Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
revengeofthedead

Issue with combatcontrol

Recommended Posts

So recently I bought an A&K M249 from Combatcontrol for $159. Receiving the product I noticed that the bottom of the bipod (the base part of the feet) does not exist. I informed him of this issue and I only asked for a $20 refund for the compensation of a product not being as described. He then tells me that I got a good deal for the m249 and he does not have to refund me for the price. I told him that is still unfair that he had mislead me as I wouldn't have bought the m249 if it weren't for that issue. I don't think it is fair for me to be mislead and he wont refund me just because he said that he sold his for cheaper than what the used market price is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also just left me a negative feedback stating "Not good, lot's of complaining about well explained, cheap weapon. Very disappointing

Item description: SAW"

 

Really? Can I get this removed? Just because I am not satisfied as a customer for purchasing something from him that was not described correctly he would put this out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you should be able to get the negitive feedback removed

 

Give us a link to the sale thread... did it actually say it was missing the feet? Did it say all sales are final?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was with a personal seller on here.

 

 

this is the link to the sale thread I guess, I posted a WTB thread and he replied to it

http://www.airsoftforum.com/board/WTB-M249...3#entry18607423

 

His message on it was:

I have a fully functioning A&K m249 paratrooper with an electric boxmag and two m4 locaps. I’ve also got about 5k .25g bbs for it. It’s in overall good exterior condition, with wear on the bottom of the bipod feet. The previous owner also converted the outer barrel to allow removal for ease of access to the hop-up which he upgraded slightly. Additionally, the gun does not include the charging or carrying handles. Overall the gun has been very lightly used and is in good external condition and shoots like new. I’d like $170 for it plus shipping.

 

 

 

So all he said was that there was wear on it not that it was missing

 

Also this was the last message he had sent to me

"If you wanted a perfect gun you shouldn't have bought used. I am not going to send you back a single penny, and will strongly dispute any claim you make through Paypal. Bye"

 

 

Edited by revengeofthedead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revenge, the staff discussed it and we removed the feedback. It is not warranted. I checked his post and nowhere does he mention that the plate is missing. You are well within your right to try and get a refund, and Paypal should side with you if you file a Claim that states the item is not as described. I highly recommend that you leave this person negative feedback to warn others of dealing with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic jerkass behavior; just because it's used doesn't mean it shouldn't come complete. That's the same as me selling you a used car, but not giving your money back since you found out it doesn't come with an engine, transmission, or a radio. I'm positive if I did something like that to him, he'd whine his :censored2: til the cows come home for his money back.

Edited by aznriptide859

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a heads up revenge make sure to take a screen shot of his messages and his sale tread. idk the time limit but he could go back and just edit it, shrugs just a helpful thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just a heads up revenge make sure to take a screen shot of his messages and his sale tread. idk the time limit but he could go back and just edit it, shrugs just a helpful thought

 

 

Ya thanks for that tip I took a screen shot

 

Anyways here are the photos

 

DSC06806.jpg

 

DSC06807.jpg

 

Nice feet huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alberty

Yikes, I guess you could at least put some tennis balls on those legs for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?! He just left me two more negative feedbacks for no reason

 

 

"Horrible buyer, cheats you out of money and cause huge hassle, then blames you and files a lie based Paypal clame against you"

 

"Very very poor. He doesn't read your messages, then opens paypal cases against you to cheat you out of more money. Please for you sake do not sell to the guy"

 

How am I cheating him out of his money? All I asked was a $20 refund for the bipod feet.

 

Can I also get these negative feedbacks removed? Also what does it take to get this d*bag banned?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, he got a Fully Functional SAW for $150... Missing the Feet from bipod, but still functional.. Mentioned flaws with bipod feet (vaguely, but he did)...

 

 

Sorry, but I don't agree with everyone on this one.. but we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

 

I see a brief mention of the bad Bipod Feet, I ask questions. I request pics. I am not buying until I am happy with the information provided about the item.. Had this been an Ebay deal, Ebay would side with the seller, because there was indeed mention of flawed Feet.

 

I don't agree with the feddback left by the seller, but I don't think a refund is due at all.. I doubt you'll see a SAW for that price anywhere.. Though your amount requested for refund is exceptionally reasonable, I just don't see justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given all the above evidence, I'm going to have to side with the seller on this one in that it should be the buyer's discretion to ask for additional pics and questions about the bipod wear before purchasing, although his behavior following up on this is very crude and unnecessary. If I were to decide solely based on the seller description I would side with the seller. However, does the seller retaliating factor in whether a refund or claim should side with the buyer? I don't think it should, but he should receive some disciplinary action regarding his treating of the buyer but he shouldn't have to issue a refund regarding the dispute.

 

My .02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me there is a very clear difference in the therms "wear" and "missing because I sawed them off with a dremel"

 

The feet do not have wear, the feet do not exist at all. This is a clear case of a seller intentionally misleading a buyer. I have to side with the buyer and with Airborne on this one. 20 bucks is a very reasonable compensation.

 

Yeah the price of the gun is cheap overall, but this does not allow someone to intentionally mislead a buyer. It would have been easy to show a pic or to say "bi[pod feet are missing" If I tell you a gas gun has a leaky mag and the bottom of the mag is sawed off then you would also have the right to demand compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaky mag=non functioning Mag.. Missing Bipod feet=ugly functional gun.. Huge difference in my opinion.

 

Again, as a buyer I am making sure I am clear on what is wrong with the gun if anything is wrong at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The seller stated that the feet were worn. That's the adjective he used. I don't see that it's especially vague. Sure, you can go from mildly worn to heavily worn, but for something to be worn, there's got to be something there showing the effects of wear and tear. In other words, worn and missing are mutually exclusive adjectives. Something that's missing cannot be worn, because it's not there at all. It's gone. When the seller decided to use the adjective worn to describe the feet, he deliberately misrepresented the reality of the situation, obviously because he didn't want to state the truth, that would have kept buyers away (truth=missing, non-existent feet). Sure, you can call "worn" a euphemism if you like. But euphemisms misrepresent too.

 

If somebody sold me something that was described with worn feet, it'd expect to see major scuffing, perhaps some of the original thickness worn away, perhaps some of the pointey bits that stick into the ground gone, but I'd certainly expect to see some part of the feet there, showing the wear. If they were missing, I'd be hopping mad, and I'd definitely open a dispute. For misrepresentation of article being sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The seller stated that the feet were worn. That's the adjective he used. I don't see that it's especially vague. Sure, you can go from mildly worn to heavily worn, but for something to be worn, there's got to be something there showing the effects of wear and tear. In other words, worn and missing are mutually exclusive adjectives. Something that's missing cannot be worn, because it's not there at all. It's gone. When the seller decided to use the adjective worn to describe the feet, he deliberately misrepresented the reality of the situation, obviously because he didn't want to state the truth, that would have kept buyers away (truth=missing, non-existent feet). Sure, you can call "worn" a euphemism if you like. But euphemisms misrepresent too.

 

If somebody sold me something that was described with worn feet, it'd expect to see major scuffing, perhaps some of the original thickness worn away, perhaps some of the pointey bits that stick into the ground gone, but I'd certainly expect to see some part of the feet there, showing the wear. If they were missing, I'd be hopping mad, and I'd definitely open a dispute. For misrepresentation of article being sold.

 

Agreed with this. And beyond that, "worn" suggests that it was a result of being used rather than an intentional act. With the feet cut off, you cannot call it "worn" because that was a deliberate act.

 

I don't believe the fact that the gun was bought for cheap is a valid excuse for what is happening here. That would be saying that you only deserve an accurate description of the gun if you pay a lot, and that it's ok for sellers to lie to buyers when they're selling items for cheap.

 

While I do agree it's the responsibility of the buyer to ask for details and pictures and get a proper idea of what they're buying, in this case it was misrepresentation and I believe the seller should probably compensate and definitely should not have responded the way he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The buyer did get a good deal, but that's the sellers probem for selling it so cheap. He cant misrepresent a product even if it is a good deal and expect a happy buyer. I sold a systema m4 for 700 when it was worth 1900, if even one thing was not as I described the 1200 dollar savings doesnt magically make up for my lie.

 

I did like how he said " damaged bipod " lol .

 

 

Just semd the buyer 20 bucks and move on ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×