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 kindly request Liquidity Services provide instructions for how to redeem this agreement. 
Regards,
[redacted]

July 16, 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]...

[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] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 30 Otter boxes for various models of [redacted] and [redacted] S3 in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 6, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that the cases he received were broken and many of them had cosmetic issues such as scratches or ink marks. [redacted] also stated that he would be unable to sell the items he received because of the damage. He requested a full refund on the transaction. 
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the items did not fit the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows: 
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.
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,
Cary ** H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc..

The company name isLiquidation.com[redacted] [redacted]Washington, DC [redacted]From USA: ###-###-####International: +[redacted]Fax: [redacted]Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST, Monday - Friday

November 21, 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]...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a seller on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. had not properly paid her for completed transactions; however, the matter has since been resolved. [redacted] sold a lot of 200 cosmetics items on Liquidation.com on September 17. That Transaction ID [redacted] would have paid $131.00 to her in an October 2 check; however, in the meantime another sold auction had received a buyer dispute (Transaction ID [redacted]). When a dispute is filed on an auction, $100.00 is withheld until the dispute is resolved. This is why [redacted]’ check was $100.00 less than she expected. After resolution of the buyer dispute on Transaction ID [redacted], the $100.00 was released to [redacted] and paid on October 23, which was after her Revdex.com dispute filing. We include paperwork with our payments to describe the payout calculations. We apologize for any inconvenience or misunderstanding experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the funds disbursement. Regards, Cary *. H[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

March 17, 2016Dear [redacted]Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. [redacted]. In her response, [redacted]. [redacted] states that she remains dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to her initial complaint.[redacted]. [redacted] states that Liquidation.com used misleading MSRPs on auction ID [redacted] which consisted of 150 pieces of New Statement Boutique Jewelry. This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and [redacted]. [redacted]’s bid of $170 was the winning bid on 2-16-2016. The total transaction cost, after taxes and shipping charges, was $234.06 which equates to a per unit cost of $1.56 each.We stand by the decision of our disputes department in denying [redacted]. [redacted]’s claim on the basis that the auction properly advertised the items for sale based on what the customer received. MSRP values are suggested retail values of a new unit given by the manufacturer as a reference point, whereby actual resale values will vary based on several factors throughout the retail process and region.MSRP values do not suggest or guarantee that the product can be re-sold at those prices.Section 5 from the Terms and Conditions addresses the need for buyers to be as informed as possible prior to bidding, taking into account the information on the auction as well as being aware of marketplace and industry factors which may influence purchasing decisions. An excerpt from Section 5 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below as a reference:Perform independent research and do not bid or purchase based on assumptionsLiquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers. Most Liquidation.com auctions start at $100 with no reserve, letting the marketplace decide the final price.We regret that [redacted]. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted]’s claim, and standby the decision of our disputes department.Regards, Darren M.Sr. Manager, Customer Support

[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.  Thank you for the understanding.
Regards,
[redacted]

The company name isLiquidation.com
[redacted] rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: verdana, sans-serif; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Washington, DC [redacted]From USA: ###-###-####International: +[redacted]Fax: [redacted]Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST, Monday - Friday

[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: The people at Liquidation.com are lying as far as me being suspended for non-payment of auctions. I refused to pay the last two auctions I won because I now knew the merchandise was counterfeit. Would you pay for something you knew to be fake? They are telling a half truth which is as good as a lie. To further prove they do not care what kind of fake merchandise is shilled on their site, these phony items are still being sold in spite of my alerting them to the fact that they are all forgeries. I tried to make an amicable settlement with them but they are only intent on showing me how much more money they have to spend when it comes to litigation. I have lost what little respect remained in me for them. I can prove every single one of my claims. The only other time they suspended my account was when an auction I had won was not delivered to me so I opened a [redacted] dispute claim. They do not like it when you try to get your money back even when they know you got scammed. They could have settled with me for half of what they received. They are dishonest and their response to you further proves their total disregard for customer safety and they have no problem making outright false statement to slander my name. They are not even good liars because I can easily disprove every false statement they make. Thank you.
Regards,
[redacted]

January 7th, 2016
Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted]...

[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] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for one lot of 100 new selfies sticks & Mounts for [redacted] & More on Liquidation.com. On December 11th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was missing units. [redacted] stated “I received through USPS today a [redacted] 18x13x13 carton containing 50 selfie sticks. I was expecting 100 selfie sticks as shown on the auction specification. I am expecting the rest sent to me ASAP or a refund of: half of the auction price ($114.50) plus half the shipping cost ($10.00) for a total of $124.50 I prefer receiving the balance of the selfies.”
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was properly listed. The auction description clearly states the following: Lot includes: Selfie monopod telescoping stick (50 pcs) Universal phone mount (50 pcs). As such, his claim was denied.
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 Associate
Liquidity Services

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

the Revdex.com. *** *** 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 ***. *** *** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.
*** *** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 131 items of major department store jewelry and watches in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 30, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department stating that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. *** *** said that several of the items were similar to the auction listing, but of slightly lesser retail value. However, her focus was on the *** *** watch, which she said looked different than the one represented in the auction. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested an exchange of the misrepresented watch.
Our disputes team reviewed *** ***’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. The items shipped to *** *** were in Shelf Pulls condition, and her support confirmed that the buyer received items similar to what were pictured in the auction. Additionally, the disputes team advised *** *** that MSRP prices are not encouraged as a basis of dispute, as these values are the suggested retail values of a new unit given by the manufacturer, whereby resale values will vary based on several factors throughout the retail process. Therefore, the items received by *** *** do properly represent the items listed in the auction.
We regret that *** *** 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,
Cary *. H***
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Jun 14, 2016Dear [redacted]Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted].  In his response, [redacted] states that he remains dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.  [redacted] indicates that Liquidity Services provided an incorrect date in which the dispute was filed, there was an issue with the return label provided by Liquidity Services, and that he has not received an update since returning his shipment.The timestamp in our system for the submission of the original dispute is 2016-05-21 02:02:24 am ET.  Our disputes department is aware [redacted]’s claim and is working diligently to facilitate a resolution.   We strive to close all claims in as short amount of time as possible, however certain cases may take additional time.  There is usually a need to facilitate correspondence from all parties involved so that the facts of the case can be considered during the resolution process. Our goal is to not have a claim open more than 10 business days.   Note, this is a goal, not a guarantee.  Liquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers. We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however I assure you we are aware of the issue.  A refund has been processed and [redacted] should see the funds within the next 2 to 3 business days. We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted]’s claim. Regards,Darren MSr. Manager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services

November 16, 2015Dear [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’s [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.[redacted] was the winning bidder of 3 auctions, each for one lot of assorted electronic items, purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 14th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received not in the condition listed and was grossly misrepresented. [redacted] stated “I got few items those are salvage, broken and not usable” [redacted] submitted pictures to support his dispute.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate his claim that the items were salvage or broken. The auction listing states all three lots of electronics listed in the condition of “returns”. In the description, it states “the majority of Returns 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. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing”. The auction manifest also listed each item individually and their grade/condition as “returns”. As such, his claim was denied.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

[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:1.  The facts as outlined in the response are not factual.       a.) The seller had issues with their telephones at the pick up location, and I was not able to make a timely pickup due to this.       b.) I notified the seller of the problem at their main location.         c.) I was informed by the site manager that no matter what I was told or did, he did not intend to grant an extension.        d.) I contacted [redacted] dispute resolution in an attempt to resolve the problem by third party       e.) It was Sole decision of the Sellers representative to refund my money.  I was told at once either forgo my money or he would                 terminate my account.       f.)  I made an offer of phone records to show that I attempted to contact them.       g.  I sent emails showing attempt to contact and a response by an employee,  who I was told should not have responded.       h. I have been a good customer with Government Liquidation in the past and made arrangements to accommodate them on pickup            at different locations around the country.       I.  All the merchandise purchased is donated to homeless shelters free of charge without any tax deductions.  The merchandise is           needed immediately at the time of purchase.  The purchase was for a tent to be used as a bad weather shelter.  They were            told the merchandise was needed as soon as possible. This is not an isolated instance with Government Liquidation, the internet is filled with horrible practices.  Being the sole source of US disposition disposal they should be held to a fair business dealing 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:Liquidation.com never notifyed me of erorr in completing there re-sale certificate.  I called Liquidation.com  approximately two weeks after sales were completed and was informed of errors.  I immediately made corrections and faxed over to Liquidity Services.  Liquidation.Com still refused to refund my sales tax  because I have pissed them off and they don't want to process my refund and stated two spaces were put in my user name that don't belong there.  At this point I became demanding of my refund their customer service representative  hung up the phone on me. Being demanding or loud and argumentative as Mr. [redacted] referred too, however, Mr. [redacted] did not directly speak to me at anytime.   Getting angry at a customer, because you don't like their voice level or tone Is no legal reason to keep a customer sales taxes that does not legally belong to you.   Having possession of any item  you do not have  legal right too is theft.  "Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  For this reason, Ms. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated." I only filed charge backs for the sales taxes that is legally owed to me.    I have a legal rights to the merchandise because I paid for the merchandise.  
Having a policy stating I cannot file a claim (chargebacks) about your company because customer has possession of merchandise without paying for it.  As, of the date and time of this letter, I have not received or been notified of  any refunds for merchandise or sales taxes. 
How could I have merchandise without paying for it and Liquidation.com has my sales tax?
My account was deactivated because Liquidtion.com is angry about my complaints to Revdex.com, [redacted] and The Federal Trade Commision reqarding their business policies and practices.  
Regards,
[redacted]

Mr. [redacted],
 

size="3">
Please accept the attached response to the initial compliant
for [redacted], ID # [redacted].
 
Thank You,
Amanda O[redacted]
Compliance Associate
Liquidity Services
 
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Revdex.com. Mr. [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]. Mr. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied. Mr. [redacted] was the winning bidder of one lot of cordless circular saw kits on Liquidation.com. On August 7th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was grossly misrepresented. Mr. [redacted] stated “the item was listed as circular saw KIT, but they are “circular saw” tool only which affects the price of the unit by 40 percent”. Our disputes team reviewed Mr. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be verified as Mr. [redacted] arranged his own shipping and inspection is required during pick-up. Per our terms and conditions, you or your agents are responsible for unit count of the assets and verification of assets purchased at the time of removal. If the assets are not acceptable for any reason, do not remove them. If you have picked up the merchandise from our warehouse, you have waived your right to file a dispute as you or your agent has already physically handled the merchandise at this point. Our disputes team informed Mr. [redacted] that his dispute claim could not be honored as they were unable to validate the claim since the items had been removed. As such, his claim was denied. We regret that Mr. [redacted] as 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.

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  [redacted] describes concerns he has around auction ID [redacted] which consisted of 125 units of New Pairs of Headphones - [redacted] Sport, [redacted]  The auction was...

listed as ‘new’ condition on www.liquidation.com and [redacted]’s bid of $200 was the winning bid on 10-31-2016.  The total transaction cost after applicable, taxes, shipping charges, and or buyer’s premium was $264.64.  The product was delivered to [redacted] on 11-9-2016, and [redacted] filed a dispute with us on 11-10-16 stating:The headphones were listed as "new". When they arrived, a test revealed that over half of the items did not work. An appropriate listing of the items would have been "salvage" instead of "new". The headphones that did work, from our testing, only worked intermittently. The headphones advertised as "noise cancelling" clearly do not meet the threshold for even operable, much less noise cancelling.[redacted]s claim is over half of the units did not function and didn’t appear to be in new condition.  He also states that the interactions with our disputes department were not clear.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, in good faith we are re-opening the claim and will proceed to offer a full refund. We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted]’s claim. Regards,Darren M[redacted]Sr. Manager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services

May 21, 2015Dear [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 were in violation of a buyer’s purchase...

agreement for transaction ID [redacted] and [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract due to advertising discrepancies.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for three (3) lots of items, including [redacted] smartphones, purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 9th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was “grossly misrepresented” stating the phones were “Chinese fakes/ knock-offs/ Counterfeits”. [redacted] said that he had expected to receive authentic [redacted] smartphones and requested a full refund.
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’ claim and concluded that the buyer would receive a full refund upon return delivery for all three transactions. The disputes team has issued UPSG labels to the buyer to return the merchandise. We have also informed [redacted] that the refund can take up to 10 business days to be credited back.
We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; and we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
Regards,
Amanda O.
Compliance Associate

November 21, 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 recipient of multiple company e-mails that he did not request.
[redacted] said that he received several unwanted e-mails and wanted them to cease. He was not on any of the distribution lists for company e-mails, but his e-mail was in a separate database regarding a customer service matter.
There was an error that caused some of our users to received multiple, unsolicited e-mails in succession. Once we became aware of the problem, we moved quickly to identify the source and correct it so that no further disruption would occur. Additionally, [redacted] has been globally unsubscribed from all of our marketplaces per his request.
We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with his removal from all distribution lists.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Liquidity.com, or Liquidity Services, Inc., and their description of "Shelf-Pulls" may state that price tags and signs of package handling may be present, and there was no question about this. What "Shelf-Pulls" doesn't include, in the description, is the missing manuals, the open packages (over 95% of them - one wasn't open), and the Not for Resale games. If a game isn't for resale, that's a clear indicator that it was NEVER on a retail store shelf for sale (on it's own). The others, with the open packages and severe signs of wear, are clearly USED, which is an entirely different category with Liquidity Services, Inc. This isn't a case of simply a disappointed purchase, as I've purchased through them before and received what I expected (100 or 120 DVD movies). In this instance, the seller ([redacted]) falsely listed the items, in stating they were shelf-pulls and not used. Had they been listed as USED, I likely wouldn't have bid due to the lingering question of "How much wear and tear will these have?" All attempts, through their site, to identify the seller's true name and address have yielded nothing. I've requested this information by email, as well, but expect Liquidity Services, Inc. to thumb their nose at me as they have done with the past disputes. 
Again, this is a clear case of fraud - the seller knowingly listed the item under the wrong condition (shelf-pull instead of used) and sold it with the buyer expecting the items to come with reasonable wear, but not looking like they came out of someone's basement after months (or years) of use. Liquidity Services, Inc. is also guilty of their part, as they have been communicated with in regards to the condition of the product received, and have informed me that they have (or will) release the money to the seller. If they cared, at all, they wouldn't allow sellers to falsely list their items.
The seller shouldn't receive the money, they need to be held accountable for the fraud (across state lines - federal crime?), the items need to be RETURNED and my money needs to be REFUNDED in full due to the deceptive practices of [redacted] and Liquidity Services, Inc.'s support of the seller's practice!
I've attached two pictures, of the "Not for Resale" items. There are too many other items, with their signs of being open and severely worn, to flood your inbox with them. If need be, though, I will send digital photos of others to prove their condition.
Regards,
[redacted]

November 21, 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 she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the sellers and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because one dispute was denied and she was unhappy with the amount of the partial refund on the other dispute.
Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 10 furniture items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 3, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was not in the condition listed by the seller in the auction listing and that she was missing units. She said that she was missing a box of shelving for her bookshelf and that several other furniture items were scratched or broken. She provided supporting photos.
Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 27 furniture items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 3, she filed a dispute for this transaction asserting that her purchase was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. She said that one of the items, a trashcan, had been received with large dents on each side and that the box was torn.
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claims separately. For Transaction ID [redacted], they concluded that it could not be honored because the merchandise was properly identified, falling within the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows:
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.
Further, the auction specifically states in its advertising, “Return furniture may reflect signs of use, wear and damage including cosmetic defects and structural damage including but not limited to bent frames, broken, cracked, stained, damaged or missing pieces and incomplete or partial sets.” This is consistent with the description and photo support provided by [redacted] and suits the condition code purchased.
Regarding Transaction [redacted], our disputes team decided to honor the dispute with a partial refund for one unit. The trashcan item was worth 8.07% of the MSRP of the lot. Therefore, we calculated 8.07% of the $240.00 winning bid, plus the appropriate percentage of shipping and fees, as the partial refund. The amount of $20.93 was processed to [redacted]’s account on October 13.
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 Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.