Prowler573
5,000+ posts
R.I.P. Gossamer!!
Actually, my Mustang-flogging friend, that is exactly what we are proposing ~ withholding the funds from a questionable seller until the buyer can verify that whatever it is they purchased is as-advertised. "Approval" is a very subjective thing and there's really no way to police that as Buyer's Remorse is sometimes an incredibly powerful force. All we would require is that the item is in the same shape that is was described to be in within the FS thread offering it for sale in the first place. If the buyer feels that there are gross discrepencies between the shape it was advertised to be in and the condition the item is actually found to be in then the 3rd party would have to be provided with proof of those differences. This would be in an attempt to side-step the Buyer's Remorse that I previously mentioned. If a buyer receives a product and for some reason changed their mind while the item was in transit or once they actually take possession of it then no fault can be attributed to the seller for that and consequently the seller should not be penalized for that in any way. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gifOK agreed.
I thought you were talking about the seller waitin on the money til said buyer approves of said product.
I dont see a problem with a 3rd party havin the money even gettin say 1% to handle it so that noone on here gets screwd over.And the buyer should pay the 1% and not have a problem doin so cause he knows that he will not have a doa or said product of unstated nature.