If there are unstated defects, it wouldn't surprise me if that fit the bill.

That said, the seller almost certainly runs the risk of getting bad feedback for their description category, so even if the buyer didn't attempt a return, a seller is taking a needless risk with a say-nothing description like "used", when they know there is more they should have said.


 

Agreed. You can rate a description as “poor” but a poor description is not the same as an incorrect description that justifies a return.

 

I'll certainly agree that the buyer would have had less headache if they'd asked for a more detailed description.


But it's not like we're talking about a seller who doesn't know anything about what they're selling.
The guy has some knowledge of the hobby and who his customers are likely to be.

Seems silly to skip a meaningful condition description when he could have just as easily said "writing present on the high scores page" and then this topic would have never showed up.

 

In terms of incorrect descriptions vs "poor descriptions" vs inaccurate description (by omission) -- I went and looked at the auction link.

From the picture, they all look pretty pristine.

Unless it is a wellknown thing in Vectrex collecting that people write in their manuals, I don't think I would have expected them to have been written in, if the seller didn't choose to point it out.



They actually have a wordy enough description about what is included in the auction to where I don't find it particularly unreasonable to be disappointed that they didn't point out a fairly obvious issue like writing.





Anyway, as a seller, I'd never have a description that lacks that kind of information.

But based on your earlier post, you think my standards for other sellers are too high  
 

You and I both have personal standards that would include that but I have to consider strict interpretation of any other seller’s description since that is the only standard I can morally claim when something is not as described. I can’t assume that another seller has met my personal standard and then base my claim on that. Many times I’ve been disappointed but refrained from making such a claim because I knew it was wrong to say that it wasn’t as described. I’d do it in a heartbeat if the description contradicts reality for something I cared about. 

Regarding the likelihood of and expectations for finding writing in the manuals:
I make a distinction between expecting that they did and expecting that they could. I’d expect that this would be intended use correctly described as “used” if it was written in regardless of how many users use it.

If it’s half the users then I expect to find writing in a lot of manuals described as “used” and I can’t say that the description was wrong. If it was 1/3rd, same deal. A quarter? Same deal. A fraction of a percent? Well, at some point my expectation goes from “a lot of” to some with increasingly few. I still expect “some” to have writing there unless the seller specifically described it otherwise (“like new,” “new,” “mint,” “no writing,” etc). At no point would I be justified in claiming that “used” doesn’t describe potential writing in the manual unless the chance of that was demonstrably zero.

How many people update the service history manual in their car? Most people just shove their receipts in with it. Would it be a flaw if someone did use the manual? If the car and everything associated with it happens to be a collectible, wouldn’t that be seen as provenance and perhaps even a good thing (shows that the vehicle was properly cared for)? I would only consider it defect under different context, like if it were described as “like new.”

The equivalent car analogy would be one of those cars that was bought to collect and stayed in a garage with 5 miles on the odometer and, thus, no service record expected. “Like new, mint-condition, 1995 Dodge Viper with 5 dealer-fresh miles on the ODO (2 from the factory!); original tires with original air!” I might be able to dispute writing then based on the “like new” and “mint” descriptions. If the original tires were dry rotted (as they very likely would be) I might also be able dispute that even though better condition is almost mutually exclusive of “original tires.”

You need to just forget this car analogy.  It isn't a good analogy, and the service history portion is an even worse analogy, since I doubt anybody haggles the price of a car based on the condition of the service manual.

If they did, it probably represents 0.01% or less of the total price of the deal to just get a new condition NOS manual thrown in as a freebie.


And while the "provenance' in the case of car service matters, the "provenance" of writing high scores in a video game manual is only of any possible benefit if it happens to have come from some well known high score champion or some other person of celebrity status.   Even then it is subjective as to whether that is of value or "damage" to the manual, in the case of video games.






I don't collect Vectrex so I don't know how commonly the manuals are written in.

Maybe for Vectrex collectors it is just understood that everybody wrote in the manuals.

But it would never have been my expectation that an auction that omits something obvious like writing in the manual would be considered "OK" or "up to standard" for a listing, versus considering that omission an error on the part of the seller.

From my own selling experience, I know that sort of thing is very easy to know (as the seller) and very easy to disclose accurately.

Back when I was actively collecting NES and SNES, I certainly would have expected that to have been disclosed to me, and the times that I found writing in the manuals I bought, the seller had been honest and accurate in their descriptions about what to expect.


But if I actively collected manuals, nowadays, maybe my expectations of seller disclosure would be commensurately lowered.

I tend to expect better out of people, though.






 

Lol me too. 

All I can think of is the massive amount of manuals Ive sold that I didnt look through a single page. 

I recently just sold about 3k worth of items on eBay after not selling for years, and only had one person try a  claim that a 2600 arrived damaged, i didnt even question it just gave the 50$ back and said F it

When games did not save their own progress/hi-scores and when hi-scores were the common goal I am sure that they were used a lot more, but until you could reasonably expect zero users to use that then you must expect that a "used" manual might be used in that way. Doesn't matter if it's 15% or 10% or 7% of users who use it.

This x1,000

 

The issue what what you're saying is that you are conflating "might" (which could be very very low chance) with "should expect" (which should imply "likely" or > 50%).



 

When listing an item, eBay presents sellers with an option to specify whether-or-not returns are accepted. A message right there clearly says buyers can still return the item if it's not as described.

If the buyer wants more details about the nature of the use on a "used" item, then the buyer should ask before agreeing to the sale (a contract). 

 

I'd point out that if a seller wants to protect themselves from the risks of buyers using "not as described" as a defense, they shouldn't omit (seemingly obvious) things like writing in manuals.

I would be surprised if that could easily be characterized as an omitted flaw/imperfection that should have been disclosed should a buyer choose to raise the issue with eBay.



I'm sure somebody here has practical experience as to who eBay sides with in that case, and could clear it up.





Anyway, I'm surprised that the general agreement is that sellers don't need to be bothered to disclose something like this.
It's not how I'd choose to act as a seller, and I wouldn't have expected it as the norm.

That depends entirely on which ebay "agent" that gets escalated to, and what the Magic 8-Ball happens to tell them when they turn it over.


 

”Might” implies any chance between 100% and 0% and a user should expect any single unit “might” be used in that way (writing in the section intended for that). The exact rate is irrelevant. Whether or not it’s likely or unlikely is irrelevant. As long as there is a reasonable, non-zero chance then they “should expect [that it might].” Expecting a single used manual to have no writing just because 51% of them don’t is backwards. I can’t book a year-long time machine trip to some random year in the past decade and then claim that I deserve a refund because they didn’t tell me I might get a leap year which I can expect to get only 25% of the time. How’s that for a bad analogy?  

The standard here is set by strict interpretation of “used” and what constitues “intended use” whether or not most get used that way.

Let's imagine some arbitrary example where there is only a 1:100 chance that the high score pages would actually have been used.
Even if that was "intended use", it would be uncommon enough as to be note-worthy, since you have a very high probability of expecting it to NOT have been used in that way.



But if a significant percentage of people actually wrote in these manuals (while keeping them as nice looking as in the pictures!), then a buyer should probably know what to expect. 
Though likelihood absolutely factors into that expectation, and it seems a bit absurd to suggest otherwise.






But then again, with a seller who sells known collectibles and knows what they're selling, should probably also know something like writing in a manual MIGHT (   ) matter to a bunch of prospective buyers, to where it is worth their while to point it out in the description to avoid issues down the line.

Just a thought.. Should a large volume seller that sells thousands of items per month and manuals by the hundreds be expected to look at every page of every manual. Or would it be more reasonable for a meticulous buyer to ask about the particular item they interested in?

If there's not pics of something like inside of a manual then expect the worse if it's listed as used. I've really gotten screwed twice on ebay recently one by a U.S. seller selling me a famicom (turned out to be famiclone but I expected that) & seller stated it was tested and working great. Received it and it was missing screws in bottom & upon opening the CPU and PPU was gone and power / av board ribbon torn from solder points. I paid $60 plus shipping and seller refused partial refund of $30 and insisted on return but did not trust him to return it since I had opened it. Seller really pissed me off when he finally stated that he personally tested it to be working so he was calling me a liar at that point.

Other thing was Japanese famicom in box with original paperwork, early style power supply, rare flyers, & good pics of everything in detail. Console I got was totally different later version later serial number, newer power supply, no flyers. It was $92.55 shipped & I told seller reason I bought was for the early matching unit and stuff the set I got was pieced together. Seller was nicer in this case and I told him to send me the 3 flyers or refund $20 and I'd be ok with that so he said he sent flyers out but I'll believe it when I see it. He did go ahead and begin return for refund process so who knows. No way in hell I'd return it returning stuff more trouble than it's worth anyways & never know what lies they might use once item gets back.