Liquidity Services Inc

May 17, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
[redacted], 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 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 her dispute was denied.
**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 24 pallets of general merchandise, including toys, light fixtures, sink, toilet, etc., in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On March 1, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. She said that she did not receive the pallets pictured in the photos accompanying the auction listing. **. [redacted] opined that the merchandise she received is mostly garbage that could not even reasonably be classified as Salvage (to be used for parts only). She also said the shipment contained broken and bent light fixtures, food that had been violated by vermin, and worn out sneakers. She also stated that there were specific items, such as a wreath, which she had wanted and not received. She provided photos in support of her claim and requested a full refund.
Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because her supporting photos did not show that the merchandise was in a condition other than advertised. There were no signs of vermin, and the defects described and shown fell within the acceptable range for Salvage condition merchandise. 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.

August 25, 2014
Dear [redacted],We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with [redacted]'s auction participation.All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well...

as upon placement of their bids. Our records indicate that [redacted] agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration on Tuesday, April 23, 2013. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when [redacted] placed his winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Friday, April 4, 2014) on Government Liquidation's website. The lot's description advertised was advertised as, 1,340 lbs. (approx) of 5.56mm Fired Brass. Head stamp [redacted]. Property is on (1) pallet with (2) metal drums approximately 56 X 29 X 39 and the container is included in the weight of this lot. Mutilation not required. Material located at [redacted] Army Depot, in [redacted], Texas. Preview available prior to start of the sale, by appointment only and is recommended. Load out by appointment only, with a 48 hour notice required.Our records indicate that [redacted] did not preview the property as recommended in the lots description. In addition, [redacted] removed and signed for the property without objection. The following excerpts of the Terms and Conditions pertain to preview and removal:8:H Either you or your agent will be required to sign for all material in the presence of a GL representative (unless otherwise approved by an authorized GL agent) prior to removing property.
8: I You or your agents are responsible for property count and verification of lots purchased at the time of removal. If the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it.
Subsequently, [redacted] filed a claim, citing a material/description misrepresentation. [redacted] disputed lot [redacted] claiming that, the “Material received was not as described. Half of my order is usable and is [redacted] headstamps. We only use [redacted] to process and cannot use the [redacted] at all for our conversions. In our conversion process the [redacted] headstamp brass will not consistently/properly size to 300 blackout to run reliably, we do not use any other brass besides LC for this reason”.
On May 14, 2014, [redacted] was informed that his claim was being processed and would take approximately 15 business days or longer for a resolution. A copy of this communication is enclosed.Government Liquidation determined that [redacted]'s claim was not valid and an approval of his refund request ($2,560.00), could not be approved do to the following reason:[redacted] removed lot [redacted] from the site personally and signed the removal invoice. The Terms and conditions expressly state that “You or your agents are responsible for property count and verification of lots purchased at the time of removal. If the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it". Once a lot is removed from our site and signed for as correct a claim/refund request cannot be approved as the property is no longer in Government Liquidationspossession.A copy of the signed invoice has been enclosed.We have additionally included Section 4:D excerpts 1 & 2 from the Terms and Conditions below.D.1 YOUR PURCHASE OF OR PLACEMENT OF A BID ON THE PROPERTY CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPERTY "AS IS" AND IN A USED CONDITION. "ACCEPTANCE"AS USED HERE ALSO MEANS THAT, BY PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXAMINED, OR HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE, THE PROPERTY AND AGREED THAT THE PROPERTY IS OF THE SIZE, DESIGN, CAPACITY AND MANUFACTURER SELECTED BY YOU, IS IN PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL CONDITION ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, AND IS FIT FOR THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND USE YOU REOUIRE. WE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR THAT THE PROPERTY IS FREE FROM LATENT DEFECTS. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE NOT A MANUFACTURER OF THE PROPERTY, OR ANAGENT OF THE MANUFACTURER, AND THAT THE ONLY EXPRESS WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY IS THAT OF THE MANUFACTURER, IF ANY YOU WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST US AND THE SELLER FOR DAMAGES, LOSSES, COSTS, INJURIES, PENALTIES, EXPENSES, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LIABILITIES OF WHATEVER NATURE WHETHER IN TORT, CONTRACT, WARRANTY OR STRICT LIABILITY, INCLUDING THOSE RESULTING FROM INJURIES OR DEATHS OF PERSONS AND DAMAGES TO PROPERTY RESULTING FROM OR ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE, CONDITION, OPERATION, TRANSPORTATION, SERVICE, POSSESSION, RENTAL OR SALE OF THE PROPERTY, LOSS OR LIABILITY RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF WARRANTY, PARTS, LABOR, DELAY OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES, DELIVERY DELAYS, WORKSTOPPAGES, FAILURE TO WARN, OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES OR FAILURES, BREAKDOWNS, STRIKES, ACTS OF GOD, UNAVAILABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OR OTHER CAUSE (WHETHER THESE CAUSES AREAVOIDABLE OR NOT) CAUSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY YOU, US, YOUR OR OUR EMPLOYEES, YOUR OR OUR AGENTS OR THIRD PARTIES (COLLECTIVELY, "SPECIFIED CLAIMS"). UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PARTY, YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD US AND THE SELLER HARMLESS FROM AND AGAINSTANY AND ALL SPECIFIED CLAIMS.D:2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS: The information and descriptions found in the advertising materials for specific sales are not guaranteed. We neither assume responsibility nor make any warranty regarding the sale's contents. Condition codes, National Stock Numbers (NSN), Local Stock Numbers (LSN), National Item Identification Numbers (NIN), and Scrap Condition List (SCL) codes are provided as received from the DLA Disposition Services as assistance to our customers. We do not guaranty the accuracy of this information. It is your responsibility to verify an item's information and description, including but not limited to, product condition, estimated weight, count, measure or other factors that determine the bid price. Information provided by us is not guaranteed and should not be considered as a substitute for your due diligence and physical inspection of the propertyBased upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation will be unable to accommodate [redacted]'s request.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards,
Cary H
Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc

February 4, 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]. **. [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 an untreated sapphire gemstone in New condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 17, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was not in the condition advertised in the auction listing. He said that the gemstone he received has a crack running all the way through it. He provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.
Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the photos sent matched the photos provided in the auction listing regarding the condition of the merchandise. Both the photos sent by **. [redacted] and those in the auction advertising clearly show the crack in the gemstone. Therefore, there was no effort to mislead potential bidders by the seller.
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.

October 14, 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]...

[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] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 30 designer handbags in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 10, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. [redacted] said that the handbags she received did not match the photos in the auction listing. She said that the handbags were very outdated and that some did not even have brand identification on them. Additionally, she had expected them to be genuine leather and they were not. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. The listing stated that “You will be receiving items similar to the ones in the pictures.” The photo evidence provided showed that [redacted] received 30 handbags that were “Designer Inspired Bags.” The auction also did not specify that only genuine leather items would be sent or what quantity of genuine leather would be included.
Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. 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,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

October 15, 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 a lot of 75 home goods in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 8, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition listed and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that some of the items received had defects that were not identified on the manifest or auction advertising and should be considered Salvage condition. He requested a full refund on the transaction and a change in Liquidation.com policy to require seller disclosure of all defects.
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim 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.
While sellers are not required to list each defect, buyers can review a seller’s rating prior to bidding to get a better idea of the types of merchandise and condition of merchandise provided to the marketplace by the seller.
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..

January 14, 2016Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she 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 due to her dispute being denied.[redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of New Solid 14K Gold Rope Necklace Chains- not plated or filled on Liquidation.com. On December 29th, 2015 she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was “not in condition listed and was grossly misrepresented” stating the chains were “fraud the ad stated 10 rope chains all 14Kt gold type of metals should have listed the two but only wrote solid gold so that was misrepresented”. [redacted] said that the chains stick to a magnet and requested a full refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that there was insufficient support to validate the claim. The disputes team informed [redacted] that the claim could not be honored as jewelry clasps contain metal parts which will cause magnetic attraction. [redacted] then responded to the dispute denial and requested to reopen the dispute as she was not satisfied.On January 6th, 2016 our disputes team replied back to [redacted]’s response and stated “the results found from the support received showing magnetic attraction to the clasp only, did not properly validate the dispute claim. Our research found support indicating that many clasps contain metal components. You may provide support within a reasonable amount of time showing that the units have been properly tested for gold quality and validate the misrepresentation. Once the support is received, we will reopen your dispute and review accordingly”.On January 7th, [redacted] filed a chargeback for transaction [redacted]. Also, that same day [redacted]’s claim was reopened and it was determined that Liquidation.com would issue a refund upon return delivery. [redacted] was informed once we received the items, we allow the seller 2 days for inspection and then she would receive a full refund. Liquidation.com is expected to receive the items on January 18th once they are inspected, [redacted] will receive the full refund.[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; and 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

September 9, 2015
 
Dear [redacted]...

[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 Liquidity Services is in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement regarding the standard 90-day repair warranty. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his customer was told the warranty had expired.
 
[redacted] has stated that he has purchased [redacted] and [redacted] items on Liquidation.com that come with a 90 day warranty. [redacted] has expressed that he is a reseller and would like the warranty to be extended to start when he sells the product to his client. He has stated that often the items are not sold to his clients for weeks after he has purchased them from Liquidation.com.
 
Per our lot listings pages, we state a limited 90-day warranty is included with some of the electronic items
we offer. We also state the items carry a 90-day repair warranty from the date of purchase. As such, we cannot extend the warranty to begin when the Liquidation.com customer has resold the items to another individual. The warranty period commences on the date of purchase from Liquidation.com, not the date of resale from the Liquidation.com buyer to their client.
 
We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled accordingly.
 
Regards,
Amanda O[redacted]
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:
According to the Liquidity Services, Inc. Corporate Paralegal Business Response they are taking complete responsibility for breaking the [redacted] and for not performing any warranty service too, but what are they doing to make this right for the customer's loss of $139.73 for the [redacted] Liquidity Services, Inc. broke.
In effect Liquidity Services, Inc. is saying we broke it and did not fix it and that is all we are going to do and the customer is out $139.73 due to Liquidity Services, Inc. negligence, but Liquidity Services, Inc. thinks that is fine since Liquidity Services, Inc. admitted to the negligence which is not right and does nothing for the customer.
Liquidity Services, Inc. is responsible for making this complaint right and for a second time I am requesting a complete refund of $139.73 for the purchase price of this [redacted] since again Liquidity Services, Inc. not only broke the [redacted], but Liquidity Services, Inc. are in Breach of Warranty Contract for not doing any warranty service too.
Regards,
John

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

[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.

[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]

November 13, 2015 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] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he has not received a refund for the items he bid on.[redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of Cushions & [redacted] recliner items on Liquidation.com on September 30th. On October 6th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received did not belong to him. Our customer relations department stated they would arrange the pickup with [redacted] and refund [redacted].On October 29th a refund was processed for [redacted] but it was in a pending status, it was released on November 4th and a refund in the amount of $225.71 was issued to [redacted]’s [redacted] account.One of our customer relations supervisors has contacted [redacted] on November 12th and it was determined that he stated he received a bill in the mail from [redacted] for $95.00, however, this is not for the return of the shipment as it was paid through Liquidation.com. Our supervisor has stated that [redacted] has been refunded in full and requested that he send in the bill from [redacted] so that she can figure out what the charge is and get it resolved.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

I was a long time satisfied customer with this organization. I won an auction, paid, and received my order as normal. However, when I received the lot I had purchased it was missing half the items. I went through their websites dispute process, explaining what had happened, listed detail of the items missing. They responded that I had not filed the complaint within 2 days, which since I do this part business by myself would be impossible for me to do, plus there is nothing in the filing process or on their website that states this. Also, after submitting the dispute with them they disabled my online account.
Disabling a customer online account for submitting a dispute for product not received shows they are very unethical organization and one that I will no longer do business with. They claim to be a third party representative, but they heavily favor 'seller's' which I have a hard time believing many 'sellers' on their sites are legitimate.
I would strongly suggest anyone considering doing business with them fully research and read the many negative reviews and feedback from former customers. I recommended researching and finding organization that provide this type of service that have a solid Revdex.com rating, been in business before the internet boom, and caters to real businesses.

June 21, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
[redacted], 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 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 her dispute was denied.
**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 4,000 cosmetics in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 29, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. She said that she received 3,000 items of the exact same cosmetic pencil out of the 4,000-item shipment. This was unacceptable to her. Additionally, she said that many of the items were expired, sample sizes or testers not intended for resale. **. [redacted] requested a full refund. 
Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing specifically stated that the shipment would contain “2,500 [redacted] New! Lip pencils and 500 eye pencils.” This accounts for the 3,000 cosmetic pencils that the buyer describes in her dispute.
Further, **. [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. 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,
Cary *. H[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: I called to tell them about the issue and they asked me to file a dispute knowing it was past the 48 hour time period. They indicated I was not the only Buyer having these problems.  If that is not the case then why did they "investigate" the dispute.Timeline of Communication with Liquidation.comOctober 31:  "We have received your dispute claim for transaction [redacted] (auction [redacted]) and will begin conducting an investigation regarding the information you submitted."My Comments: Why do a "careful and thorough investigation" if I am already outside their dispute window?  Note, as well, that the reason for denying this dispute has nothing to do with being outside their 48 hour dispute policy.  I was denied for insufficient data.  On November 14 I provided them with more data.November 10: "After a careful and thorough investigation, unfortunately your dispute claim cannot be honored for the following reasons: Dispute Denied: Insufficient support. The support provided does not properly validate the claim. In many disputes involving functionality issues or defective merchandise, still pictures cannot properly validate a claim. We therefore encourage (when applicable and/or possible) small video(s) to be sent as an attachment via WMV. ([redacted] media video) file for example, or a valid link for an unlisted [redacted] video, to [redacted]. This will assist in a more efficient and accurate resolution for a dispute. A reopen request may be forwarded for approval within a reasonable amount of time providing proper support is supplied to validate investigation. Please be advised. There is no guarantee the initial dispute resolution is to be overturned. If no additional support is received, the dispute will remain closed." 
November 14: I sent additional detailed pictures proving the items had no transceivers per my dispute.November 20: They respond, "Unfortunately, the dispute for transaction [redacted] will remain denied as our warehouse has confirmed full shipment..."The missing transceivers are the most expensive item in the refurbished [redacted] Home Theater Sound System selling on  eBay for $95 though you can get them for $52 from [redacted] directly.  10 of ours were missing.  At minimum, this is a replacement cost of $520 to make the sound systems we purchased functional. We can sell that entire system for about $130 when it has the transceivers. Notice again that they investigated by asking the warehouse workers/handlers of these items (who also may have stolen them...I don't really know) if they shipped them out.  Really?  When your investigation concludes with the people who may have taken these transceivers and/or whose job performance is on the line being the voice that establishes that everything was done properly... then you've really got a serious conflict of interest problem.Your investigation is to ask the people who would have had the opportunity to take these items if they took them.  They said they didn't steal them so now the "thorough and careful investigation" is over.  Here is the truth:1) We called about the missing transceivers after the 48 hour time frame and were still asked to file an official dispute.  We did.2) An apparent investigation of some sort was conducted initially and our dispute was denied due to "insufficient support" not that we were outside of the 48 hour window.3) We are told on November 10 that "a reopen request may be forwarded for approval within a reasonable amount of time".  This is Liquidation.com giving us permission to continue this dispute which is already way, way past the initial 48 hour dispute policy window.  This time they put it in writing.4) We reopen the request on November 14 and provide absolute proof of missing transceivers.  This additional proof is above and beyond the proof they already had.5) November 20 the claim is denied because the people who shipped the items said everything was shipped and  the dispute was outside the 48 hour window anyway. This could have been so easily resolved by a customer oriented company.  At this point, we would like 10 transceivers.
Regards,
[redacted]

March 20th, 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 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] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for one lot of thirty (30) items, including designer and brand bags (used), purchased via Liquidation.com.  On February 10th, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was missing units. [redacted] stated there were 30 purses in the lot; however, these brands were not in the lot. [redacted] submitted pictures to support her dispute and requested a full refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that she was missing items. The auction manifest clearly states “Designer and Brand bags, Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, [redacted]: A collection of Classic and durable designer & Brand handbags. 30 bags total in lot, highlights include: Coach, Dooney & Burke Signature, [redacted] by [redacted]. Designer inspired bags, used condition; you will receive items similar to the ones show in the pictures”. The auction did not list that all brands would be included.Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with PayPal for the transaction.  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  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,Cary *. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

September 30, 2015Mr. [redacted]Revdex.com1[redacted]
[redacted]RE: Mr. [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear Mr. [redacted]Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Better BusinessBureau. Mr. [redacted] described...

concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that LiquidityServices was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction sale [redacted]Mr. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he did not find hisclaim resolution satisfactory.Mr. [redacted] bid on an auction for one scrap lot of approximately 2,653lbs of 7.62MM fired brasscasings stored in approximately 118 ammunition cans on Govliquidation.com. On June 19th, hefiled a claim with our Customer Relations Claims Department asserting that the property hadbeen listed incorrectly and the items he received were mostly foreign cartridges and of the wrongcaliber. Mr. [redacted] also provided documentation to support his claim.On July 1st, our Customer Relations Claims Department advised Mr. [redacted] that his claim wasapproved for a refund, however it was determined that all of the property would need to bereturned to the nearest site location. Once the property was returned, Mr. [redacted] would receive afull refund, shipping cost refund, wire transfer fee refund, labor fee refund, and a refund forreturn shipping (with receipt). Mr. [redacted] was notified of the terms of the claim and instructionswere provided.Mr. [redacted] responded back to the claim and stated he was unsatisfied with the claim resolution.At that time, he requested to accept 29 ammunition cans of the wrong caliber and requestedreimbursement for the abundance of steel in the amount of $2,419.00. At this time, the claimresolution dispute response from Mr. [redacted] was submitted to upper management for review andit was determined that the claim resolution was unchanged. Liquidity Services has not yetreceived any of the items back, as such, no refunds have been processed.We regret that Mr. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided byGovliquidation.com; however, we feel this matter was handled accordingly.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 he had over fifty percent of the items missing from auction ID [redacted] and his account was inaccessible after his claim was approved by our customer relations department. Mr. [redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of tools-nailer kits, twin stack compressor on Liquidation.com. On August 6th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that over half of the items on the original manifest were missing. Mr. [redacted] requested the remainder of the items be made available to him instead of a partial refund. Our disputes team reviewed Mr. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that a full refund would be issued upon return delivery of the items. As such, his claim was honored, a [redacted] pickup was arranged and a bill of lading was sent to Mr. [redacted]. Our customer relations department communicated to Mr. [redacted] that his dispute had been honored and a full refund would be issued to his account upon return delivery. The pickup request was scheduled for August 19th between the hours of 12pm-5pm and would be picked up no later than August 20th if [redacted] was unable to pick up due to any unforeseen circumstances. A bill of lading was sent in a separate email for Mr. [redacted] to attach to the package for pickup. Our customer relations department also expressed to Mr. [redacted] once the seller had received the items, two days are allowed for inspection. We regret that Mr. [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. Regards, Amanda O[redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity Services

March 23, 2015Mr. [redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  Mr. [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear Mr. [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  Mr. [redacted]...

described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies.Mr. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 13 home improvement tools in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  After placing his bid, he conducted some further research on the individual auction items and determined that the retail prices advertised by the seller did not match his findings.  Mr. [redacted] then attempted to contact Liquidation.com to cancel his bid prior to the close of the auction; however, the bid remained in force with no response from customer service. As described in the User Agreement that Mr. [redacted] agreed to follow when he registered for our website, a bid is a binding offer.  This was further underlined in the auction advertising which states, “Attention: By bidding, you are entering into a legally binding contract to purchase this lot if you are the winning bidder.”  Finally, Mr. [redacted] had the opportunity to research the auction items prior to placing his bid.  He could have modified or withheld his bid if he was uncomfortable with the auction.  Therefore, customer service had no obligation to remove his legitimate bid from consideration.We regret that Mr. [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 C. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity 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:
The first word on the auction was [redacted]. But not One [redacted] was in the box. The pictures show pictures of [redacted] and other items that could stand alone. The ones I received do not stand up. It was a classic case of bait and switch.  I believe that is why they will not take them back because if they listed them correctly, they would not sell.  I guess I learned an expensive lesson. I will no longer do business with this crooked company.
Regards,
[redacted]

August 19th, 2015Dear [redacted],Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his most recent response, [redacted] states that he remains dissatisfied with the replies provided by our company to his initial complaint.[redacted] states that the Liquidation.com dispute team has ruled incorrectly in considering his claim and has does not agree that he received the value of the lot as listed on the auction description MSRP. He also says “there is no other information available on these auctions that can be used to judge their value”. Finally, he stated there is no other amount of research that can be performed to determine the value of these lots.The auction listing states “you will receive items similar to the ones pictured. You may not receive the exact units pictured”. Also, Liquidation.com listed the condition of the items as shelf pulls and there was no detailed manifest included in the auction listing. The Manufacturer’s suggested retail price is a suggested price for when the items are sold in stores. Liquidation.com has sold the items in transaction 5176189 as shelf pulls, not new items. Liquidation.com is a reverse supply chain company where the retailer/seller sends the items back to a centralized warehouse.Accordingly, Shelf Pulls can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing. 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] does not find the MSRPs listed to be appropriate for the shelf pull items that he was awarded, but we hope that we have provided some clarity regarding our disputes process and current position.Regards,  Amanda OCompliance AssociateLiquidity Services