Welcome to the updated Slickdeals redesign beta. Learn more and give us feedback. Or, return to the classic view.

Search in
Popular Deal
Amazon Discounts, Deals and Coupon Codes

Make money on Amazon trade-ins

BargainSnatcher 1,725 January 23, 2013 at 06:13 PM in Finance (4) More Amazon Deals
Deal
Score
+163
308,395 Views
Buy Now

Deal Details

Inception [amazon.com] - $4.79 (Trade-in $9.85)

X-men First Class [amazon.com] - $4.99 (Trade-in $9)

Sherlock Holmes [amazon.com] - $3.99 (Trade-in $11.90)

Unknown [amazon.com] - $4.99 (Trade-in $9.70)

The Devil wears Prada [amazon.com] - $4.99 (Trade-in $7.35)

And as mentioned in another thread (credit to asimo): Batman Dark Knight [amazon.com] - $5.38 (Trade-in $8.80) *CURRENTLY BACKORDERED @ AMAZON - 7-12 days.

Julie & Julia [amazon.com] - $4.50 (Trade-in $6.85) - credit to facepalm

Cat in the Hat [amazon.com] - $4.99 (Trade-in $7.50) Credit to tocirahi

LIMIT 2 PER TITLE!

3,082 Comments

202 203 204 205 206

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#3076
Quote from sdman33 View Post :
You clearly do not know how processes work. Just like with anything else...there are terms and conditions to be met that are outlined in the trade-in policy.
In your world..there is one over-ruling blanket policy..that would in essence, make every other term and condition pointless, 100% of the time.

Guess you could write them and suggest the policy be change into a one sentence : "We'll send you whatever credit we feel like on that day". Until then...terms and conditions (with clear indications of what steps/conditions need to be met for credit issued) need to followed on both ends.
Actually, I do know how they work. I've even helped draft some of them.

And if they say they retail the right to reject any items delivered, then that means exactly what it states: They can reject whatever you ship in. They can't change the amount they pay you for it. And they (by the terms of the agreement) have to pay to ship it back to you if they reject it. But they do not have to accept anything that appears at their door, even if they have already provided you a shipping label to send it in with.

The fact that you can't seem to get it in your head that reserving the right to reject your shipment is NOT the same as saying they will change the contract terms post-facto is your problem, not theirs.

Contractually, all they agree to is:

1) To pay shipping of your items to their door
2a) To either accept your items for the prices offered when you contacted them or
2b) To reject your items when they are received, in which case their responsibility is to return them to you at no cost.

They have met the terms of their contract with you. It's not their problem that you thought you were going to be Mr. Abritrage that day and now are stuck with merchandise you don't want.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#3077
Quote from kwadguy View Post :
Actually, I do know how they work. I've even helped draft some of them.

And if they say they retail the right to reject any items delivered, then that means exactly what it states: They can reject whatever you ship in. They can't change the amount they pay you for it. And they (by the terms of the agreement) have to pay to ship it back to you if they reject it. But they do not have to accept anything that appears at their door, even if they have already provided you a shipping label to send it in with.

The fact that you can't seem to get it in your head that reserving the right to reject your shipment is NOT the same as saying they will change the contract terms post-facto is your problem, not theirs.

Contractually, all they agree to is:

1) To pay shipping of your items to their door
2a) To either accept your items for the prices offered when you contacted them or
2b) To reject your items when they are received, in which case their responsibility is to return them to you at no cost.

They have met the terms of their contract with you. It's not their problem that you thought you were going to be Mr. Abritrage that day and now are stuck with merchandise you don't want.

Again...you're trying to mix conjecture with contracts...and that's not going too well for you.

What you fail to understand....upon many things...seems to be chiefly there is no 100% escape clause...after the fact. Your "we'll hide under some broad statement" hasn't worked for businesses in the past...and is no different now. If it was that simple in the real world, terms and conditions policies would be one sentence long. This also includes trying to pretend and pigeon hole the problem under "acceptance" when the actual problem (and the reason for the denial) is something totally separate.

I'm not sure what you meant by "you help draft some of them"....but if it's like any of the policies in question......you have quite the improvements to make. If not, I hope you have a great legal team.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#3078
Quote from sdman33 View Post :
Again...you're trying to mix conjecture with contracts...and that's not going too well for you.

What you fail to understand....upon many things...seems to be chiefly there is no 100% escape clause...after the fact. Your "we'll hide under some broad statement" hasn't worked for businesses in the past...and is no different now. If it was that simple in the real world, terms and conditions policies would be one sentence long.

I'm not sure what you meant by "you help draft some of them"....but if it's like any of the policies in question......you have quite the improvements to make.
I don't fail to understand it. And if you want to argue bad faith and lost opportunity costs here, which is pretty much the only legal argument you could try, then good luck with that and your $50 case. I doubt you'd win, as there wasn't any bad faith here: The prices listed were good faith prices distorted by an unexpected deluge of shipments based on public dissemination of an arbitrage opportunity. That exact case argument has been made for much larger cases and lost. But don't let precedent dissuade you if you have the time and money to burn pursuing this.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#3079
Quote from kwadguy View Post :
I don't fail to understand it. And if you want to argue bad faith and lost opportunity costs here, which is pretty much the only legal argument you could try, then good luck with that and your $50 case. I doubt you'd win, as there wasn't any bad faith here: The prices listed were good faith prices distorted by an unexpected deluge of shipments based on public dissemination of an arbitrage opportunity. That exact case argument has been made for much larger cases and lost. But don't let precedent dissuade you if you have the time and money to burn pursuing this.

I'm not sure why you are jumping around with your position. The problem I had with the way they handled it...after any corrections were supposedly made. If they can't figure out and correct their system beforehand...fine, but after a reasonable amount of time, the issue should have been resolved.

I really couldn't care less about my loss which was under $5. My problem had to do with my other trade-ins that were affected..along with having to question any future trade-in issues....based on deception.

A little word of advice...once that is uncovered...no policy will help you.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#3080
Quote from sdman33 View Post :
I'm not sure why you are jumping around with your position. The problem I had with the way they handled it...after any corrections were supposedly made. If they can't figure out and correct their system beforehand...fine, but after a reasonable amount of time, the issue should have been resolved.

I really couldn't care less about my loss which was under $5. My problem had to do with my other trade-ins that were affected..along with having to question any future trade-in issues....based on deception.

A little word of advice...once that is uncovered...no policy will help you.
There's no deception. It isn't in their interest to be deceptive in the sense you suggest. If they are deceptive and advertise higher price than they're going to pay (and aren't using that as a fulcrum to try and lower their offer once the discs are in their hands--which they aren't), then they eat shipping both ways and risk annoying their potential sellers. It's lose/lose. You seem to imagine them sitting back and laughing, waiting for you to send in merchandise that they'll reject--as if there's any upside in that.

You want to look for a smoking gun, feel free. But before you look, try to put forth a scenario where there might be a reason for a smoking gun. They might be somewhat incompetent in terms of how fast they updated their offer prices, and their triage receiver units may be somewhat incompetent in not holding the line in rejecting everyone's shipments (so it might seem capricious). But incompetency is not the same as deception and fraud.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#3081
Quote from kwadguy View Post :
There's no deception. It isn't in their interest to be deceptive in the sense you suggest. If they are deceptive and advertise higher price than they're going to pay (and aren't using that as a fulcrum to try and lower their offer once the discs are in their hands--which they aren't), then they eat shipping both ways and risk annoying their potential sellers. It's lose/lose. You seem to imagine them sitting back and laughing, waiting for you to send in merchandise that they'll reject--as if there's any upside in that.

You want to look for a smoking gun, feel free. But before you look, try to put forth a scenario where there might be a reason for a smoking gun. They might be somewhat incompetent in terms of how fast they updated their offer prices, and their triage receiver units may be somewhat incompetent in not holding the line in rejecting everyone's shipments (so it might seem capricious). But incompetency is not the same as deception and fraud.
I am not sure if you haven't been reading or paying attention to what has been wrote by multiple members but the deception (again after the initial trade-in "fix")....is clear.

If I was in their shoes, with their objective of hiding any continued issues with the trade-in values...I would have probably taken similar steps to try to divert any liability and sweep the remaining issue under the rug.


You don't seem that obtuse, so it seems like more of a willful (or vested) reason...as to why you are unable to see it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#3082
Quote from sdman33 View Post :
I am not sure if you haven't been reading or paying attention to what has been wrote by multiple members but the deception (again after the initial trade-in "fix")....is clear.

If I was in their shoes, with their objective of hiding any continued issues with the trade-in values...I would have probably taken similar steps to try to divert any liability and sweep the remaining issue under the rug.


You don't seem that obtuse, so it seems like more of a willful (or vested) reason...as to why you are unable to see it.
The "deception" is not clear. I read of members having their discs rejected for any of a number of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with the real reason they were rejected. I take that as incompetence, since they do reserve the right to reject discs for any reason (including overstock or market glut at the time they are received). In other words, the excuses they are coding are incorrect. But so what? If they coded the right excuse, they'd still be within their rights to return them. And in that case, would anything material have changed? No. That's the key there: Nothing material depends on how they code the return reason. So it's not "deception," which suggests motivation. There's no motivation to mis-code. But you have minimum wage workers instructed to reject the discs and check a box. Which they do. Often erroneously.

You want to play arbitrage with the big boys? Don't play with their bats and balls.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#3083
Quote from kwadguy View Post :
The "deception" is not clear. I read of members having their discs rejected for any of a number of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with the real reason they were rejected. I take that as incompetence, since they do reserve the right to reject discs for any reason (including overstock or market glut at the time they are received). In other words, the excuses they are coding are incorrect. But so what? If they coded the right excuse, they'd still be within their rights to return them. And in that case, would anything material have changed? No. That's the key there: Nothing material depends on how they code the return reason. So it's not "deception," which suggests motivation. There's no motivation to mis-code. But you have minimum wage workers instructed to reject the discs and check a box. Which they do. Often erroneously.

You want to play arbitrage with the big boys? Don't play with their bats and balls.
Some of your responses and assumptions are almost to the point of comical. The "so what" part...is called the written terms and conditions. Think of it as a check-off list or an instruction book. You don't get to just jump around and make up things as you go along. It's an A, B and C type of thing. If A and B are met..you get to go on to/achieve C.

If you still don't believe me...please take time to look at any insurance policy, contract, or car warranty book in your glovebox. It just the way the world works.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 206 of 206
202 203 204 205 206
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Slickdeals Price Tracker
Saving money just got easier.
Start Tracking Today
Copyright 1999 - 2015. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / DMCA Notice  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)