Cheated By Seller!

[StanleyWee]

bro i'm just saying in general, for the benefit of the other bros, that paying $75 for peace of mind is good practice.. but of course to each's own discretion and judgement...

another thing is that i'm just wondering again out loud.... as per above you said that you went to RSC to get that link checked...

this post below however from yr other thread 'fake bracelet links'... you are asking if RSC checks links... when exactly did you go to RSC? immediately after you got home when you bought the watch a month ago...... or between yesterday, 7.36pm to yesterday, 10:05pm (sg-roc forum time).

Bro, when I reach home to resize on that very day itself.

[kenkelvin]

hi pls allow me to share my own views. if a guy bought a watch from another guy without verification, after dealing, if he found out that the watch is fake or not as described, i don think he should give bad rating to the seller because he accepted it. what if the seller said it not his fault cause u checked liao, u yourself don 1 verify, anything can happen after i left the watch with u, blah blah example. in a sense it correct, (benefit of the doubt to seller) but if on the spot never agreed, if the description of the watch is not the same as what the seller claimed or fake, i think it better to rate the seller so 1st to warn others, 2nd to tell seller don anyhow try to be funny. it not to a bad thing. that what itrader is for and will certainly make the whole pic clearer rather then after a period of time, u accuse me, i accuse me then arguements again. also what moderators are doing now is correct, there have to be law and order, cannot anyhow start thread to argue and there will be no end to it. what moderators can do is ask the involved parties to pm or maybe if as per agreed start only a main thread (at least if we outsiders really wanna know about what actually happen but cant and cannot comments because we dono what really happen and not fair to say much) and only the parties involved can contribute to the thread (no vulgarity and rudeness) and (no 1 can interfere, be it really of concern or add fuel to fire)

sorry for saying too much in my views.

[evets]

Ouch...


$100 for the spare link is not cheap...guys how much is RSC selling the link?

blacklist the seller and u should get him to compensate u! thats the least he can do..since he might be a innocent party too..

[williamsgl]

This is one of the absurb post I ever read! 1st post, "Cheated by Seller" headline. Then after call the seller about the fake link, hang up on him (pissed) and finally forgive the seller for the fake link and let him have a road to walk. I don't understand the contradiction...why bother to alert everyone in the first place when you have already "forgiven" the seller...

[triton]

it is alright to blacklist a seller when a potential deal falls through because of fake parts or fake watch is to be sold as a geniune product. however this case is slightly different.

from what i understand since post 1, there was no attempt to get the watch verified @ the start of the transaction. there is also no agreed upon verification of watch between buyer and seller prior to dealing. i was caught in this situation before. i bought a watch and got it verified like later @ RSC hands and glass were found to be non-authentic, did i call the seller? yes i did and told the seller about RSC results but i did not ask for refund or discount. cause the fault is mine for not agreeing with seller that i will verify the watch prior to dealing. so am i cheated?

in another case, seller and i agree that i will verify the watch prior to transaction. RSC results, hands bent, glass cracked. seller rectified things and deal went through.

as mentioned, some people will say buy the seller. if you trust the seller and choose not to verify before the deal and parts/watch turn out to be fake, there is no turning back. i have mentioned before, the price you pay for verification is peace of mind. rolex verification cost is 75, it is cheaper compared to many other leading brands and they can do it for you on the spot.

[mike1972]

it is alright to blacklist a seller when a potential deal falls through because of fake parts or fake watch is to be sold as a geniune product. however this case is slightly different.

from what i understand since post 1, there was no attempt to get the watch verified @ the start of the transaction. there is also no agreed upon verification of watch between buyer and seller prior to dealing. i was caught in this situation before. i bought a watch and got it verified like later @ RSC hands and glass were found to be non-authentic, did i call the seller? yes i did and told the seller about RSC results but i did not ask for refund or discount. cause the fault is mine for not agreeing with seller that i will verify the watch prior to dealing. so am i cheated?

in another case, seller and i agree that i will verify the watch prior to transaction. RSC results, hands bent, glass cracked. seller rectified things
and deal went through.

as mentioned, some people will say buy the seller. if you trust the seller and choose not to verify before the deal and parts/watch turn out to be fake, there is no turning back. i have mentioned before, the price you pay for verification is peace of mind. rolex verification cost is 75, it is cheaper compared to many other leading brands and they can do it for you on the spot.

What if he is selling the fake watch ? Can we report to police ????

[feudallordcult]

What if he is selling the fake watch ? Can we report to police ????

if the seller knew right from the start (i.e. mala fide aka in bad faith) that the watch is fake and had the intention to delibrately cheat the buyer into believing the watch is fake and to buy it from him, then there is a likely case of cheating. sometimes this is also known as fraudulent intent and misrepresentation on part of the seller.

in retrospect, if the seller (is bona fide aka in good faith) had sold the watch genuinely believing that the watch (on sale) is authentic then it may be less likely to be a case of cheating. sometimes this may be known as innocent intent and misrep on part of the seller.

I'll take another example, is the issuance of a bounced cheque unlawful?

in short, I think what the TS is trying to inform us via this thread is to always verify our rolexes prior to parting with our hard-earned money. being mindful that our most beloved brand is also the most copied in the world. imitation may not always be the highest form of flattery.

[tomcatf]

Selling fake as fake is wrong, buyer can not sue the seller as you are committing a crime too, and you should be worried of the law.

Selling fake as real is call cheating, buyer reserve the right to bring the seller to court as he/she has intention to cheat you right at the begining.

That's why I always send watches to RSC before closing a deal... I rull understood the feeling of being "Cheated" or "Con". Once bitten twice shy, learnt the lesson and move on, my advise.

[Ender]

This is one of the absurb post I ever read! 1st post, "Cheated by Seller" headline. Then after call the seller about the fake link, hang up on him (pissed) and finally forgive the seller for the fake link and let him have a road to walk. I don't understand the contradiction...why bother to alert everyone in the first place when you have already "forgiven" the seller...

this thread ish not so simple ...

[feudallordcult]

Selling fake as fake is wrong, buyer can not sue the seller as you are committing a crime too, and you should be worried of the law.

Selling fake as real is call cheating, buyer reserve the right to bring the seller to court as he/she has intention to cheat you right at the begining.

That's why I always send watches to RSC before closing a deal... I rull understood the feeling of being "Cheated" or "Con". Once bitten twice shy, learnt the lesson and move on, my advise.

hi Tom,

good point you raised in yr first sentence. however buyer can still sue if he was misled into thinking that the item purchased is authentic. excellent advice as stated in your parting sentence.

which is why I am very very surprised by the floodgates of complaints since the first spate of angry words. how come everyone kept mum abt their botched deals until now.

[benhur]

not keeping mum on botched deals.censorship in play by ohlins. dun ask for trouble. go the pm way if u 1 2 know bad seller.

[benhur]

Xinjiabor lor

statutes say this :

Cheating

Cheating
415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
[51/2007]

Explanation 1.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

Explanation 2.—Mere breach of contract is not of itself proof of an original fraudulent intent.

Explanation 3.—Whoever makes a representation through any agent is to be treated as having made the representation himself.
[51/2007]
Illustrations


(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Government service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.

(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.

(e) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.

(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.

(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of pepper which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the pepper, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.

(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.

(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.

(j) A, playing with false dice, or marked cards, wins money from B. A cheats.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 415]

lifted from our law. ask ocean interpret. ha

[wolfeyes1974]

hi pls allow me to share my own views. if a guy bought a watch from another guy without verification, after dealing, if he found out that the watch is fake or not as described, i don think he should give bad rating to the seller because he accepted it. what if the seller said it not his fault cause u checked liao, u yourself don 1 verify, anything can happen after i left the watch with u, blah blah example. in a sense it correct, (benefit of the doubt to seller) but if on the spot never agreed, if the description of the watch is not the same as what the seller claimed or fake, i think it better to rate the seller so 1st to warn others, 2nd to tell seller don anyhow try to be funny. it not to a bad thing. that what itrader is for and will certainly make the whole pic clearer rather then after a period of time, u accuse me, i accuse me then arguements again. also what moderators are doing now is correct, there have to be law and order, cannot anyhow start thread to argue and there will be no end to it. what moderators can do is ask the involved parties to pm or maybe if as per agreed start only a main thread (at least if we outsiders really wanna know about what actually happen but cant and cannot comments because we dono what really happen and not fair to say much) and only the parties involved can contribute to the thread (no vulgarity and rudeness) and (no 1 can interfere, be it really of concern or add fuel to fire)

sorry for saying too much in my views.

but bro, hardly u find buyers so free find prob with sellers? uy already want refund then go thru the entire process of negotiating....yes the buyer must be responsible to verify the item but the bottomline now is that the item itself has issues...other than pm, all these feedbacks should be in itrader (like in ebay/yahoo auctions)...u can see all the remarks there and future buyers decide for themselves.

members shld upkeep the integrity of the forum and the purpose of itrader.

cheers

james

[kenkelvin]

it is alright to blacklist a seller when a potential deal falls through because of fake parts or fake watch is to be sold as a geniune product. however this case is slightly different.

from what i understand since post 1, there was no attempt to get the watch verified @ the start of the transaction. there is also no agreed upon verification of watch between buyer and seller prior to dealing. i was caught in this situation before. i bought a watch and got it verified like later @ RSC hands and glass were found to be non-authentic, did i call the seller? yes i did and told the seller about RSC results but i did not ask for refund or discount. cause the fault is mine for not agreeing with seller that i will verify the watch prior to dealing. so am i cheated?

in another case, seller and i agree that i will verify the watch prior to transaction. RSC results, hands bent, glass cracked. seller rectified things and deal went through.

as mentioned, some people will say buy the seller. if you trust the seller and choose not to verify before the deal and parts/watch turn out to be fake, there is no turning back. i have mentioned before, the price you pay for verification is peace of mind. rolex verification cost is 75, it is cheaper compared to many other leading brands and they can do it for you on the spot.

agreed with u bro, that is what i said earlier, on the spot if u found the items not as described then it fair to rate and warn, but don after that liao argue not fair to anyone since it your choice in the 11st place to verify, who call u don1 go.

[Ender]

but bro, hardly u find buyers so free find prob with sellers? uy already want refund then go thru the entire process of negotiating....yes the buyer must be responsible to verify the item but the bottomline now is that the item itself has issues...other than pm, all these feedbacks should be in itrader (like in ebay/yahoo auctions)...u can see all the remarks there and future buyers decide for themselves.
members shld upkeep the integrity of the forum and the purpose of itrader.
cheers
james

Hmmm, maybe we shld have a dedicated sub-forum for all the transactions that went sour. Seller and buyer can present their respective side of their stories and a reader can make up his or her own mind as to who is right and whether to deal with such a seller/ buyer in the future.