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. 
Regards,
[redacted]

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.

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

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..

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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]

[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]

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

[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

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]

March 30th, 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 the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. 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 an auction for lot of handbags, jewelry and accessories purchased via Liquidation.com.  On October 30th, 2014 he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was not in the condition listed and misrepresented as advertised by the seller in the auction listing.  Mr. [redacted] said that the items he received appeared to be fake imitations, non-branded, packed poorly, used, broken, no price tags, and no labels. He also stated the item descriptions were deceiving and the retail price listed was inflated.Our disputes team reviewed Mr. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate his claim. The auction manifest clearly lists each of the items and the brand name if it is a branded item. The lot summary lists the condition of items as shelf pulls and states “this auction features” indicating that not all items are brand name. We did not state all items included in the lot were brand name items. Certificates of Authenticity pictures were posted for buyer assurance. Regarding packaging, the auction listing does not state items are in original packaging and the pictures provided by the buyer with his claim show shelf pull items in excellent condition, no sign of broken pieces or broken items. Buyers are responsible for performing due diligence before bidding on an auction by reviewing pictures, item manifest and lot summary.Further, Mr. [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, Mr. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.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,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services, Inc

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:If the manifest does not include specific detailed description of items then what would a buyer use to identify what they are bidding on and the value associated with the merchandise. In all cases the manifest that were posted did not include detailed product description and no where in the auction page that is up front and visible to the bidder does it say the pictures do not represent actual merchandise or even the same make, model and brand of merchandise. What is it a bidder would use to know what they are bidding on if not a detailed manifest and pictures. Clearly something is wrong when you bid on a lot and everything you get is different then represented. So clearly according to them I could show pictures of a banana. Tell you in a manifest that you are getting fruit and send you a cherry. I could see 1 or 2 things being different but to have the majority and full lots of items that are dramatically different and of much less value. That is just wrong and dishonest. 
Regards,
[redacted]

October 15, 2014
 
Mr. [redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
 
RE: Mr. [redacted], ID# [redacted]
 
Dear Mr....

Dennis,
 
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Revdex.com. Mr. [redacted] described concerns he had as a seller on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. had not properly paid him for a completed auction; however, the issue has since been resolved with the proper payment.
 
On September 2, Mr. [redacted] sold an auction for a refurbished [redacted] laptop computer on Liquidation.com. He said that Liquidity Services miscalculated the commission that they collect, charging him $200.00 (the canceled auction default penalty) instead of the standard 10 percent fee, $65 in this instance. Mr. [redacted] contacted his account manager to correct the problem and a request for a correction was submitted. However, over a week later the matter was still not resolved and Mr. [redacted] found that his account manager was no longer with Liquidity Services. Therefore, Mr. [redacted] became concerned that no one would follow up on his request for the $135.00 he was owed.
 
On September 19, a credit of $135.00, the difference between the error amount ($200.00) and the correct commission ($65.00) was processed to Mr. [redacted]’s account.
 
We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by Mr. [redacted] and appreciate his cooperation in settling this matter. We consider the matter closed with the $135.00 payment.
 
Regards,
Cary C. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.