Feedback - FROWNS

[ras]

I'm sorry I'd have to agree with the seller more. If the seller declared that the item is without bill, it is fair that he bought the lens 2 years back and that's what he was aware of. Whether the lens was bought gray was something that should have been clear when the seller said 'no bill'.

So, "No bill" always means grey? Or can it also mean that the bill cannot be found or is lost?

"No Bill" means that Nikon India will treat it exactly as it would a grey item (viz. you would need to pay for all repairs/servicing).

Nikon India, not only needs the original bill, but also the warranty card. BOTH need to be presented together (just one or the other will not suffice). They may consider exceptions - but those will only be exceptions and not thought of as a rule.

This is confirmed many times from Nikon Service on Richmond Road Bangalore and here's what their site says:
2) To validate this warranty card, you are requested to fill in all necessary information (owner's name, address, telephone number, e-mail address and date of purchase) on the front. This warranty card together with the original purchase receipt must be presented to the Nikon authorized service facility before any repair can be made under warranty.

I feel the need to clarify this for all those who buy Nikon equipment under the impression that it's under warranty when it's advertised as "with warranty card but can't find bill" or "Scanned copy of bill available" ..... it's not. It's exactly the same as buying an item without a bill or warranty.

As the warranty kicks in only from the date of sale and as items sometimes lie in stock for 2+ years, Nikon India needs BOTH bill and warranty.

PS: Writing this here as the other day I got a call from a fellow member who bought an item from a well known store in Burma Market and was assured by the shop keeper that as he had the warranty card stamped, there wasn't a need for a bill (that's how the shop reduced the price - to avoid tax). To Nikon India - that is still a grey item and they won't honour the warranty.

But in Kolkata , Nikon Service center asks for either of one . They even know the big shop names and they know they do not provide bill , they just stamp the warranty card with Shop Seal . So they give full warranty with the stamped warranty card only . This is for all Nikon Camera and Lenses. Even I had the similar idea that one needs both to be presented at the time of claim , but last time I was in Nikon to Service one of my lenses and I produced a stamped Warranty card of my D700 , they said "yes, we accept this for any warranty claim we know this shop does not provide bill. "

[VikramF]

But in Kolkata , Nikon Service center asks for either of one . They even know the big shop names and they know they do not provide bill , they just stamp the warranty card with Shop Seal . So they give full warranty with the stamped warranty card only . This is for all Nikon Camera and Lenses.

I'd like to know what they'd do when faced with the prospect of an expensive repair ..... stick by Nikon India's rules or go with 'local understanding'.

I think it would be the former as over a certain cost, they'll need their supervisors approval (I assume they have such systems in place).

Here are Nikon India's rules on their website: http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/warranty.page

[Rakesh J.V]

But in Kolkata , Nikon Service center asks for either of one . They even know the big shop names and they know they do not provide bill , they just stamp the warranty card with Shop Seal . So they give full warranty with the stamped warranty card only . This is for all Nikon Camera and Lenses.

I'd like to know what they'd do when faced with the prospect of an expensive repair ..... stick by Nikon India's rules or go with 'local understanding'.

I think it would be the former as over a certain cost, they'll need their supervisors approval (I assume they have such systems in place).

Here are Nikon India's rules on their website: http://www.nikon.co.in/en_IN/warranty.page

Actually, same thing happened for me at the Richmond road service centre. Got my D7000's sensor cleaned and calibrated for a back focus issue for free. They just checked the stamped warranty card (explained that i had left the bill at Chennai).

[pankaj21]

Seems that post was missed by the mods... :(

[zack2137]

Not so lucky here in Gurgaon. They ask for both Bill and Warranty Card.

[abhivg]

No, but its general prudence to know where the bill and warranty papers are. Not that the buyer is correct in withholding the information, but lack of general prudence puts you in the same shoes. And upon inquiry if you realize that the item never had a bill, it should ring a bell. If at all it didn't, it makes a case for the seller that he bought the lens from a person of his choice and that he never promised/ was aware that the lens is from a more recent batch.

Pardon my ignorance but I am a first time buyer so not really accustomed to thinking like you do :). My posts in this thread are proof enough of my stupidity in handling this deal :).
In my defense, I had asked the seller if the lens was bought "new" and he said yes. I trusted the seller on this. I am aware of the quality of a "NEW" Canon L lens, whether grey (I consider grey as a new item but without bill/warranty) or original, so went ahead with it. Is it still my prerogative to have questioned the seller on whereabouts of the bill and identity of the person he bought it from? Does lack of awareness on seller's behalf of age/quality of sold item free him of the responsibility of suitably correcting the deal if he is made aware of it later? If that makes a case for the seller, I am afraid this is not a buyer's market at all. If so, I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy through this medium.

Yes, you had a case there. And frankly so, if it was agreed beforehand that a refund is to be granted if the lens fails a physical inspection. But most ads that I've seen on JJMF put a condition that all inspections have to be made beforehand.
Now nominating your cousin for inspection is as good as you inspecting the glass in person. If he is not proficient with lenses and their functioning, you could have asked the seller to send the lens with his niece, inspect it in person and then pay her niece to be 100% sure of what you are buying.

I am not sure what "having a case" would mean then, but based on past events I am quiet sure seller would not have refunded my money in that case either. I had asked seller if I could give money to his niece in cash when she delivers the lens to me. The seller said that that is not possible.

A case could also be made that the seller himself wasn't aware of the fungal growth, since it never showed on the pictures. What really happened here, is for the mods to decide.

The seller himself said that the lens was cleaned for fungus 3 months back, albeit only when I bought it up. He also mentions that he is a "professional photographer" and he stays in Mumbai. Now I find it hard to believe that a pro photographer working in Mumbai was unaware of whether there is fungal growth in a lens which he himself got cleaned for fungus 3 months back. His responsibility of properly checking for fungal growth becomes even more important given the fact that he puts up the item for sale. Further he has put up  pictures of the lens elements (at certain specific angles) to show that the inside is clean. Could he have missed the fungus when inspecting the lens and taking those images? Again, hard to believe.

Also seller states: "being a photographer in business, keeping in mind certain ethics, i would never even offer any equipment on sale if it is damaged or cannot be used. I'd rather get it repaired or discard it, if beyond repairs". Does this mean that he was aware of the fungus, but deduced that it does not affect image quality and can be put up for sale? In that case shouldn't lens condition be mentioned as "With slight fungus but does not affect image quality" instead of "Clean without fungus"??

What I can deduce from this is he was aware that this lens was fungus prone and either did not bother to check it properly before selling it OR tried to get rid of a fungus infected lens and fully/partially recover whatever he spent on it in the first place. In either case why should I be paying the cost of his mistake/(feigned?)ignorance?

Giving him the benefit of doubt, I would like to make same point again; shouldn't a morally (I know, heavy word in today's day and age :) ) responsible seller take appropriate (keyword here being appropriate) action to make up for a faulty deal, if at all due to lack of knowledge on his part? Does a "2 year old lens without any fungus" equate to "a 7 year old lens recently cleaned for fungus", I don't think so.

It's not like he would have made a loss or something with the refund, so why is he still willing to face legal consequences which I am going ahead with. My deduction from this is that he is happy to get rid of a fungus prone lens and recover his money.

[lightwave]

Seems that post was missed by the mods... :(

Not a question of missed. The thread was seen. Nowhere in the thread you have posted a buy request and the item blocked for you. This would be like going byword of mouth. A little more would be needed please.
Why don't users make it clear in the forum that they have offered to buy and item is booked for them? Would make moderation a little easier.

[zack2137]

In my defense, I had asked the seller if the lens was bought "new" and he said yes. I trusted the seller on this. I am aware of the quality of a "NEW" Canon L lens, whether grey (I consider grey as a new item but without bill/warranty) or original, so went ahead with it. Is it still my prerogative to have questioned the seller on whereabouts of the bill and identity of the person he bought it from? Does lack of awareness on seller's behalf of age/quality of sold item free him of the responsibility of suitably correcting the deal if he is made aware of it later? If that makes a case for the seller, I am afraid this is not a buyer's market at all. If so, I wouldn't recommend anyone to buy through this medium.

I'm afraid I would have to say yes, the seller's ignorance of the age (and not quality) of the sold item is plausible. For example, I've 4 lenses right now (2 pro) but I never bothered to check when were they manufactured or the batch they belong to. I've the bill and for me, that's the date my warranty began from.
If on the other hand I don't have the bill, I won't have any basis to establish the age of the lens. In that case, I'd tell my buyers that I don't have the bill but I bought it from some XYZ dealer on ABC date (which obviously tells the duration of ownership).

I had asked seller if I could give money to his niece in cash when she delivers the lens to me. The seller said that that is not possible.

This is a new fact and doesn't goes with my assumption! Not the best of the conditions this!

...Further he has put up  pictures of the lens elements (at certain specific angles) to show that the inside is clean. Could he have missed the fungus when inspecting the lens and taking those images? Again, hard to believe.

Were the pictures recent? can you deduce if the fungus should have been visible in the pictures posted by the seller?

..In that case shouldn't lens condition be mentioned as "With slight fungus but does not affect image quality" instead of "Clean without fungus"??

What I can deduce from this is he was aware that this lens was fungus prone and either did not bother to check it properly before selling it OR tried to get rid of a fungus infected lens and fully/partially recover whatever he spent on it in the first place. In either case why should I be paying the cost of his mistake/(feigned?)ignorance?

See.. my point here is .. this was not a fraud deal.. Yes, it was grossly misrepresented. 'Clean without fungus' can be constructed as a lens which was infected but then serviced and cleaned (just a point of view). Since the seller hid the fact that the lens was serviced recently and the fact that fungus is known to grow even after cleaning, the buyer obviously misled with his ad.

In a potential deal with a similar background, general prudence would dictate that the buyer inspect and satisfy himself of the quality of lens before buying it, which was exercised in your case.
Since the fungus was cleaned (as per the seller) and as highlighted above, the seller might have missed it (just like your cousin), the seller acknowledged his mistake and offered you a service, which is fair. The age of the lens factor is something even I've not checked ever (have bought a prime and a 16-85 from a fellow forum) and wasn't even committed.

Giving him the benefit of doubt, I would like to make same point again; shouldn't a morally (I know, heavy word in today's day and age :) ) responsible seller take appropriate (keyword here being appropriate) action to make up for a faulty deal, if at all due to lack of knowledge on his part? Does a "2 year old lens without any fungus" equate to "a 7 year old lens recently cleaned for fungus", I don't think so.

As mentioned above, he did offer an appropriate action.

It's not like he would have made a loss or something with the refund, so why is he still willing to face legal consequences which I am going ahead with. My deduction from this is that he is happy to get rid of a fungus prone lens and recover his money.

I've both bought and sold a couple of lenses through forums in the past. As a potential seller of 3 lenses and some accessories (as on today), I can understand the position of the buyer when he says that he has invested the money and doesn't possesses it anymore.

Having said all of the above, if I was in your shoes, I would do exactly the same, that is, the legal route. I cannot understand the pain of losing hard earned money as much as you can do at the moment. I would also like to appreciate your positive and receptive attitude through these discussions. Much respect! :)

[lightwave]

The Moderators' recent effort to engage seller Saurabh Pandit in pursuit of an amicable solution to the lens problem has been ignored. It is the view of the Moderators that the seller has engaged in willful misrepresentation of a product offered, and has clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in setting things right. In order to bring this matter into compliance with Rule 29a, the seller's account has been permanently locked.

However I must mention here that the fault here was not entirely unilateral. The buyer has also for some reason, probably hurry to buy a good item at a good price, not taken all possible precautions to safeguard his own interests. Much of this has been discussed above and I do not wish to ponder on the same points again.

[Hankosaurus]

Fellow Members,

A relatively long discussion about possible improvements to the Forum followed Doc's post above. I have split that discussion off to the following new thread:
http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.php/topic,28502.msg278239.html#new

This way the discussion can be explored to its fullest without diluting the purpose of FROWNS, which is for the expressed purpose of helping Members learn from deals gone bad, and how to avoid the same.

:)