "cost" of your mistake as the seller did nothing wrong and listed full disclosure. You not seeing or reading it is not the seller's fault so why should the seller be on the hook for any fees that GB assesses the seller for what is a successful auction in their eyes?

I always ask for pics of the actual gun being sold and when listings don't have them or seller says "same as all the other xxxx" or has a link to the manufacturer pics I pass.

Lost $ for an oversight is an expensive teacher. At $14 that was a cheap lesson.

[pronstar]

I feel for you...please don't take this the wrong way, but you really have to get any and all questions and concerns answered before you hit the "buy" button.

Pressing the button IMHO is akin to signing a sale contract for the item listed.

[five.five-six]

[I hit "buy it now" before reading]


However, after reading the all the verbiage on the auction, I realized that it was just a stock picture and not a picture of the actual gun.

That's all I had to read

[madoka]

That's the "cost" of your mistake as the seller did nothing wrong and listed full disclosure.

Last month I received another gun from a Gunbroker seller. Unlike this Glock case, he used very obvious stock photos from the manufacturer to represent the gun. When I received it, I found that the safety heavily gouged out the top of the wood grip. When I pointed it out, he claimed to have not noticed it. Did he also do nothing wrong because of the use of stock pics?

[drkphibr]

Last month I received another gun from a Gunbroker seller. Unlike this Glock case, he used very obvious stock photos from the manufacturer to represent the gun. When I received it, I found that the safety heavily gouged out the top of the wood grip. When I pointed it out, he claimed to have not noticed it. Did he also do nothing wrong because of the use of stock pics?

And the lesson learned from both of these transactions is to ALWAYS get pics of the ACTUAL firearm before committing to purchase. Why anyone would buy a gun based on stock pics from a private party is something I just don't understand.

Unless both transactions were from the same seller comparing two auctions/sellers is comparing apples to oranges. Too many variables. You made a boo boo. A relatively inexpensive on at that. Own up to it. Be happy he isn't forcing the full price sale of the gun you contractually agreed to purchase by clicking buy now.

[SkyHawk]

Stock picture still means it should depict what you are buying. Since the country of MFG for Glock is a big f'ing deal here in CA, they should use a stock picture that depicts a USA made gun. Even if I didn't live in CA, I'd still want to know that what I am seeing is what I am buying. The finishes aren't even the same on Austria vs USA Glocks.

If you saw a picture of a Sig with Made in Germany on the frame and you instead got Made in the USA, pitchforks would be sharpened and torches lit - there wouldn't be any question and hiding behind 'oh it's a stock photo' wouldn't even pass the smell test.

[cannon]

Looks like you owe the seller the fee.

Things happen so pay the fee and lesson learned.