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] described concerns he had as a buyer of a laptop under warranty operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his warranty request was denied.
On May 19, [redacted] purchased a recertified laptop computer via [redacted].com with a 90-Day Warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. The laptop experienced intermittent issues where it would power down when running on battery. On September 4, [redacted] contacted our warranty service personnel to submit a warranty claim. He said that he had evidence that the power problems had occurred during the 90-day period after purchase.
Our warranty personnel denied service to [redacted] because the 90-day warranty period concluded on August 17. Therefore the unit was no longer eligible for repair service under the warranty. When [redacted] questioned his eligibility, he was informed that the 90-day warranty expired 90 days after purchase and that any claim needed to be initiated prior to the expiration. He was then advised to seek local repair for his laptop instead.
We regret that [redacted] is dissatisfied with his purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Mr. [redacted],
 
Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by Mr. [redacted]. In his response, Mr. ** [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint. In his most recent response, Mr. [redacted] has stated he is requesting Liqudation.com return the [redacted] lens that was mistakenly placed in the shipment with the camera for repair or he be reimbursed for the value of the lens. Also, he has stated Liquidation has already refunded $418.50 for the camera Ms. [redacted] returned and he has no intention of returning the second camera unit as it is no longer in his possession. In our initial response, we stated that Liquidation.com would be willing to return the lens to Mr. [redacted] and as such, it has been packed and shipped to be sent to Mr. [redacted]. The [redacted] case had showed a full refund on Liquidation.com’s end and that is the reason we stated a full refund was requested in our previous response. However, it now appears that only the partial refund was in fact refunded. The lens is in route back to Mr. [redacted] and the partial refund has been issued. We regret that Mr. [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]
Thank you for your response.However, there are still few things that are not clear and not right.For the dispute of [redacted] Smart Case, I have submitted photo proofs to [email protected] on September 22, 2014 and got denied for no reason.Regarding to Lightning to USB Cable, I can understand your reasons to deny.The 'generic' is the only support you are using to justify that this was fair.However, whether this cable is 'generic' or not is very important.The picture describes the product as 'Lightning to USB Cable' and this is exactly what 100% genuine [redacted] uses.Because generic cables and genuine cables are almost exactly same, it should have been explicitly described as generic.A generic cable would only cost 1$ to buy from online individually, but [redacted] cable would cost 19$.However, the seller failed to provide this important information explicitly.Therefore if the buyer has mistaken this as a 100% genuine [redacted] Cable, then buyer should have the right to request refund.Additionally, there are little information regarding to the product where exactly it was manufactured, whether it's legal; because it is imitating [redacted]'s packaging and cable design.This is a substantial disappointment because it is 19 times less worth than what I expected it to be.For example, if you are selling an 'fake' [redacted] 6, you have to make sure that the buyer know that he is buying a 'fake' not a real one.Just because there is one word 'generic', you can't deny refund because you described with one word.And we are talking about liquidation.com correct? If liquidation.com is a major liquidity service and professional company with a good-reputation,liquidation.com should be able to refund this product with no problem.few hundreds of dollars is probably not that big of a deal to such a huge company like Liquidation.com but it is a very large amount of money to me.I think refund for both products are very possible with just out of good-will
Regards,
[redacted]

May 17, 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. **. [redacted] was unable to complete a bid for a discontinued auction and disagrees with Liquidity Services, Inc. policies concerning the auction’s dismissal.
**. [redacted] said that he had prepared to bid upon an open auction for a lot of 2013/2014 excess stock of [redacted] lingerie. The auction had less than a day until it was scheduled to close when it was suddenly canceled and relisted under different terms. The closing date was extended three more days and a reserve bid of $70,000 was noted with a sealed bid format, whereas before there had been no reserve and open competitive bidding. **. [redacted] believes that canceling and relisting the auction was unethical.
There was a listing error with the original auction so it was reset to the terms intended by the seller. The original auction listing had not yet closed and **. [redacted] had not even bid upon it. We have no obligation to let listing errors stand or even to notify our users of those errors. It was unfortunate that **. [redacted] was not notified of the new auction, and we would like to improve our notifications system in this regard, however rare cases such as this may be. However, he was able to locate the auction and no harm was done here.
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 18, 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.As per our previous reply to [redacted], in the last paragraph, we are processing a full refund in the amount of $427.71The refund is for auction ID [redacted] which consisted of 2 pieces of Furniture - [redacted] Sink Cabinet. The lot was ‘returns’ condition. This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and [redacted]’s bid of $160 was the winning bid on 10-12-2015. The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $427.71. The product was delivered to [redacted] on 10-21-2015, and [redacted] filed a dispute with us on 10-22-2015.[redacted]’s initial claim is that both pieces of merchandise received were broken and/or missing pieces, and that the auction’s photos do not show broken pieces. [redacted]’s claim as stated in his rejection letter is that he feels the items were damaged in transit, and that a store returned item is and should be functional.Liquidation.com does not mention or make any claim on our site that all returns are, or should be, functional. Per the Help section on Liquidation.com in the section called ‘What conditions of merchandise do you offer?’ the following excerpt defines what returns are:Returned merchandise was 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, supplementary details about the condition of the merchandise was provided on the advertised auction: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.1920 L Street NW, 6th floor Washington, DC 20036 United States T ###-###-#### F ###-###-#### www.liquidityservices.comLiquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers. All buyers agree to the Terms and Conditions prior to participating in an auction. 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 assumptionsWe regret that [redacted] continues to be 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 are also processing a refund in the amount of $427.71 in good faith to resolve this matter.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted]’s claim.Regards, Darren M[redacted]Sr. Manager, Customer Support Liquidity Services

September 11th, 2015Dear [redacted], Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint. [redacted] purchased an auction lot of toy figurines items in new condition from Liquidation.com and believes that the sizes are not appropriate as they are smaller then what he thought they would be. [redacted] said that the items he received do not stand up.In our initial response, we said that the disputes team denied the claim because they determined the auction listing was properly listed. Neither the auction listing nor the manifest specified specific sizes/dimensions of the toys. Also, the manifest did not list individual figurines to be received, it only stated the quantity. The auction listing states each lot contains an assorted mix. In his most recent response, [redacted] said that he did not receive any [redacted] minifigurines and the toys he received do not stand up. In deciding this matter, our disputes team relied upon the objective measures given in the auction listing We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence provided. We hope that we have provided some clarity regarding our current position. Regards,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services

June 21, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Barnes, 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 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 her dispute was denied.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 100 pairs of high-quality sunglasses purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 10, 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 only 29 of 100 pairs could be described as high quality and that the remaining sunglasses were simply cheap plastic. 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. The listing read that varied styles and assorted brands would be included in the shipment. The lot was judged to meet these standards.
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.

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 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.

May 24, 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 using the [redacted] store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his warranty request was denied.
On December 12, 2013, [redacted] received an [redacted] 13.3-inch laptop computer in an undamaged box in fine working condition. About January 10, the “[redacted] glass” exterior of the laptop cracked upon normal opening. Since this was normal usage, [redacted] suspected that the glass may have had a manufacturer’s defect so he contacted our company for remedies under the limited warranty. He provided photos of the laptop and requested a repair or replacement for the laptop.
Upon review of the photos sent by [redacted], our team noticed physical damage to the laptop. Unfortunately, the limited warranty does not cover any defects related to physical damage to the laptop, which would include the glass. 
We regret that [redacted] is dissatisfied with his purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions.
 
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: Complaint taken over phone by Revdex.com Staff - lj

Consumer purchased merchandise approximately September 18, 2014. Paid $433. The items were delivered within ten days damaged. Ordered assorted men's and women's wallets and watches. The order was incorrect.Items were thrown together in box. Box was glued and falling apart. Did not receive any wallets. Watches were broken. Did not appear to be watches he had ordered from website. Should have received twenty five sets of assorted watches and wallets. Consumer E mailed pictures to the company as requested. Returned entire order to the company by [redacted] on October 16, 2014. Company never received package. Stated it went to wrong address. Per [redacted] company signed for package.Desired Settlement: Consumer requests refund of $ 433.

Consumer

Response:

From: [redacted] <[redacted]>

Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Subject:

To: "[redacted]" <[redacted]>

hello [redacted] my name is [redacted] complaint number [redacted].the reason for my email is to inform you of my intent to retract my previous clam of a misplaced shipment by the liqudation.com..there was a mix-up between [redacted] and LIQUDATION.COM. about my package valued at over 400.dollars.[redacted] admit that they were the one's who sent my package to the wrong place back on 10/18/2014.liqudation.com did NOT,mis-place the package,[redacted] did and they are in the process of refunding me my money..thank u

Review: I purchased a refurbished computer and I received a Broken/not working computer.

I have purchased a refurbished computer from them. "Before purchasing the costumer service representative explained that I am purchasing a refurbished computer. I asked what it meant, and she said " it has been previously used but was checked and make sure that everything works, it is restored to a like-new condition". I received the computer today hoping I could use right away since I needed it for my school home works.

As soon as I opened it, I put the battery on and hit the ON button. As soon as the screen lights up, I saw the words " Your PC needs to be repaired. And the computer obviously won't open to any website. I tried to hit other button but the computer is not opening at all. The only thing I see is the screen with the words stating that it needs to be repaired.

I am filing a complaint because I am very upset and disappointed to received a broken bot working computer, not a refurbished one. They told me that the computer was check and made sure is working properly and as soon as I opened it, it is broken? I understand that I am buying a used computer but I expect to received a broken computer that you can't even open any website. if I get the computer working and get to yahoo for example and start having problem, then I would understand that I bought a refurbished computer. But receiving a broken/not working computer, is not understandable. I feel like they just picked up a broken/not working computer without even checking it and sent it me. I am very disappointed with this, I expect them to send me a used computer that is at least working. This also created an inconvenient on my side because I will not be able to do my home works since the computer is not working. They said I will have to send it back and they will fix it and send it back. it will take days or maybe weeks for them to fix it, then I will have to wait for it, before I can do my homework? no!

My main point is that, they sent me a broken and not working computer. that is different from what they promised to send me. Broken and not working computer is not a refurbished computer. They should have told me in the first place that refurbished computer is a broken/not working computer, because I won't purchase a computer that is not working. They said, it was checked and made sure everything is working properly, and was restored to a like-new condition. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I RECEIVED.Desired Settlement: They told me I can't get my refund anymore. But because they sent me a broken and not working computer, and is different from what they told me I would get. then I am asking for a full refund ASAP. I need a computer to use as soon as possible. I also want them to compensate me with the inconvenience they created on my situation. They have created a difficulty on my situation because they sent me a BROKE/NOT WORKING COMPUTER and I was not able to do my home works, and other things I have to do on

Business

Response:

August 27, 2014

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 warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for her refurbished computer. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because she was unable to receive a properly working computer.

[redacted] purchased a refurbished computer with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On November 15, 2013, she started a warranty claim because her computer was giving her error messages that it needed repair. The unit was sent for repair on November 27, 2013, and it was determined that a replacement unit would be sent to her. On December 21, 2013, [redacted] received a replacement unit which she also found to be defective. She then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the replacement unit was experiencing problems as well so it was returned for repair on December 26, 2013. Finally, yet another replacement computer was shipped to [redacted] on January 9 to fulfil her purchase.

According to the transaction detail, we received no further communication from [redacted] after the January 9 delivery of the most recent replacement computer so the matter was considered resolved. In her complaint, it appears that [redacted] had simply momentarily abandoned the effort, not unreasonably.

We regret that [redacted] had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. We will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: On January 3,2014 I made an online purchase from one of their auctions. I was not able to reach the location at which I was to pick up the merchandise by phone. I contacted the Arizona customers service number and was informed by a representative that they could not reach them as well and an email was forthcoming. I was within my alotted time to pick up the merchandise. I received an email from an employee which directed me to call him. When I called, I was told he did not have the authority to contact me regarding the items and or a time extension. The secretary informed me that I would have to pick up the items the following day. I requested an extension and was told that the site manager would have to grant the extension. Upon speaking to the site manager, I was accused of not being truthful and told they would keep my money and resell the item. I informed him I would contact his superior. I notified [redacted] of the dispute and received an email from an account representative in Arizona . I was instructed to call the individual. Upon contacting the individual, I was told unless I ended my dispute he would close my account and I would not be able to purchase merchandise in the future. I was told my items were going to be resold and I would not get them. I stated to the individual that I was ready willing and able to pick up the merchandise within the terms and conditions of the sale, but needed the additional time as a result of their phone issue. He refused and closed my account issuing a refund and prohibiting me from purchasing Government surplus in the future. For all intended purpose this supplier is a monopoly and the sole source of direct specific Government surplus. I sent the individual the dates and times of my calls which I took from my cell phone for some of the calls made and I also forwarded him email to substantiate the validity of my claim. His action although narrow sighed complies with part of the company policy it does not comply with the Published Code of Conduct of the Company in dealing with customers.Desired Settlement: I would like my account reinstated in good standing.

Business

Response:

March 31, 2014Dear **. [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 Thu Sep 22 19:17:47 2011. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when **. [redacted] placed his winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Thu Jan 2 16:42:23 2014) on Government Liquidation’s website. The next business day, January 03, 2014, **. [redacted] was invoiced for Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted]. A copy of the invoice is enclosed with this letter. Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted]'s removal period was January 03, 2014, through January 17, 2014.Our records indicate that **. [redacted] did not remove the property by January 16, 2014. Therefore, as a courtesy, Government Liquidation sent an abandonment notice to **. [redacted], and it indicated that the property had to be removed by no later then January 23, 2014, in order to avoid abandonment, a process that is outlined in Section 9 of the Terms and Conditions. A copy of the abandonment notice is enclosed with this letter. Section 9 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below for your reference and understanding.Section 9. A schedule for removal of property will be established for each sale. You must remove all property awarded within this time limit. If for any reason removal cannot be completed within the time period, it is your responsibility to arrange with our site manager for an extension of time. We are not responsible for property that is not removed within the time allotted. If property is not removed within the specified removal period or scheduled for removal at a later date with our site manager, we will consider the property to be abandoned by you, and you will have abandoned all right, title and interest in the property including the purchase price of the property. We are not required to send abandonment or late removal letters to you prior to exercising the right of abandonment.Subsequently, on January 20, 2014, **. [redacted] contacted the Government Liquidation facility that housed the property, [redacted], Pennsylvania, and requested a removal extension until January 29, 2014. Government Liquidation informed **. [redacted] that his request could not be accommodated. In addition, Government Liquidation reiterated to **. [redacted] that the property had to be removed by January 23, 2014, to avoid abandonment.On January 21, 2014, **. [redacted] contacted Government Liquidation’s Customer Service Department due to the denial of his request. In turn, on January 23, 2014, the Customer Service Department instructed **. [redacted] to file a claim. A copy of the claim form that was sent to **. [redacted] is enclosed with this letter. Instead of filing a claim, however, **. [redacted] initiated a charge-back for the purchase price of the transaction, $192.39.Due to the charge-back, Government Liquidation communicated with **. [redacted], and he indicated that he was aware of the Terms and Conditions but maintained that he was unable to meet the removal deadline due to the [redacted], Pennsylvania, facility’s phone line being down. Government liquidation advised **. [redacted] that we would review the phone records to validate his claim, but **. [redacted] stated that he did not need to continue doing business with Government Liquidation due to the unprofessionalism. Therefore, in accordance with Section 7-Cof the Terms and Conditions, Government Liquidation issued a full refund to **. [redacted]'s credit card, $192.39, and permanently closed **. [redacted]’s Government Liquidation account. Section 7-0 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below for your reference and understanding.Section 7-0. Any Buyer that attempts to rescind a credit card transaction without our express written consent (i.e., charge-back), will have their account immediately and permanently de- activated. If you perform a charge-back after receiving the property, GL may file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and reserves the right to pursue all remedies available to us to recover our damages.Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation has determined that a business relationship with **. [redacted] is not conducive.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards,

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [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,

Review: I rent home office space from someone who told me about his account with liquidation.com. I am starting a business, and decided to use liquidation.com as my supplier as well. I applied for an account, listing my billing address -- home, and my office space. Liquidation approved my account. I spent considerable time watching auctions, I bid on them, and won them, fair and square. I was invoiced. I paid for the first lot, and when I went to pay for the second and third lots, the web site said my account was cancelled because "only one account is allowed per household." We are not legally a household in any way, shape or form. We are not related. It would be highly inconvenient for me to ship all these huge packages to my home address instead of office, however if that's what I have to do, I would do it. Unfortunately, Liquidation was completely unwilling to budge and to maintain their end of our contract. I am LIVID. They completely wasted my time and set my business back by one week.Desired Settlement: I expect them to compensate me for the time I lost because I trusted that they would honor our contract. I am requesting either that my merchandise be made available to me right away, with a waived shipping fee for the delay, or that $200 in transferrable store credit, so I can use it on someone else's account, since I'm not allowed to have one. If they can't comply, this needs to stay on record to warn others about this dishonest company that hurts small business owners. Thank you.

Business

Response:

February 13, 2014

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 she disagreed with Liquidity Services, Inc.’s user identification policy. [redacted] believes that our company has not conducted its business practices properly because she was unable to keep her user registration.

[redacted] created a Liquidation.com user account on January 22 and purchased three auction lots. The next day, however, her user account was de-activated because she shares a residential address with another Liquidation.com user. We do not permit more than one user account per household.

This policy protects our users by providing a unique, reliable identifier for each user. This helps to establish a clear chain of custody for Liquidation.com goods. If more than one recipient was allowed at an address, there would be little to determine who received shipments, or if anyone received them at all. Unfortunately, we cannot make exceptions to this rule regardless of the enthusiasm of our potential new user. A different address will need to be registered if [redacted] intends to join our buyer/seller network.

We regret that [redacted] does not agree with our decision; however, we hope that our explanation has provided the necessary information regarding our policy.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because Liquidation's rules stated that there was only one account per household or business. I do not share a household or business with the other customer, only a shipping address. They could have asked for my driver's license or tax returns to validate that. I would have changed my shipping address if Liquidation had told me that their policy extended to that requirement. Instead, they cut me off without warning, so that I could not even view my own orders. Subsequently, one of my orders arrived and was salvage instead of returns, and was entirely different items. I was unable to provide proof about the original order to Liquidation because they had locked me out of access to my account history. This made the process very complicated, but they eventually approved my return, sent me a return shipping label, but I cannot access the return label because, again, my account was deactivated, and I am getting no response when I request that they send me the return label as an attachment instead.

Review: Transaction ID: [redacted] The seller of this auction listed 21 ite** as returns. When the package arrived. Clearly several of the objects were broken and on the manifest did not state true condition of the merchandise. The 21 ite** and the main features [redacted] DVR Indoor-Outdoor Security System, [redacted] Water Dancing Speakers - Original **RP $1,596.97 was grossly misrepresented. The DVR was missing and one camera was missing and that was not disclosed rather the mainafest reads not tested for functionality. Cleary the [redacted] Water Dancing Speakers with the eye you can see the one speak has water and the other does not indicating it was broken as tested and it is broken. Liquidation.com allows the seller to misreprent ite** by labeling the merchandise "RETURNS" when in fact the seller can see ite** missing and or physically broken and does not disclose that information. 12 ite** out of 21 clearly are salvage and I fear the remaining 11 are also but have not been able to test them because of missing parts. the following is their description of Returns- 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 ite** may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these ite** 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. No where do I read that in a DVR security camera the main component DVR or missing Camera would fall under this category. Nor the other featured ite** that were broken and visible to the eye. Looking into this company further I have found other buyers who have the same compliant that the resolution team sides only with the seller and not with or for the buyer. They will not give me the sellers contact information leaving me file a civil action directly against them if I choose to do so. You cannot talk to them by phone involving a dispute must be by email only. They have not responded to my re dispute other than to say ite** under $100.00 are not disputable, well the DVR security camera set well exceeds 1000.00 and their resolution is not ACCEPTABLE to me. I cannot sell the products to get a return on my money leaving me in a trouble economy with a negative amortization. Their practice in this dispute has been unfair and unjustified. I have spent approximately $3000.00 in less than 30 days with these people and regret each purchase as the pictures posted does not reflect the true and actual products shipped to the buyer. Another transaction they cancelled when not shipped within 4 days but allowed the seller to re-auction the body piercing jewelry I bought and paid for. I cannot and will not let this company get away with gross negligence in representation of ite** being auctioned. I pray for mercy and help from you.

Thank youDesired Settlement: I would like the company to apologize and to have their sellers be more honest and held accountable when they know for a fact that their merchandise is missing parts are broken and not disclosed. I would like a partial refund for the transaction amount of $407.00

Business

Response:

January 20, 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 seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. **. [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because her dispute was initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in her favor.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 21 consumer electronics in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 21, 2013, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that her shipment was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that several of the items she received were in Salvage condition, rather than Returns condition. She said that there were major components missing and broken items that disabled the performance of the merchandise. She provided photos in support of her claim and requested a refund for the damaged items.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and initially concluded that it could not be honored because the items appeared to fall into the broad definition of Returns condition merchandise. Then the buyer asked for further consideration, sending additional photos. Upon further review, a full refund was granted upon return of the merchandise to the seller. After confirmation of the return, a full refund of $406.77 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account on November 11, 2013.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I had bid on an auction and won where one of the items in the auction was listed a an "all-in-one" Apple Desktop. After receiving the items, the item that was listed as an Apple Desktop was just a 27" Apple Monitor. I contacted Liquidation.com and they agreed for me to send the item back. I had mistakenly thought that they wanted me to return everything in the auction. However, they only wanted me to return the 27" Apple Monitor. However, I had returned all three items that where in the auction. I only received credit for the 27" Apple Monitor. Liquidation.com claimed that I did not return everything, only the monitor. They based there claim on the prepaid shipping label. The prepaid shipping label was for 15 lbs, however their claim is not valid because the 27" Apple monitor weighs more than 20 lbs. I have contacted UPS to check if they had weighed the package at anytime during shipping, UPS said they did not weight the package because it was prepaid and the package was actually billed based on a dimensional weight of 30 lbs. I believe that the two items that were returned accidently, were stolen after arriving at liquidation.com's warehouse in Arizona because they were not supposed to be returned and therefore were not accounted for. Which gave someone the opportunity to steal the items without being noticed. Please note that the box that I shipped the items back in was the original box that Liquidation.com shipped the items to me in, and it was a very large box. The box was to big for just the 27" monitor.Desired Settlement: I would like the additional amount be refunded back to me, because I had returned all the items but only received a refund for the 27" Apple Monitor.

Business

Response:

July 28, 2013

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 he is unhappy with the amount of his partial refund.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of three Apple and HP brand computers in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 14, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that the Apple All-In-One desktop computer received consisted of the monitor only. **. [redacted] provided photos in support of his claim.

After receiving additional information from **. [redacted], our disputes team reviewed his claim and concluded that a partial refund for one unit at unit price was appropriate. Prepaid shipping labels were sent to the buyer for the return of the monitor. Following confirmation of receipt, a partial refund of $277.45 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account on May 21.

At that time, **. [redacted] said that he had expected a full refund since he returned all three items. Our warehouse confirmed to our disputes team that only one item was received, and therefore our disputes team did not authorize an additional payment. **. [redacted] maintains that he did actually send all three items and would like a full refund or a return of the two items not authorized for a return. He also provided an argument supported by data from UPS delivery to back his claim.

The Liquidation.com legal department will follow up with the disputes team and warehouse regarding the matter; however, we cannot guarantee a change in resolution. **. [redacted] neglected to follow the instructions that only the monitor be returned, so delays in resolution rest with that fault.

We regret that **. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter is being handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.

Regards,

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

It is not acceptable that Liquidation.com cannot issue a full refund based on a false claim that their warehouse in Indiana is making. All three items were returned at the same time in the same box. There is no reason why Liquidation.com has the right to keep the other two items or refuse to refund the full amount because I accidently shipped all three items instead of only one item. I was willing to pay for the shipping of the items back, which was communicated in the e-mail sent to their dispute team. I would like to state again that their defense that the prepaid shipping label was paid for only 15lbs, so all three items could not have been returned is false. The Apple 27" Thunderbolt weighs greater than 15 lbs and UPS has stated that the shipment was billed based on dimensional weight. I understand that this dispute needs time to be investigate, however this claim has been filed well over two months ago. The amount of time that Liquidation.com has taken to respond to my claim only states that they did not take my claim seriously or simply refuse to put their customers fist.

Regards,

Business

Response:

October 14, 2013

Dear **. [redacted],

Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by **. [redacted]. In his response, **. [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.

**. [redacted] claimed that one of the items he purchased from Liquidation.com was grossly misrepresented in the auction listing. His claim was awarded a partial refund upon return of the problem item. However, once the partial refund was processed, **. [redacted] said that he had sent all three items from the lot and that he was therefore entitled to a full refund. We only had a record of the one problem item being received so the partial refund remained the decision of our disputes team.

In his most recent response, **. [redacted] states that our warehouse is making a false claim about the items received from him. However, we have been unable to locate the other two items that **. [redacted] claims that he sent, and no discussions with our warehouse personnel have resulted in the discovery of the items. **. [redacted]’s return shipping label was prepaid and thus not weighed. We are left with no way to determine whether or not the other items were removed during the shipping process or simply not sent. Since our instructions were to return only the problem item, the burden falls upon **. [redacted] and with no concrete evidence to the contrary, we cannot refund him in full.

We regret that **. [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to partially deny the dispute based on the evidence provided.

Regards,

Review: The computers continually crash.

I first purchased the [redacted] computer 07/2013. I am now on my 4th computer. None have made it out of the 90 day warranty. The last replacement they sent was actually just the same computer that I sent back. When I told them that the unit arrived with all of my setting already on it, even though the unit was "already packed and waiting", I was told that they did that on purpose since I had had so much trouble with them!! They keep replacing the unit, with me doing without a computer during all of the shipping phases. They have had the computers longer than I have had one in my house.Desired Settlement: The secondary warranty that I purchased refunded the purchase price within FIVE MINUTES of my relating the problem. Since the secondary warranty cost me approximately $60, I believe that they should refund the secondary warranty cost, since they were the ones that ultimately made good on the product.

Business

Response:

August 27, 2014

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 warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for her [redacted] computer. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because she was unable to receive a properly working computer.

[redacted] purchased a [redacted] computer in July 2013 with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On October 7, 2013, she started a warranty claim because her computer was experiencing freezing problems. The unit was sent for repair and then returned for her on November 18, 2013. [redacted] then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the unit was still defective so it was returned for repair on December 27, 2013. At this point, a replacement was sent to [redacted] on January 9. However, the replacement was also defective so another replacement was provided on February 24. Unfortunately, this computer was also found to be defective by [redacted] so she was sent yet another replacement computer on March 4.

According to the transaction detail, we received no further communication from [redacted] after the March 4 replacement so the matter was considered resolved. In her complaint, she said that she had been refunded her purchase price through a second warranty. [redacted] now requests that Liquidity Services pay to her the $60.00 that she paid for the second warranty. Unfortunately, we cannot refund money that was not paid to us, by company policy.

We regret that [redacted] had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. We will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[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.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. While I had a bad experience with them, their statement to look into the computers is good. Someone needs to review not just that the computer is fixed, but one of the computers shipped back to me actually still had my information on it. So I would say that someone needs to look at shipping and returns as well.Thank you for your help.

Regards,

Review: I won and paid for an online auction for 240pcs. of [redacted]/mobile phone accessories there were 3 different types of items in the auction. I only received one of those type of items and a quantity of 48 only of that item. I only received one box that weighed 12 pounds but it had a shipping label of 65 pounds on it. I opened a dispute process with photo evidence. I was told a week later that my Dispute was denied for no reason other than they basically stated the auction was for 240pcs and that's what I should have got. I called and asked the Customer service if I could get further assistance and was denied that as well and was told I could only send emails which I have but with no response from Liquidation.comDesired Settlement: Deliver the product I order or send me a refund for the items I did not receive.

And do something about your poor Customer Service.

Business

Response:

June 27, 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 initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in his favor.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 240 pieces of [redacted] accessories and more by [redacted] in New condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 19, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units. He said he only received 48 out of the 240 items. **. [redacted] also said the shipment only included 1 of the 3 types of items advertised in the auction and sent evidence for his dispute. **. [redacted] then suggested that the seller deliver the remaining product or a partial refund for the missing items.Once the dispute was received, our team contacted the seller about the missing units in the lot. Initially, **. [redacted] was told that the auction was properly listed based on the evidence and photos that he sent. **. [redacted] reopened the dispute, and said that the photos did not reflect the quantity of merchandise he received, and that he was still missing units. The seller then suggested that he would be willing to send the quantity of missing items to the buyer to settle the dispute.

Our disputes team was in agreement with the seller’s solution and the seller sent the missing items, including the cables and armband clips that were missing in the original shipment.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the additional shipment by the seller.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

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,

Review: Excerpt From Final Email Sent on Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:41 PM:

"We just received the [redacted] after the second warranty service and nothing has been done to it, no repairs at all and I am at a loss of how this could be the case for a second time.

Before the first warranty service the [redacted] was in pristine shape without a scratch and worked fine except for unexpectedly shutting down sometimes which is why is was sent back for the first warranty repair service. But after receiving the computer after the first warranty service where it was carelessly packed by Warranty Support without padding it had a lot of cosmetic damage and would not turn on at all.

Now I just received the [redacted] after a second warranty service and again it was shipped from Warranty Support and was still carelessly packed and it still does not turn on, the screen has blotches over it worse than after receiving it from the first warranty service and it now has even more scratches and cosmetic damage.

Throughout this whole process I have been extremely proactive in following up and wanting to know what exactly was wrong with the [redacted] from the first warranty service through this second warranty service and I have not been informed what was wrong and what repairs have been done to fix the [redacted].

It seems almost cavalier the way this warranty support is being handled with a blatant disregard for doing what is right under warranty from the first warranty service through this second warranty service and I am at a loss on how best to work through this with Warranty Support.

To this end, I am also sending this email to the Liquidity Services, Inc Management Team which I hope will successfully elevate this issue where I am also attaching previous attachments as well as the pictures I just took to again illustrate this problem.

Can someone who wants to successfully work through this issue with me please contact me at your earliest convenience so that this issue can be made right or else I will be lodging a complaint with the California, Attorney General, Revdex.com, Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection, 7 On Your Side, Liquidity Services, Inc Board of Directors, and other resources including social media to assist me in correcting this issue."Desired Settlement: Replacement of [redacted] per excerpted final email sent on Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:41 PM: "Before the first warranty service the [redacted] was in pristine shape without a scratch and worked fine except for unexpectedly shutting down sometimes which is why is was sent back for the first warranty repair service. But after receiving the computer after the first warranty service where it was carelessly packed by Warranty Support without padding it had a lot of cosmetic damage and would not turn on at all. Now I just received the [redacted] after a second warranty service and again it was shipped from Warranty Support and was still carelessly packed and it still does not turn on, the screen has blotches over it worse than after receiving it from the first warranty service and it now has even more scratches and cosmetic damage."

Business

Response:

August 27, 2014

Mr. [redacted]

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: 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 warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for his [redacted] laptop computer. Mr. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he was unable to receive a properly working computer.

Mr. [redacted] purchased a [redacted] laptop computer on December 10, 2013 with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On March 4, he started a warranty claim because his computer was unexpectedly shutting down occasionally. Otherwise the laptop was in good condition and fine working order. The unit was sent for repair and then returned to him on March 26. However, the laptop was improperly packed which caused cosmetic damage and likely contributed to the new problem where the laptop would not power on. Mr. [redacted] then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the unit was still defective so it was returned for repair on June 21. The computer was then sent back to Mr. [redacted] from the repair facility on July 2. Unfortunately, the computer once again packed improperly and showed further cosmetic damage and now had physical blotches on the screen. Further, there appeared to be no repairs done to the laptop from its most recent service period. In sum, the laptop computer returned each time in worse condition than it had been previously due to the carelessness of the warranty personnel.

We regret that Mr. [redacted] had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. Our role is to facilitate the delivery of units under warranty to the repair intake facility, but Liquidity Services does not have direct possession of them afterward. We will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution. We apologize for the delay.

Regards,

Cary C. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [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.

Review: I orders a [redacted] ([redacted]) laptop from the [redacted] lawsuit settlement site.The laptop came and didn't boot up, and has bee sent back twice for

In the e-machines lawsuit, I picked out a refurbished [redacted] Laptop for free with a voucher. The laptop was ordered on December 13, 2014 and the order number was [redacted]. When the unit arrived it would not boot up 9 out of 10 times. It was defective from the moment it came. A refurbished unit is a unit that should work since it was repaired back to factory settings. It comes with a 90 day warranty from [redacted]. I notified the [redacted] repair center on December 18th in order to return it. It did not work at all. The unit arrived back on January 15,2014. In the next few days the laptop had the same difficulty booting up. The laptop would freeze, or give error messages, or state that it needed repair. I contacted the [redacted] warranty again in order to return it. I shipped it back on Jan. 21, 2014. I enclosed pictures of the screen which displayed the error codes. I have made a dozen calls to this repair company. My unit has been sent back twice for repair. I have 90 day warranty and 60 of them are used up and I still don't have a laptop that works. The repair center is [redacted], Texas [redacted]. That is the address that I ship the unit to for repairs. I e-mailed and called Angel , and Natasha on 12/18/2013.1/08/2014,and on 1/18, 2014 to complain. The warranty e-mail [redacted]...Their e-mail includes [redacted] Warranty Service on it.Desired Settlement: Fix or repair the laptop and give me a new 90 day warranty.

Business

Response:

August 27, 2014

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 warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for his [redacted] computer. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he was unable to receive a properly working computer.

[redacted] acquired a [redacted] computer on December 13, 2013 with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On December 18, 2013, he started a warranty claim because his computer was not booting up properly. The unit was sent for repair and then returned to him on January 15. [redacted] then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the unit was still defective so it was returned for repair on January 21. The computer was then sent back to [redacted] from the repair facility on February 17. Unfortunately, the computer was still found to be defective so he requested a warranty extension to cover additional repair. On March 18, [redacted] was granted a 60-day extension on his 90-day warranty.

According to the transaction detail, we received no further communication from [redacted] after the March 18 extension so the matter was considered resolved. In his complaint, it appears that [redacted] had simply momentarily abandoned the effort, not unreasonably.

We regret that [redacted] had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. We will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I was supposed to get 150 pieces of Children's - [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] cloth. I got only few prices of cloth less than 20 nothing like the description (mostly looks like used or returned) and the rest are toys and useless damaged items not as described. I like to re-tune the items and get my money back ASAP

Auction Title: Children's - [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] Auction ID: [redacted]Desired Settlement: I like to re-tune the items and get my money back ASAP

Business

Response:

May 8, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: **. [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear **. [redacted],

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by **. [redacted] with the Revdex.com. **. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was denied.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 150 children’s items, from [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and others, in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 29, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that he only received about 20 clothing items when he had expected 150 and that the remaining items were toys and children’s accessories. He said that the toys and accessories were unacceptable and that the clothing received even appeared to be Used or Return merchandise. He sent photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that lot was grossly misrepresented and not in the proper condition. The auction manifest lists that there will be 50 clothing items and 100 accessories so the buyer should not have expected 150 clothing items.

Further, **. [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction on January 30, prior to our decision. Therefore, we could not continue the investigation. 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,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.