used when promised new

Warrenh, in your original post you mentioned that "We negotiated through email and came up with the price of $375 NEW." What you did not mention was how you learned about the item for sale?

I assume that you learned, like we all do, by reading an ad here on Audiogon, and then responding to that ad. Unfortunately, that ad was just taken off of Audiogon moments ago (I guess because the item is now sold) but I checked the language of the ad out and the wording was exactly as Jmcgrogan2 states in his post above. I wish you could all still see the ad! The ad I read was for these same cables and was listed for $375 (no negotiation that I can see from the listed price). There was no fine print. It stated clearly that the cables were "like new" and in the description they were "rated 9.9/10" and "in absolutely mint like new condition." The ad also mentioned that all items that were in stock were either "brand new" or "like new" (implying clearly that if this item was advertised as "like new" then it could not be "brand new" since that was the only other option of the two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive options that the seller provides). I mean to tell you folks, the ad was great and it hit you over the head several times and in big bold print. It did what I suggested above in terms of explaining clearly what exactly was being offered. Since the seller is a dealer with several other Cardas ads on Audiogon, the only logical assumption would be that these were demo cables, and as such, may or may not have come with the original packaging and literature. This was not addressed by the ad. You should have asked if it was a concern.

What frustrates me about this thread is that (like several other people) I took the time to give my opinion and advice (above) based on what was stated by the thread's originator (before reading the ad). If it were not for Jmcgrogan2's post, I would not have had the chance to see the facts for myself. Warrenh, you didn't tell it like it is, which you have to do if you want our honest feedback. You claim that this person misrepresented the product to you, but clearly (based on the ad) he did not.

You, in fact, misrepresented his representations to us! And even based on the half-truth version of the facts as they were presented to us, the majority view seemed to be that neutral feedback with an explanation was in order. Yet, despite soliciting our advice publicly, you went against it and gave negative feedback, and then made matters worse by broadcasting it, and by doing so, led us to the identity of your seller who now has received unwarrented negative feedback and is also the victim of a defamatory thread.

Clearly, you were disappointed that you did not receive new cables as you had expected. I understand your frustration, but as has been pointed out by others, you should not give negative feedback to someone based on your misunderstanding when, in fact, the ad very clearly stated the truth, or at least enough of the truth to draw out your questions about the condition of the product.

In my opinion, you should:

1. Ask Audiogon to remove the negative feedback that you have given, and
2. Issue and apology.

What a shame that the ad has been removed.

Having said all of that, I could be wrong. If you did in fact come to a different understanding with the seller in your email communication than what was stated in the ad, and if your emails clearly indicate an agreement that you were buying "New" cables (full stop), then clearly I'm wrong for being so harsh. Every point I've made above is based on my reading of the plain language of the ad. I may not know all of the facts.

I'm not here to come out as the bad guy. Through email he said very clearly that they were new. His apology, just recieved, indicated he made a mistake and sent me demo rather than NEW. Clear? His ad had nothing to do with my "misunderstanding." It was a verbal NEW.
peace..

Finding this thread intriguing, I just looked at the ad by Trancehits, as well as the mutual negative feedback involved. Unless the ad has since been changed, it merely states a scale rating of 10/10, with no descriptive language used about the condition.

However, what none of us posters here know for sure, is what was contained in the negotiation correspondence Warrenh refers to. If Warren merely assumed that the cables must have been represented as being literally "New" because of their AGS rating, then he is in error and should either contact Audiogon about the possibility of correcting the feedback situation, or post a followup feedback making amends.

OTOH, it's important to realize that even if the emails between Warrenh and Trancehits did in fact describe the cables as being "new" rather than "like new", the possibility nevertheless still exists that the two of them were just getting crossed up over an honest semantics problem, rather than anyone attempting intentional misrepresentation. There does exist an AGS rating of "NEW" sans any number scale, and it would have been reasonable (and correct) for Trancehits to assume that Warrenh knew that 10/10 implied the cables had been opened and used some. If Warrenh was ignorant of this fact, it would have been reasonable (if incorrect) for him to assume that the cables were unopened and unused. If they both proceeded on these assumptions, then they could well have done all their negotiations and consumated the deal without either one ever realizing that each of them was assuming things not apparent to the other, and they could therefore have been operating under different contextual notions about the meaning of the word "new".

So (and assuming the ad was the same at the time of the transaction), only if their correspondence contained clearly explicit language stating that the cables were never opened, never used, or some such equivalent, rather than just referring to them somewhat ambiguously as "new" or even "brand new" - which may very well have been an appropriate description if Trancehits had bought them as the original owner mere days or weeks before offering them for sale *and* was proceeding on the assumption that Warrenh knew he had tried them out - only then does Warrenh IMHO have nothing to apologize for (and Trancehits would have some explaining to do). Otherwise, I think Warrenh should recognize the possibility of some error on his part concerning the AGS scale, and that the possibility exists that this all could have gone down exactly the way he thought it did, yet Trancehits could have been perfectly honest all along - as well as that this situation should have been worked out in private between the two of them with a little more effort before going negative on a fellow member. As usual, quality, careful, and detailed communication is everything when it comes to transaction satisfaction!

based upon this newly revealed information I retract my previous comment regarding neutral feedback & now in fact side with the seller, who should if anything have received POSITIVE feedback. The buyer can still post a positive followup, although not completely within the guidelines of one feedback per transaction, that could be overlooked & in this case would probably be the right thing to do.

Warrenh, why didn't you submit this to Audiogon for its standard dispute resolution process. It's not at all fair (to the seller and to your fellow Audiogoners) to hear just one side of the story.