Is this unethical ?

[markn]

"I will immediately refund on any item sold by me where the description was either inaccurate or misleading, within a reasonable time frame."

Surely, if a transaction had taken place is 2007 (i.e. up to six years ago) then the seller or auctioneer would no longer have an exchange or refund liability. Surely that is reasonable, regardless to any third party grading's?  
After a length of time in all auctions, bidders have paid, vendors returns are settled and records go into the archive.

Post sale responsibility for most goods is usually and often, at the most, about a 30 day time frame?

This is making me very nervous as hell is goanna freeze over before I refund on my sales from 6 years ago. Thank-fully I am not an ANDA dealer but I still sell with integrity and have refunded fully including return post for a buyer who got the coin 'regraded 'by a coin dealer on delivery and subsequently was not happy with my grade. Fortunately with e-bay the block bidder facility works very well!

My hubby once refunded coin purchases that a collector had made from him, over nine months earlier and multiple purchases over several months. The hubby refunded but I felt that it was unreasonable after 9 months and in the following financial year for a customer to say 'oh I already had these in my collection and then expect a full return. I refuse to deal with that person as well, and blocked him on e-bay.

Thanks goodness :@

I just went to the ANDA medication process PDF
http://www.anda.com.au/about_mediation.asp

"Time Frame for Validity of Complaints 3.1 All complaints must be filed in writing and on the prescribed form within 90 days of the occurrence of the event the complaint relates to, or within 90 days of the Complainant becoming aware of the actions giving rise to the complaint. 3.2 In no event shall a complaint be heard relating to an event that has occurred more than two (2) years prior to the complaint being filed."

I don't think you have too much to worry about Robbie.  99% of the people who buy my products use credit card and they have up to 12 months to claim their money back by making a claim against their credit card company (known as a chargeback).  And there's effectively nothing I can do about it.  Sounds kind of scary but since 2003 I've had less than 10 people (from 10000+ transactions) do chargebacks on their credit cards.

That being said I pretty much give anyone their money back if they ask for it.  Sometimes it's just not worth the hassle.  Of course I don't sell a physical product so it's quite different to taking returns on material goods.

[robbiegal]

ta

I guess I work on good faith as well

99% of the time is a fair reliability factor

I think you can get business insurance?

I have professional indemnity insurance and that is up to $20,000,000.00 ( 20 million $, did i write that right?) but that doesn't actually cover my e-bay store. ha ha!

[echidna]

I'd like to comment on the purpose of the thread.
There are two issues - the specific coin in question and the general issue.

The general issue:
This was the real reason for the thread.
With PCGS becoming the standard my guess is that there will be similar issues coming up.
There will be others in the same boat.
I felt it was important to find out where collectors stand.
I think that has been established - there is no recourse.
That is the reason why I raised the ANDA code issue.

With regard to this specific coin yes its been 6 YEARS since purchase and any complaint via the ANDA process would obviously be dismissed on that reason at least.
Any resolution depends on goodwill alone.

I believe that goodwill is extremely important in the coin dealing world.

I also commend Andrew for his input.
I don't agree with all his comments however.
Legal wrangling is not the way to go.

[Bigfellani5]

One important issue everyone has again missed the boat on. Was pcgs correct? If Andrew at the time thought the coin was not cleaned and the buyer at the time thought the coin was not cleaned then there has to be doubt on pcgs opinion. Assuming this is the case I think Andrew has done the right thing here. Don't forget pcgs only dish out paid opinions and are not always correct. They are not a standard.... Merely an opinion..... And an overpriced opinion at that.

[Fulvio]

I think that has been established - there is no recourse.

There seldom is. Even with ever-increasing mountains of legislation attempting to "protect" us, it still boils down to Caveat Emptor.

I believe that goodwill is extremely important in the coin dealing world.

Absolutely. And reputable dealers know that (the shonks probably know it too, but don't care, figuring they can always scam someone else next time). Andrew offered a possible solution in the spirit of goodwill, even though not obligated to do so. Have you weighed up the relative values of the original purchase, its new downgraded worth, and the value of his offer?

I also commend Andrew for his input.

I think we'd all agree with that. Class act.

I don't agree with all his comments however.

If you agreed, there would be no dispute, discussion or resolution, and this thread wouldn't exist. The disagreement is giving us all food for thought.

Legal wrangling is not the way to go.

Indeed. Don't feed Trolls, Bears or the Bottom-feeders who are the only real winners in any legal wrangle.

[Ozcoins]

I think the key question is "When the coin was sold,  was the description accurate?".
If you are told something by a seller (such as a grade) and you rely on what you are told,  then it must be true or you are being deceived.

[Steveqld]

On the general issue I think it's highly unlikely any of us are going to be involved in any transaction which results in lawyers and courts.  You'd have to be talking about losses of $50,000 - $100,000 for it to be worthwhile and there are too many other avenues for resolving a dispute.  I agree with Robbiegal that (at least) 99% of disputes are resolved by good faith and common sense, however the world is full of bush lawyers (myself included) misinterpreting and misquoting legislation and there is every likelihood of them self representing before a small claims tribunal as it costs so little.

In the last 20 years I've self represented before small claims, Right to Information and Workcover (Qlds workplace injury insurer) and been successful each time (1 business and 2 government agencies) with the latter represented by a Barrister.  Anyone can do it but you have to be sure that you're right and know when to pull out and be prepared to wear your losses.

Both buyers and sellers should have a basic understanding of their obligations and entitlements just so the wool isn't pulled over their eyes but I agree that talking about legislation implies lawyers and courts and can do more harm than good by getting someone's back up.

On this specific issue I agree Andrew did the right thing by putting this out in the open so we have both sides without necessarily taking either side.  Hopefully they can come to a resolution but this probably shouldn't be done in the public eye as it becomes an exercise in garnering the most support to put pressure on each other.

[acrellin]

I personally believe that acceptance of the PCGS standard has been nothing less than a tectonic shift in the Australian numismatic marketplace - it has altered it fundamentally. As this change has empowered collectors to have more confidence that they are now acquiring only coins that meet a standard they agree with, that is of course a positive trend.

Whether it is acknowledged or not, the entire market is going through this process, and will be doing so for the coming few years yet.

The reason I responded to this post publicly is because I agree this issue needs to be discussed broadly, so we all get a clearer idea of where we stand.

If that means I open myself up to criticism and further consequences, I accept that.

I don't take any satisfaction at all from the outcome to this situation, and I wholeheartedly agree that goodwill and integrity are vital to our hobby / trade functioning effectively.

To say that there is no recourse is not correct at all however.

Specifically regarding the ANDA E&GCC process, I can say that I have acted as the Chair of that process in the past, and have assisted collectors in obtaining resolutions in a number of cases - I was also a prime mover in bringing the process into existence, to supplement ANDA's code of ethics.

The clause regarding the timeframe for action describes the time within which the complainant becomes aware of the situation, not necessarily the period since the alleged event took place.

For example, if a collector were to purchase a genuine 1923 halfpenny from an ANDA member, and then discover 6 years later that the coin was counterfeit, then as far as I would interpret the E&GCC process (as an ANDA member and a former Chair of the E&GCC), provided the complaint was lodged within 90 days of the collector being advised that the coin was counterfeit, the passing of 6 years would not excuse the ANDA member from any responsibility they might have.

The reason I have declined to refund on this occasion is that the description of the coin being Gem Unc and with satin surfaces, was taken as an implied guarantee that the coin had original surfaces, as would be determined by PCGS.

I have traded in coins full-time since the mid-1990's, and can say that it is only in the past few years (perhaps 4), that the PCGS standard has really begun to guide the way that coins are traded. Prior to that, coins were traded in good faith to a different standard.

Yes, there have been many cleaned and dipped coins sold in Australia over the years under false pretences, however that doesn't also mean that coins now determined by PCGS not to have original surfaces, and sold in good faith prior to the PCGS standard taking prescience in Australia, were also sold under false pretences.

The same also applies to coins that met a certain raw grade, yet are now graded at a different level under the PCGS standard.

Gold coins are also affected significantly - several recent auctions have included gold coins that were widely accepted as being premium grade when they appeared previously (sometimes 5 - 30 years ago), however under the PCGS standard, they don't meet the same grade. As an example, it isn't inconceivable for a coin that was correctly graded Choice Unc to be now graded as about Unc if there is friction in the fields.

I don't believe that such adjustments in the prevailing standard are always the fault of the previous vendors - it is simply a change in what collectors deem to be desirable and acceptable.

I'd like to comment on the purpose of the thread.
There are two issues - the specific coin in question and the general issue.

The general issue:
This was the real reason for the thread.
With PCGS becoming the standard my guess is that there will be similar issues coming up.
There will be others in the same boat.
I felt it was important to find out where collectors stand.
I think that has been established - there is no recourse.
That is the reason why I raised the ANDA code issue.

With regard to this specific coin yes its been 6 YEARS since purchase and any complaint via the ANDA process would obviously be dismissed on that reason at least.
Any resolution depends on goodwill alone.

I believe that goodwill is extremely important in the coin dealing world.

I also commend Andrew for his input.
I don't agree with all his comments however.
Legal wrangling is not the way to go.

[Ozcoins]

I don't think that the idea of looking at the laws is necessarily heading to "I will see you in court", hopefully it is more looking at "What are the rules we are all supposed to be playing by".
If everyone agrees nicely what the rules are and how they should apply,  then reasonable people can accept the outcome of playing "by the rules" even if the don't like the outcome.

[robbiegal]

Thanks for clarifying that for me Andrew

I did wonder if one could 'split hairs' with respect to when the complaint was lodged as opposed to when a coin was originally purchased etc.

[r9453]

NO naming peeps, cos the forum can get into trouble, use the PM system!

might be true AC and maybe a bit frustrating
as the forum is used blatantly as a medium to sell to collectors
if collectors get stung well, should other members know about that ?

[robbiegal]

hey Bob
did you work at the Sydney Mint?
When did the mint close down?

[r9453]

:hi: Just off the top of my head the Sydney Mint, famously, I thought, went broke making money in 1926. I've changed my signature several times this arvo, well, because I can. The sydney mint thing was meant to indicate that i was conceived and born in this city. :hi:

[robbiegal]

ta
it is fun to play around with that stuff
I lived in Sydney once or twice many many years ago
it was ok too