Liquidity Services Inc

April 3, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com[redacted]
[redacted]  [redacted]
RE:  [redacted] ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted]Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  [redacted]...

described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because she became impatient with the dispute process; however, the matter has since been resolved in her favor.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 28 women’s plus-size jeans from Lucky, Levis, Charter Club and Style & Co. in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On January 12, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was missing units and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. [redacted] said that she only received 22 of 28 pairs of jeans.  She also complained that nearly all of the jeans were Style & Co. brand instead of a more mixed distribution.  Also, she mentioned that the box may have been opened/disturbed in transit.  She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.Due to [redacted] statements regarding the potentially disturbed packaging, a shipping claim was filed with [redacted] on her behalf on January 19.  Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] claim and concluded that a partial refund for the six (6) pairs of missing jeans would be appropriate due to the shipping claim.  The refund was unable to be processed, however, because [redacted] had already filed a chargeback claim.  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  For this reason, [redacted] Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.Our disputes team completed its full review of the claim and determined that a full refund would be awarded to [redacted] upon return of the merchandise to the seller.  Return shipping labels were provided and the return was confirmed.We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.Regards,Cary C. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

April 27, 2016Dear Mr. [redacted]Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  Mr. [redacted] describes concerns he has around transaction ID [redacted] which consisted of 200 units of Designer Neckties - [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted],...

[redacted], [redacted].  The lot was listed as ‘shelf pulls’ condition.  This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and Mr. [redacted]’s bid of $121 was the winning bid on 3-31-2016.  The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $167.30.  The product was delivered to Mr. [redacted] on 4-8-2016, and Mr. [redacted] filed a dispute with us on 4-8-2016 under the incorrect transaction ID, and then again on 4-16-16 under the correct transaction ID.Mr. [redacted]’s claim in the Revdex.com complaint differs slightly from the 2 disputes filed with our company regarding the merchandise in transaction ID [redacted]:The claim through the Revdex.com is that the ties is the clothing (ties) were listed as shelf pulls but they were all in salvage condition.The claim filed with Liquidity Services on 4-8-16 (under the incorrect transaction ID) stated: “These ties were listed as "returns".  Out of 200 ties only 2 had tags, and I believe the other 198 ties are used. A lot of the ties have rips and some are grossly dirty.  No store would accept a return that is grossly dirty. Also, some of the name brands listed in the auction are not included. I want a full refund.”The claim filed with Liquidity Services on 4-16-16 (under the correct transaction ID) stated: “I initially filed this dispute on April 8, but it appears the wrong transaction ID was noted in the dispute. I want to return all these ties and I want a full refund immediately. Provide me with return postage and I will send the ties back immediately. These ties are all used, and some are grossly dirty and damaged.  If I do not receive a refund I will be contacting consumer affairs and disputing the charge with my credit card due to the false fraudulent auction.”The photographic support submitted by Mr. [redacted] to Liquidity Services for the claim on 4-8-16 shows 2 image files of what appears to be the same necktie in each picture.  1 image shows a small tear at near the loop on the backside of the tie.  Please note Mr. [redacted] references the ties as being listed in three different conditions: shelf pulls, returns, and used.  To clarify, the auction was listed using shelf pulls as the condition, and we generalize that Mr. [redacted] did not agree with the condition of the merchandise.  Additionally, the auction indicated the following statement “Lot May Include an Assorted Mix of the Following Ties” followed by a non-inclusive list of brand name ties that could appear in the lot.   This statement was used to highlight that the seller did not guarantee that all name brands would be included in the lot.  Effectively, our disputes department denied Mr. [redacted]’s claims for lack of supporting evidence (the photographs do not substantiate a condition outside of shelf pulls) and on the basis that the auction properly advertised merchandise in the shelf pulls condition; Shelf pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never sold. They usually possess one or more price tags and/or stickers, indicating multiple markdowns, and have been exposed to appreciable customer contact. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g. from a retailer back to a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. Accordingly, Shelf Pulls may exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.Essentially, the ties were likely exposed to appreciable customer handling (people trying them on), and then further handling in the reverse supply chain.Regarding Mr. [redacted]’s claim about receiving broken electronic items, which were listed as new condition (Transaction ID [redacted]).  The merchandise was delivered on Jan 14, 2016, and Mr. [redacted] filed a claim on the merchandise on Apr 3, 2016.   The dispute was denied due to the excessive amount of time that had passed from delivery to filing a claim.  Section 12 from the Terms and Conditions addresses the need for buyers to inspect assets on delivery.  An excerpt from Section 12 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below as a reference:Claims for Incorrect or Inaccurate Description Where Inspection Not Permitted; Returns Process. In limited circumstances, our sellers only permit inspection on buyer's receipt of the Assets after their shipment. For example, this may occur in a drop-ship arrangement where there is no inspection permitted by the seller and the seller or Liquidity Services coordinate shipping of the Assets directly to the buyer. In such circumstances, buyer must make a claim for any incorrect or inaccurate Listing description of the Assets within three (3) Business Days after delivery of the Assets to buyer. Thereafter, a buyer's right to make a claim expires. Buyer's right expires regardless of whether buyer actually conducts an inspection of the Assets.Liquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers. We regret that Mr. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we stand behind the decision to deny these disputes based on the evidence provided and feel the matters were handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.  We are well outside the normal window for investigating post-transactional claims, but as a courtesy if Mr. [redacted] has additional evidence that he feels would substantiate a claim on the neckties, we will review it.  Mr. [redacted] can submit that information to us using our “Submit a Dispute” process.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address Mr. [redacted]’s claim. Regards,Darren M[redacted]Sr. Manager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services

Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for...

transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.[redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of Major brand name & Fashion jewelry (shelf pulls) items on Liquidation.com. On June 22nd, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was grossly misrepresented. [redacted] stated “total retail value is not even $2,000.00 items have retail value on them. Not even close to the quality shown in the photos.” [redacted] sent in photos to support his claim and requested a full refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was properly listed. Our disputes team informed [redacted] that his dispute claim could not be honored as the photos posted on the auction listing are provided for descriptive purposes only. They are not to be considered a detailed manifest of specific units to be received. The auction listing clearly states “you will receive the items similar to the ones pictured. You may not receive the exact units pictured.” As such, his claim was denied.Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement. For this reason, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. Regards,  Amanda OCompliance AssociateLiquidity Services

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because while the response was correct, that was not the transaction which forced me to contact the Revdex.com. They were forced by [redacted] to provide a full refund for two other orders due to the same challenges in shipping but more their lack of responsiveness to me or to them in rectifying the issue. As they responded, they locked me out of their site, preventing all email communication, and when attempting to contact them via phone, both [redacted] and I were unsuccessful.My complaint stands; when the merchandise that the third party ships to the winner is not what is expected, in my experience there is little chance they will respond as their stated processes advertise. This was shocking as I had purchased previously, however, in those purchases the merchandise was fine. They do not provide customer service to the level of expectation, and as you experienced, getting any sort of reply from this company is difficult when faced with challenges.The public should be warned...[redacted] very rarely makes the decision to refund the buyer's money regardless of whether the merchandise is returned; that is what happened with me because of their practices-they went as far as rejecting the return authorized through [redacted]. Please watch this company and seek out others for the same experience; I will never do business with them again.
Regards,
[redacted]

Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our...

website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.[redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of Major brand name & Fashion jewelry (shelf pulls) items on Liquidation.com. On June 22nd, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was grossly misrepresented. [redacted] stated “total retail value is not even $2,000.00 items have retail value on them. Not even close to the quality shown in the photos.” [redacted] sent in photos to support his claim and requested a full refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was properly listed. Our disputes team informed [redacted] that his dispute claim could not be honored as the photos posted on the auction listing are provided for descriptive purposes only. They are not to be considered a detailed manifest of specific units to be received. The auction listing clearly states “you will receive the items similar to the ones pictured. You may not receive the exact units pictured.” As such, his claim was denied.Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement. For this reason, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. 
Regards,
 
Amanda O
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I can see that you have no intention to admit your false advertising. I reserve the right to have this matter further investigated to keep you from capitalizing in this manner of doing business. The consumers deserve better.  
Regards,
[redacted]

January 6, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  [redacted] described...

concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the sellers and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted].  [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his disputes were denied.Regarding transaction ID [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 180 urbeats and powerbeats headphones in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  On November 27, he filed a dispute with our Customer Service Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing.  He also said that he was missing 20 items of merchandise.  Of the items he received, [redacted] said that none of them were sent in their original packaging and that most of them had torn wires.  [redacted] provided photo support for his claim and requested a full refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the items had been properly represented as Returns by the seller.  The units were noted as “Untested” in the auction listing, indicating that they had not been inspected for operation.  These headphones were simply customer returns.  Further, Returns merchandise is allowed to be sent without original packaging as referenced in the below definition of Returns that was available on the auction listing (bold emphasis):Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.Regarding transaction ID [redacted] won a Liquidation.com auction for a lot of 16 external hard drives in Returns condition.  On December 1, he filed a claim with our Customer Service Department asserting that his merchandise had been grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing and was not in the condition advertised.  He said that the photos in the auction did not show the actual items sent and that the items received were used, salvaged, and dirty.  [redacted] provided photo support for his claim. Our disputes team also denied [redacted]’s claim on this transaction.  The merchandise described fell within the broad parameters for condition of customer returns merchandise.  As companies are less restrictive with customer returns, they can exhibit a measurable degree of abuse in some cases.  This merchandise lot appears to have rested closer to the lower end of the range than the higher end of the range; however, the items were still properly identified.  The photos provided for the auction were illustrative of the brand and type of merchandise offered.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that these matters were handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary *. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Buyer was informed on May 31, 2017 at 16:04:37 ET that their dispute was denied as the auction was properly labeled as ‘Returns’, which are not guaranteed to be functional as the majority have operational and cosmetic issues, may show signs of use and may not include all parts and accessories. In...

addition, the auction description indicates the units are not inspected and may or may not be functional.

April 28, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: **. [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear **. [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **....

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.
**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of five (5) LED TVs in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 7, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that the televisions he received all arrived with cracked screens; however, the manifest descriptions provided no reference to cracked screens. There were also no photos of the screens provided by the seller in the listing, only the back and sides of the televisions. He sent photos in support of his claim and requested either a full refund or a partial refund representing a discount for the damage.
Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that the televisions were in a condition other than advertised. Our definition of Salvage merchandise as provided in the auction listing reads, “Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts.” Furthermore, we do not allow for returns of Salvage lots. The following notice is explicitly listed in the auction advertising:
IMPORTANT: Please note that the condition of this lot is SALVAGE. Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for parts. These assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working condition.
We regret that **. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
Regards,
[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
There was NOT damage to the laptop and therefore it is NOT possible to see damage in the photos.  I reject this finding and ask that the photos be annotated and returned with 'damaged' areas.  In addition, I reject the proposal that 4 weeks of normal use may result in cracked glass.  This is simply not a reasonable expectation of a customer for this product.
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Ok so you "normalized" my bid of $20,188 lets just for a moment say that was acceptable, even though I don't believe it was, why was my prior bid of $5268 not upheld. It was placed at 5:36pm and stood until I increased my bid to the $20,188 amount at 6:25. At that point it was only 9 minutes until you "normalized" my bid. So if it only takes you 9 minutes to do this then that tells me the $5268 bid was within reason for them yet this bid was also cancelled. Just NOT fair business. Further they refuse to elaborate on their retraction process and at what point do they consider a bid to be unrealistic and subject to retraction, they told me if I feel my bids will be misinterpreted in the future to contact customer service in advance but how is one to know what will be misinterpreted when they do not have any written procedure for their process.. While they did send me an email after the retraction and I called customer service as soon as possible with 2 minutes remaining in the auction and they could have had every opportunity to do what was right and fair but did nothing. Just flat out poor business practices.
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
July 22,
2014
 
[redacted]
RevDex.com
1411 K
Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington,
DC 20005-3404
 
RE: Liquidation.com,
ID# [redacted]
 
Dear [redacted],
 
Please be advised
that on June 16, 2014 I filed a complaint with [redacted] regarding this matter.
After hearing from both sides, [redacted] decided in my favor on June 30th. I have
since returned all of the items, and have received a full refund in the amount of
$260.75.
I thank you
for your assistance in this matter, but the dispute has already been resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]

November 25, 2014 [redacted] Revdex.com 1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404 RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted], Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint. [redacted] claimed that a refurbished computer that he sent for repair returned without having been repaired properly. When discussing the matter with our customer service personnel, he was unable to reach a resolution. Our customer service representative flagged [redacted] for threatening speech and [redacted]’s account was suspended. Further, [redacted] filed a dispute with [redacted] that also would have resulted in a de-activation of his Liquidation.com user account. Chargebacks are not permitted because the user maintains possession of the merchandise with no payment. [redacted] responded that he had not used threatening language but that he had only asked for the contact information of the CEO of the company. It is unnecessary to untangle the counterclaims as to what else was said, however, because the filing of the dispute with [redacted] would have de-activated the account in any case. [redacted] disputes were specifically prohibited in the user agreement. We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to de-activate the account for the [redacted] dispute. Regards, Cary *. H[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and Monday of this week received a replacement computer.  It exhibits the same screen flipping problem thst my other computers had.  When I contacted them they claimed there was a screen lock button on the machine.  There is not!  Two months ago I just wrote this whole situation off and bought a [redacted] tablet.  I thank you for your efforts, but I suspect this maybe a generic problem with all these computers and cannot be fixed so I am just writting off the whole affair.  Again thank you for your work on my behalf.
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:They have to be kidding. This is not about two complaints
but about their entire warranty process. I have about 100 items, or more, that
should have the 90 day warranty and I have not been able to sell them because
Liquation.com has tried to change the definition and would not honor the
warranty. Again according to them I have to open and test every item, within
the 90 days of my purchase, to see if there is any defect before I sell it.
This is ridicules.
 My next step is to contact the press and make them aware of
what they are trying to do. Right now there many buyers of these items from
liquation.com that are unaware that the 90 day warranties, they are offering to
their customers, are worthless. Lets see what the press thinks.
Regards,
[redacted]

November 25, 2015 Dear [redacted], Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint. [redacted] stated he received the full refund but is still denied access to his account. [redacted]’s account was deactivated as the email address and the physical address matched the email and address on [redacted]’s account. Per our terms and conditions, we may, in our sole discretion, limit or cancel quantities purchased per person, per household or per order. We also reserve the right to reject any order you place with us. These restrictions may include orders placed by the same user account, the same credit card, and orders that use the same billing and/or shipping address.In our initial response, we explained that as [redacted]’s account was linked to [redacted]’s account, our disputes department deactivated [redacted]’s account as we only allow one account per household. Also, there is an outstanding nonpayment fee on [redacted]’s account. As such, [redacted]’s account will remain deactivated. We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. Regards,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services

April 3, 2015[redacted]Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Better Business...

Bureau.  [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because he was unable to receive the items he purchased.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 80 cell phone cases in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  He was unable to arrange for pickup of the items from our [redacted] warehouse despite multiple attempts to contact our customer service personnel.The transaction detail shows that pickup instructions were sent via e-mail to [redacted] on January 9.  No response from [redacted] is indicated.  Then on January 27, a notice was sent via e-mail to [redacted] requesting him to schedule pickup of his purchase within 24 hours or the transaction would be canceled.  Finally, the transaction was canceled on January 30 and [redacted] was refunded in full.We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.Regards,Cary C. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

August 5, 2014 
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404 
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.
 
[redacted] claimed that the items he purchased from Liquidation.com arrived in a condition other than advertised in the auction listing. He provided photos in support of his claim. Our disputes team reviewed his dispute and found that his evidence did not support his claims that the merchandise he received was not in Returns condition.
Items that are designated as Returns were originally sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the items back to a store or mailed them to a specified location. Though the reason for returning the product may not have any correlation to its usefulness, it can have some operational or cosmetic problems, due to further handling. [redacted] assumed that these items would not have extensive operational or cosmetic damage, but that does not correspond to our definition of Returns, which states that these issues can appear in returned merchandise.
Further, [redacted] seemed to expect Shelf Pulls condition merchandise whereas the auction listing consisted of Returns condition merchandise. Shelf Pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never sold. They tend to have been exposed to appreciable customer contact and can show signs of further handling. However, this merchandise was never owned by a consumer whereas Returns merchandise was purchased by a consumer and then returned at a later date. Depending on the manufacturing company’s return policy, the amount of use can vary significantly. Therefore, a buyer should expect a wider range of potential conditions for these Returns condition [redacted] boxes.
Finally, [redacted] filed a chargeback with his credit card company and therefore his user account was deactivated. When he signed up as a user on Liquidation.com, he agreed to follow our terms and conditions. Chargebacks are not permitted because the user maintains possession of the merchandise with no payment.
We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we cannot reject a legitimate sale of Returns merchandise due to customer expectations when liquidated lots undergo excessive handling as a matter of regularity. Therefore, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence provided.
 
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  I have received a payment of $350 via [redacted]. 
Regards,
[redacted]