If considering a purchase from ScubaDiverGreg

[CaboJim]

Did the seller inform the Buyer that the camera was new, & never been used? It seems to me that the condition of the camera received was not new or never been used.
Did the seller misrepresent the camera's condition & history prior to sale?
Lesson learned....

 

[carrielsal]

(x2) SEA & SEA DX-1200 HD still/video camera. One NEW, one used (like new)



CAMERA #1:
This is one is NEW! The camera is sealed, never used. I just used the underwater housing on 3 occasions (with another camera) and it is in mint condition. The only imperfection are some light hairlines on the screen part of the housing (pictures below in post #2). These are not noticeable at all underwater. This come with the original packaging and every accessory that you would get with it from the factory. It is essentially brand new! I'd like $490 or best offer. It costs $600+ new. Case seals perfectly; not a single leak.

The camera was sold as new.

 

[CaboJim]

Thanks for clearing that up. Anybody that thinks that the seller should not be held accountable needs to rethink their position.
From the content of the ad, this is FRAUD....

 

[DCBC]

Thanks for clearing that up. Anybody that thinks that the seller should not be held accountable needs to rethink their position.
From the content of the ad, this is FRAUD....

The Buyer says "The camera does not focus and the lens is stuck in the extended position."

If the camera was sealed in the original packaging, as it came from the manufacturer i.e. untouched, perhaps you might enlighten us on how this constitutes fraud.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Who here personally knows the seller? You know....the guy that everybody is lynching and calling nasty names such as douchebag and losergreg. Hands up please. Yeah I thought so.

Who here personally knows the Buyer? You know....the guy that everybody is listening and accepting 100% at face value. Hands up please. Yeah I thought so.

Every single person on this thread seems to have taken a position and a side based on information provided. How have each of you validated the account and information? How do you know the seller broke it? How do you know he knew it was broken? How do you know that the buyer did not get it, use it for his vacation and then break it to try and get his money back?

I am not saying either person is wrong in this situation (I believe both should have acted differently but I am not claiming one or the other is wrong for how the transaction ended).

Those of you that are calling people names and citing BS legal stuff need to have your eyes opened. Take sides all you want but know that you have nothing to base your arguments on. Have fun.

 

[CaboJim]

If the camera was sealed in the original packaging, as it came from the manufacturer i.e. untouched, perhaps you might enlighten us on how this constitutes fraud.

That's a big if, only the buyer would know if it came sealed in its original packaging.
I seriously doubt the manufacturer shipped the camera with the lens stuck in the extended position.
Fraud is when you knowingly misrepresent a product you're selling.(at least here in the US)....

 

[CaboJim]

"This come with the original packaging and every accessory that you would get with it from the factory."

comes with original packaging? Where does he say that the camera was sealed in the original packaging????

 

[DCBC]

comes with original packaging? Where does he say that the camera was sealed in the original packaging????

"The camera is sealed, never used." No one has disputed this, not even the Buyer!

 

[DCBC]

That's a big if, only the buyer would know if it came sealed in its original packaging. I seriously doubt the manufacturer shipped the camera with the lens stuck in the extended position.

Fraud is when you knowingly misrepresent a product you're selling.(at least here in the US)....

All we know is what has been reported. No one to my knowledge has suggested misrepresentation. Simply put, once the camera was unsealed that the camera was found to be defective. Could it have been damaged in shipment? Perhaps.

But lets just jump to conclusions and brand the Seller as a criminal! No thanks. Too many people have been hung in public forms for actions they didn't do. Perhaps you should know the facts before branding a person as a criminal.

 

[N2BLUE]

Sorry, I was doubled over in laughter at the audacity of some of the self-righteous posts. [...edited....] I arrived at my conclusion based on his response to the buyer when notified of the problem. Also, [...seller...] never disputed the buyer's charge that the the serial number and package were altered, with evidence of "whiteout". The seller brought this upon himself when he chose his course of action. As to any, "BS legal" related posts...only the seller is guilty of this as he is the one who errantly aledged "slanderous" posts. It is not slander. It would be 'liable', and that is not even the case. Obviously, in the US our legal guidelines differ from those of Canada. It would appear that we have different ethical ones as well.