Liquidity Services Inc

Review: our pay periods are messed up pay period would begin on the 08\01\2013-08\15\2013 and we get our check on the 15 of the month I dont understand what they are doing but I think its fraud please help me find outDesired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation)

pay day should be on the 5 and 25 of every month so we can have actual hours that we actully worked

Business

Response:

August 4, 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 an employee of Liquidity Services, Inc. [redacted] believes that our company is violating employment law.

[redacted] said that while she had received paychecks on the 15th and last day of each month that she was employed by Liquidity Services, Inc., that she preferred to be paid on the 5th and 25th of the month. She thought that the payments on the 15th and final day of the month may constitute fraud.

In short, we believe that this is not the proper forum for this inquiry. Furthermore, we are within the law in our payment procedures to our employees so there is no fraud being committed with respect to the days that payments are issued to our employees. Finally, [redacted] is no longer employed by Liquidity Services, Inc. so the complaint is moot on her personal level.

We thank the Revdex.com for allowing us to respond to the complaint; however, we do not believe that it has any merit to warrant further consideration.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: Two of the items have severe physically damaged. The [redacted] home theater system has a bent board on the bottom that protrudes out. It has scratches and dents on the top. The [redacted] item has bent ports gashes on the top. I called your customer service department I spoke with a woman that was very rude to me. When I asked to speak to a supervisor she put me on silent hold for over 10 minutes then came back to tell me the supervisor was not there and would "call me back".Desired Settlement: I want a full refund including shipping which totals to $150.56. I would like Liquidation.com to pay shipping costs to send their salvage electronics back to them.

Business

Response:

November 5, 2013Dear **. [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] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because his dispute was initially denied; however, it has since been resolved in his favor.**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 11 consumer electronics items in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 9, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that his shipment was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that two of the 11 items were severely physically damaged: the [redacted] home theater system had a severely bent board as well as several dents and scratches, and the [redacted] item had bent ports and gashes on the top.Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and initially concluded that it could not be honored because the buyer had arranged his own shipping, thus waiving his right to dispute the condition of the items after they left the warehouse. When **. [redacted] made his purchase, a window displayed explaining, “By opting to arrange your own shipping, you agree that any claims must be made at the time of pick up. Therefore no claims would be accepted after pickup.” This policy is set because we cannot determine when damage occurs to a product once it leaves our premises. However, in consideration of the buyer’s new status to our website a onetime exception was made and a return label was sent to **. [redacted] for the merchandise. Upon return of the merchandise, a full refund of $115.56 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account on September 17.We feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.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:

The statement about shipping is incorrect. There was no window that pops up and warns you about them not being responsible for sending broken equipment. Plus its preposterous that they would cover damage with their shipping costs versus my own. I USED THE SAME [redacted] SHIPPING COMPANY ([redacted]). Above all their descriptions of items do not fully disclose all details. None of the items I received had power cords. Plus their customer service reps are incompetent the first time I called they said that I should have said something when I picked up the items. I live 2000 miles away and never picked up anything from their warehouse. On top of everything else. The items I bought did not even come from the warehouse stated in the description. They came from a totally different STATE!!. This company is horrible and although I received a refund other consumers should be made aware of the misrepresentation of the items they sell online. Absolutely horrible service and a horrible experience.

Regards,

Review: I purchased some earrings from this company. The ad stated that they were in "new" condition. When I received them several of the pairs had rust, chipped paint, and were not in the condition as advertised. The transaction ID is [redacted]Desired Settlement: I would like to return these items and receive a full refund.

Business

Response:

January 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] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because he was unhappy with his partial refund; however, we have since awarded a full refund.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 900 assorted fashion earrings in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On December 10, 2013, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the items he received were grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He also said that he was missing 176 units from the shipment advertised. Of the merchandise received, **. [redacted] said that several earrings show defects such as rusting and chipped paint. He provided photos in support of his claims, requesting a full refund or else receipt of the remainder of the shipment if a full refund could not be provided.

Our disputes team initially found that a partial refund for the missing earrings would be appropriate. After receiving notice that his partial refund would amount to $11.44, **. [redacted] expressed his displeasure with the outcome and requested further consideration. A secondary review resulted in the authorization of a full refund to **. [redacted] upon return of the merchandise to the seller. Upon confirmation of delivery, a full refund payment of $166.25 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account on December 27, 2013.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and appreciate his cooperation in settling this dispute. We consider the matter closed with the refund payment.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: They listed New Playboy Jeans. MSRP $150 each & I can't even get $12 for them on [redacted]. I am out $198.00.

They also listed Brand New Fashion Turquoise Gemstone Bracelets - MSRP $5,000 for 100 of them . This auction contains 100 pcs of Brand New Fashion Turquoise Gemstone Bracelets.

The total Retail Value is $5,000 I can't sell for $4 each. Paid $164.41 for these.

Total lost $362.41

They also Misrepresented some jeans I bought but I'm selling one here and there but still stuck with 30 or so of them. (for a total of $667.17)Desired Settlement: They can come pick up this junk. They need to be more reasonable with the MSRP prices.

Business

Response:

September 5, 2013

**. [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 buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted]. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she is unhappy with the resale of the product she received.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of two auctions, one for a lot of 22 new Playboy jeans, and the other for a lot of 100 new turquoise bracelets, purchased via Liquidation.com. In her complaint, she states that she was having trouble recouping the value via resale that she paid for the merchandise. She says that the listed MSRP for the auctions needed to be more reasonable.

Our transaction detail shows that no disputes were filed with our customer service department regarding either transaction. Without a properly filed dispute with support, we were not allowed the opportunity to evaluate **. [redacted]’s claims and respond to them. When she registered with Liquidation.com, she agreed to our User Agreement which provides a process for disputing unsatisfying transactions. **. [redacted] elected not to follow this process and now it is beyond the period allowed for disputes to be filed so nothing more can be done unfortunately.

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.

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:

They give ONLY 48 hours to dispute anything with a order. I found this out by getting some used jeans in 1 order where they were suppose to be new and it was over the 48 hour *rule* so they did nothing. It takes more then that to realize you have been scammed. These Playboy jeans have NEVER sold for $150 - I cant get $12 bucks for them and the same for the bracelets. They claim they are worth $50 each and I cant sell them for under a buck. They scam the buyers with false advertising on the titles and in their auctions.

Regards,

Review: Bought some laptops that wasn't properly restore to manufacture refurbish. Laptop lags/freezes a lot. From HOLES to glue marks and other variety of things (which doesn't matter to me). Some has the mouse keypad sticking out from the laptop. One has a broken sticking out keyboard. I want to return these merchandise and get my money back for these two

Auction ID Trans ID

[redacted]Desired Settlement: 3 laptops in each box and there's two box. Original serial number, battery, charger, cords and box it came with.

I want to return these merchandise to get my money back. Items not as describe.

Business

Response:

August 29, 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 buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted]. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his disputes were denied.

On June 14 and June 17, **. [redacted] was the winning bidder of two auctions, each for a lot of three (3) [redacted] laptop computers in Refurbished condition purchased via Liquidation.com. Then on August 9, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that the merchandise had several defects including lags and freezes in operation, holes and glue marks, one broken keyboard, and one mouse keypad that stuck out from the frame of its unit. He requested a full return and refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that his dispute would be denied because it was filed 30+ days after the close of the inspection period. When he registered with Liquidation.com, **. [redacted] agreed to abide by our User Agreement which outlines the inspection period of three days for disputes. His dispute could not be evaluated for settlement because the funds had long since been released to the seller. Furthermore, based on **. [redacted]’s description, the items would have met the definition of Refurbished merchandise, given on our website, as follows:

Refurbished assets are used but have been inspected, tested, and restored to full working condition. They rarely come in original packaging and seldom contain any documentation or any additional parts and/or accessories. Due to their operational history, refurbished assets possess noticeable cosmetic defects and blemishes, including but not limited to dents, scratches, and signs of age.

This is distinguished from our definition for “Refurbished—like new” merchandise which was also provided for the buyer as: “Products that are like new, and retail-ready. A small percentage of units have light scratches and minor cosmetic blemishes. These units are fully tested and operational, with no functionality issues.” When evaluating the merchandise received, it clearly fits the Refurbished definition and not the Refurbished—like new definition.

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,

Review: I order 100 Pairs of High Quality Sunglasses for Men & Women - MSRP $1,500, I paid $199.50, Shipping & Logistics $40.25 and Buyer's Premium $9.98

Grand Total $249.73. I received cheap plastic glasses nothing like what was advertise on the website. These glass retail will not add up to what they claim (MSRP $1,500).

I open up a dispute with company sending them pictures of the cheaply made plastic glasses. I was sent the following response to my dispute:

"After a careful and thorough investigation, unfortunately your dispute claim cannot be honored for the following reasons:

Dispute denied; The support provided shows units received similar to the units represented in the auction listing.

All parties must abide by the dispute resolution provided by Liquidation.com as stated in the Terms and Conditions."

This company have false advertisement of products they are selling and is a total rip off! I don't know why they even have a dispute department if they are not going to take a honest look

the cheap products that are being sent out! This company need to advertise on the website the products that are actually being sold and send out.Desired Settlement: I want the High End Glasses as advertised in the picture or my $249.73 refunded back to me.

Business

Response:

June 21, 2014

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] 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 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.

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:The pictures that was presented on the site was nothing like the merchandise that I received. The advertisement was for "High Quality" MSRP $1,500, this cheap plastic glass are not worth this price at all.

Review: I guessed at the best option above. I recently purchased a lot of goods for 20 [redacted] Purses that had been returned goods from Liquidations.com. The transaction ID was [redacted]. This site offers various goods for sale in various conditions. With each auction however their is a Quantity variance percentage listed. When you click on the definition of what the Quantity Variance percentage means it simply states the following: "Quantity variance: - Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in abundance of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging between 1-10% per auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items. "

This definition clearly states that the variance "pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items" It stands to reason then that damaged goods are included in the Quantity variance calculation or so should.

When we received the goods their were only 17 items that were shipped. The company did then ship the additional 3 items. Upon review of the the 17 received we found that 5 of the purses were damaged beyond sale condition. Not simply scuffed ect. but had extremely torn or broken purse straps. We then contacted Liquidation.com to file a dispute which they denied on because they state that the goods were returned good and as such they could not honor the dispute. They stated in their response - "Thank you for contacting Liquidation.com,

Thank you for your communication. Unfortunately, your request cannot be honored as the units are properly represented under returns condition. As stated in the auction listing 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."

I understand that some of these items may be defective or broken etc. But when you put the definition of returns along side the definition of "Quantity Variance" the two conflict. Any buyer of such auctions looks at the "Quantity Variance" to determine how many operable items they will be likely purchasing. You can not on one hand say that the variance includes damaged goods in its calculation but then on the same auction for returned goods say they can be damage but that the damage can and may be above the quantity variance.

This is confusing at best and an outright false statement at the least. I have purchased a number of lots from this company with no problems. But in this case I think their policy and statements are in conflict and I depended on the quantity variance statement in my purchase of the returns lot. Remember that definition of quantity variance is "Quantity variance: - Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in abundance of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging between 1-10% per auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items. "

I depended on the statement "including missing or damaged items". This auction had 20 items for sale (we got 17 but they did ship the additional 3 so no complaint there) but of the original 17, 5 items were damaged beyond being able to be sold. The variance for this auction was listed as 2% so less than once item should have been "missing or damaged" The actual variance rate on this lot was 25%. I have spoken with 3 different customer service reps that all agreed that the variance was designed to cover damaged goods but the dispute department denied the claim 3 times so I then asked for a supervisor in the customer service department. I spoke with her today and she simply said I was the only person that did not understand this policy. I may be but that does not make the practice misleading. If the company sells returns that may be damaged either their should be no Quantity Variance for "missing or damaged" goods or that variance should included the "missing or damaged goods". The company can not on one hand say you bought a lot of returns all of which could be damaged (as the customer supervisor stated to me today) and then at the same time put on the same auction a quantity variance the stated the percentage of "missing or damaged" items in the auction as these two statements are contradictory to each other.

Customers as I stated (at least I did) relied on the quantity variance percentage to ensure how many goods would be received in good working order. I think this was reasonable as why else would the auction for returns list such a variance. The other customer service people I spoke with all agreed (except the supervisor) that if it were not for the variance a buyer would have no idea of the goods and that they could all be damaged beyond being any good.Desired Settlement: I have several options that I would consider reasonable to settle this dispute.

1. First, ship an additional 5 full size [redacted] purses in good working order

2. Refund the cost of the 5 damaged purses or 4 since at a 2% variance 1 could have been bad for approximately $200 as we paid about $40 each

3. Allow for a full return (at my cost) of all goods for a full refund.

I think these are very reasonable requests.

Finally I suggest that Liquidation.com be required to state that the quantity variance does not included "damaged goods" as it clearly does not when it pertains to returned items that are being sold. Buyers need to have confidence in the goods that they are buying and the fitness of the goods for the intended purpose but in this case the definition of a quantity variance to included damaged goods and the definition of returns are at odds with each other when it comes to the exact number of undamaged goods a buyer will receive.

Business

Response:

June 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 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 20 [redacted] handbags in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 23, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units. He said he only received 17 out of 20 handbags in his shipment. In response to his dispute, the seller sent 3 additional handbags to **. [redacted].

After **. [redacted] received the 3 additional handbags, he once again contacted a customer service representative and said that 5 out of the 17 original handbags were too damaged to be sold. He said that this was beyond the quantity variance advertised in the auction, which was 2%. **. [redacted] calculated the damaged handbags as a 25% quantity variance for the entire lot. He then suggested a partial refund or replacement items to settle the dispute.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the items did not fit the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows:

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

Since **. [redacted]’s damaged unit claim was denied, the quantity variance does not apply. It only applies to damaged items when calculating a partial refund.

Quantity variance is intended to cover missing merchandise only. It refers to the quantity of items sent. The definition given on our website for quantity variance follows:

Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in abundance of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging between 1-10% per auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items.

**. [redacted] believed that quantity variance not only covered the quantity of items but also the condition of each item. However, the reference to damaged items in the definition above would only apply to dispute claims for damaged items that were found in favor of the buyer. In this case, the damage claim was rejected.

An example of how quantity variance would apply to damaged goods may clarify the matter. If an auction for 20 items had a quantity variance of 10%, then the quantity variance would equate to 2 items. Therefore, if our disputes team honored a damage claim for 5 of the 20 items with a partial refund, then the quantity variance would apply to that calculation. Instead of receiving a partial refund for 5 items, the buyer would receive a partial refund for 3 items while 2 items would be considered part of the quantity variance. It would be as though the buyer did not receive those 2 damaged items in the original shipment.

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.

Review: I was told by a warehouse supervisor after being shorted 2 pallets of product that this company sells and collects payment on the same pallet of goods 2 or 3 times "in case the buyer doesnt remove the items they can immediately ship to the next customer." I have since researched their auctions and indeed the exaxt same manifests are listed multiple time on the website. I also was to that I did have 3 pallets when I checked in to pick up. 3 hours past my appt time and over 10 customers came and left as I was waiting I got my first pallet, waited 30 more minutes checked with supervisor and he informed me one pallet was mistakenly shipped the previous day and on was shipped to a different customer who had also purchased it. I recieve **# of product expecting the 3 pallets I paid for. I had $35 in fuel, $140 in manpower to load. For the **#'s I did get the shipping would have only been $40. I lost $175 on the day because of thier unethical, fraudulent, deceptive practices plus I am being charged for shipping on a load that should have had no shipping cost and was only ordered to fill the trailer .Desired Settlement: 1. I would like the shipping on the pallet that should have been picked up at the warehouse, but was mistakenly shipped, refunded.2. I would like my out of pocket expenses deducted. I had $140 in labor and $35 in fuel, $175 - $40 (price that would have mitigated my damages by have shipped the **#'s I recieved) = $135.3.I would like the unethically, fraudulent deceptive practice investigated, stopped and them assessed with maximum punitive damages if applicable.

Business

Response:

December 1, 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 Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted] and [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because he was unable to retrieve these purchases from our warehouse. Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 60 home electronics in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. When [redacted] arrived at our warehouse to take possession of the auction lot, he found that the lot had already been shipped to him. He had previously paid for shipping, but he contacted our customer service team to consolidate the shipment with another auction. We were unable to accommodate the request because the two lots were located at different warehouses so [redacted] set one to be shipped and arranged a pick up date for the other. However, there was a data entry mistake that led to both of [redacted]’s shipments being sent to him via [redacted] Freight. Due to this error, we will refund the shipment cost on this transaction to [redacted]’s account. Regarding Transaction ID [redacted], [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a pallet of small appliances and more in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. A miscommunication between the customer service team and our warehouse personnel led to the transaction being canceled and the items relisted for auction sale. Due to the mistake, a full refund of $127.12 was processed to [redacted]’s account. [redacted] said that he was told that our company “collects payment on the same pallet of goods 2 or 3 times” which is incorrect. The pallet that [redacted] purchased was not sold simultaneously, but his purchase was canceled and refunded to him. Then the lot was sold again as a separate auction. The multiple listings that [redacted] saw on our site are not uncommon. These listings, however, are for distinct auction lots of the same type and number of goods from large sellers who prefer to have one auction listing rather than to create a new listing for each of several auctions. Therefore, these are distinct auctions sold one lot to one buyer and not one lot sold multiple times. We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and will consider the matter closed with the shipping refund payment. Regards, Cary *. H[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: On June 27, 2013 we were winning bid on a 2006 [redacted] through a Truck Center auction. Truck Center was acquired by Government Liquidators (owned by Liquidity). Government Liquidators had written the truck up with 529,338 odometer miles and 529,339 ECM miles (the mileage that is kept in an electronic computer module).

We discovered after they had been funded that the ECM mileage was actually 947,593, which is an additional 418,254 miles than what they listed. We checked service records at [redacted] & [redacted] and verified this higher mileage was correct.

We immediately began to contact Truck Center & were referred to Gov. Liquidators for the appeal process. They absolutely refuse to do anything about this. We have just received our last denial from them this week in the 6 month appeals process.

[redacted] pays Gov. Liq./Truck Center to write up the trucks they are selling at auction. Someone with Gov. Liq./Truck Center made a mistake and they will not do anything about it. Now we have a truck with almost a million miles on it.

We asked ONLY for the auction fee to be returned, which was approximately 2300.00...that is the fee ** paid them to inspect, write up and auction the truck. We really need them to take it back, but we were trying to work with them. We still have the truck & are advertising it with the correct high mileage. Of course, it is very hard for us to sell. It's been here for 6 months...no sale. We've been contacting them since we discovered the mileage issue in June.

We have all the documentation to show how it was represented to us.Desired Settlement: We ask for the auction fee to be returned to us. That will help us so we can lower the price of the truck for sale. We really wish for the entire amount to be refunded, but we do not think they will do that since they only made the auction fee on it. ** won't do anything because they paid Gov. Liq. to inspect and market the truck.

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 Tue May 28 11:57:46 2013. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when [redacted]. placed their winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Tue Jun 25 17:00:38 2013) on [redacted]'s website. The lot’s description advertised an odometer reading of 529,338. A copy of the lot's description is enclosed with this letter.Our records indicate that [redacted]. did not preview the property. In addition, [redacted]. contracted a third party to remove the property, and that third party removed the property on July 15, 2013, without objection. The following excerpts of the Terms and Conditions pertain to preview and removal:Section ll:A. [redacted].com will post the Lots for sale on the Website. Each Lot will include the location of the Asset for Sale. All items are listed as accurately as possible; however, all descriptions and representations of items on the Website serve as merely a guide, subject to change. Neither [redacted].com, the Sellers, nor any third party making claims as to the description of items on the Website, shall be liable for any errors on the Website. All items will be sold 'AS IS, WHERE IS, WITH ALL FAULTS' and except for the warranty of title, are being offered without guarantee or warranty of any kind, including but not limited to the warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, unless otherwise expressly provided in the Lot details. Buyers are solely responsible for the inspection of all items, and accept such items with any faults or defects.Section III.A. Every Asset is sold 'AS IS, WHERE IS, WITH ALL FAULTS' without warranty or guarantee either written, stated or implied. There are no warranties or guarantees as to year, make, model, serial number, condition or performance. All Assets are listed as accurately as possible and information is derived from sources deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. Buyer must inspect all items personally and accept with any faults or defects, and Buyer by virtue of having submitted the high bid will be deemed to have inspected the Asset(s) and found them acceptable, or have waived the opportunity to inspect and to reject the Asset(s) as non-conforming. Buyer in no way holds [redacted].com or Seller responsible for any defects, inaccuracies or errors in any way, and releases [redacted].com and Seller from any claims in respect of alleged defects, inaccuracies or errors.Subsequently, [redacted]. filed a claim, citing a mileage discrepancy. [redacted]. claimed that the truck’s odometer read 947,589, approximately 418,251 more miles than the advertised amount. [redacted]. proposed two outcomes to their claim: (1) Take the truck back and issue them a full refund or (2) Allow them to keep the truck while issuing them a partial refund based upon the value of a truck with approximately one million miles. On August 13, 2013, [redacted]. was informed that their claim was being processed and would take approximately 15 business days or longer for a resolution. A copy of this communication is enclosed.[redacted] determined that neither of [redacted].’s proposals could be accommodated, as the property was accepted and removed without objection. Therefore, on August 29, 2013, [redacted] informed [redacted]. that their claim was denied.Based upon the information mentioned above, [redacted] will be unable to accommodate [redacted].’s request.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards, Cary HCorporate Paralegal

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:

From: [redacted]

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:22 PM

To: '[email protected]'

Subject: RE: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].

[redacted],

I received the response from Carey H[redacted] regarding our complaint. I am taking issue with a statement he made that says "[redacted]. proposed twooutcomes to their claim: 1-Take the truck back and issue them a full refund or 2-Allow them to keep the truck while issuing them a partial refund based upon the value of a truck with approximately one million miles". I have pasted all the written correspondences that show we offered two options & neither were what they stated. We ultimately asked for only the fee ** paid them (2300) for a job they did not do. We worked toward compromising & they did not ever offer any compromise or offer any settlement to resolve this case.

I underlined the two offers we made on separate days. We decided to only ask for the 2300.00 since we felt GE was not responsible for the error. Please let me know if you need any other information from me.

Thank you,

[redacted].

www.[redacted].com

###-###-####

Fax ###-###-####

Business

Response:

December 3, 2014 [redacted] Revdex.com 1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404 RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted], Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted] of [redacted]. In her response, [redacted] states that she is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to her initial complaint. [redacted] filed a claim regarding a 2006 [redacted] truck purchased via [redacted] that she believed had been grossly misrepresented in the auction listing. She said that the truck had been advertised with 529,338 odometer miles, but that the truck actually had 947,589 miles. As stated in the agreement signed by [redacted], auction assets are sold “as is, where is, with all faults” and should therefore be inspected upon retrieval. For this reason, her dispute could not be accommodated. In her most recent response, [redacted] says that she proposed additional settlement options that were not specifically mentioned in our response letter. However, the additional proposed settlement options fail for the same reason that a refund is not available. The responsibility for reviewing purchased assets is specifically upon the buyer before taking control and custody of those assets. Neither [redacted], nor the sellers are liable for any errors on the website, as stated specifically in the user agreement. We also appreciate that [redacted]. would attempt to propose other settlements, including transfer of the $2,300.00 fee to the seller for our services. However, we performed our job for the seller of warehousing, inspecting, prepping, listing, auctioning and selling the asset. Therefore, we do not agree that a website error is grounds for forfeiting the fee when the odometer reading would properly be checked via buyer inspection. We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the agreement signed by [redacted] for [redacted]. Regards, Cary C. H[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: On April 10th, 2014 I bid on and won auction #7375438 which consisted of two [redacted] computers advertised as “Refurbished” with 90 day warranty. The computers arrived approximately a week later and to my disappointment one of them had a broken power switch and could not be turned on or off. I immediately contacted the 800 customer service number and explained the problem. They transferred me to their warranty service department and I was emailed a form to fill out which requested the problem I was having, the serial number of the defective system, my name and address, etc. I completed the form and was sent a shipping label to return the unit to warranty services in [redacted], TX. I shipped the item to TX on the 21st of April and received it back on the 5th of May. Unfortunately, the power switch was still broken and it appeared that nothing what-so-ever was done to the computer. I called warranty services on the morning of the 6th of May and it had to be one of the most ridiculous exchanges I have ever had. The lady told me that warranty services cannot repair a broken computer and, if it was broken, I should have returned it for a new one. I told her that is what I thought I was doing. That everything I had done to date was exactly what the company had advised me to do. I was then told that they would have the repair order back in a week and I could call back then. I explained that I had already been dealing with this for 3 weeks and wondered what good another week would do. She stated that the repair order would tell then what had been done to the system and then they could send me new labels to return it for repair. I said “wait and minute. You just told me that you can’t repair a broken computer so how will it help to send it back to you?” She said that if I send it back and it can’t be repaired they will send it back to me as is. I stated that that is what had just happened and again wondered how sending it for repair was going to help if they can’t repair a broken computer. She once again said that if they can’t repair it they will send it back to me as is. I asked to speak to a supervisor and was essentially told the same thing. To call back in a week and they would send new labels so that I could send it in for repair. After hanging up I thought about what I had been told and decided that it was totally unacceptable. I called your 800 customer service line and asked for a name and address of the President/CEO to make him aware of how his customers were being treated. I was told they didn’t have his name or address so I asked for a phone number that I could call to get it. They gave me the number ###-###-#### which only served to get me back to the same customer service number I had already been calling. When I again asked how I could get his name and number he said I was threatening them and deactivated my account.Desired Settlement: I want the computer repaired, replaced or a refund of the purchase price.

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 buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies.

[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of two (2) refurbished [redacted] computers purchased via Liquidation.com. He said that he discovered that one of the computers had a broken power switch that did not allow it to be turned on or off. The computer came with a 90-day warranty so he called the 800 service number and arranged to send his unit for repair. When his computer was returned to him, the power switch was still broken and it appeared to [redacted] that nothing had been fixed with the computer at all. He had a frustrating time finding resolution through the customer service personnel and ultimately had his account deactivated.

According to the transaction detail, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was deactivated due to him making threatening remarks to a customer service employee. Additionally, [redacted] filed a chargeback for the transaction on May 6th, prior to filing his complaint with the Revdex.com. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited under the Liquidation.com user agreement that [redacted] signed when registering with our website. This action would have triggered a de-activation of his Liquidation.com user account had it not already been suspended. Chargebacks are not allowed because the buyer typically maintains possession of merchandise without providing the funds to pay for it. Once an account holder violates the chargeback provision, we can no longer pursue a remedy because that individual has ignored our disputes process.

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.

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:

I did not threaten a customer server representative. I nicely asked him for the name and address of the President/CEO and he got mad. He not only would not give me the name and address of the President and CEO but instead, deactivated my account. I did not file a charge back. I filed a dispute with [redacted] because I felt that I had no other recourse once my account had been deactivated. When I received the computer back (STILL BROKEN) the [redacted] dispute was ended. I finally had the computer repaired at my own cost.

Regards,

Business

Response:

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

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:

I did not file a dispute with [redacted] until after they deactivated my account and left me no alternative.

Regards,

Review: FIRST & LAST NAME: [redacted]

CR: [redacted]

SALE NUMBER: [redacted]

LOT NUMBER(S): [redacted]

INVOICE NUMBER: [redacted] RI

SITE LOCATION:TX, [redacted]

REASON FOR DISPUTE: MATERIAL RECEIVED WAS NOT AS DESCRIBED. WE PURCHASED ONCE FIRED BRASS THAT WAS TO BE ALL [redacted] '10 HEADSTAMPED, HALF OF MY ORDER (OVER 600 POUNDS) IS UNUSABLE AND IS [redacted] ([redacted] '10) HEADSTAMPS. WE ONLY USE [redacted] TO PROCESS AND CANNOT USE THE [redacted] AT ALL FOR OUR CONVERSIONS. IN OUR CONVERSION PROCESS THE [redacted] HEADSTAMP BRASS WILL NOT CONSISTENTLY/PROPERLY SIZE TO 300 BLACKOUT TO RUN RELIABLY, WE DO NOT USE ANY OTHER BRASS BESIDES LC FOR THIS REASON. HERE IS A LINK TO THE AUCTION I PURCHASED : [redacted] YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THERE IS IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ANY '[redacted] '10' HEADSTAMP LISTED IN THE AUCTION, NOR A DISCLAIMER SAYING THE AUCTION MAY CONTAIN OTHER HEADSTAMPS. WE ONLY PURCHASED THIS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEIR LISTING WAS TRUE AND ACCURATE, AND WE WOULD ONLY BE GETTING [redacted] BRASS AS IT WAS ADVERTISED. GOVERNMENT LIQUIDATION AKA LIQUIDITY SERVICES REVIEWED AND DENIED MY CLAIM SAYING IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO FLY TO TEXAS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TO ENSURE THEIR LISTING WAS ACCURATE. HOWEVER, IN THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEY ARE ALSO BOUND TO THIS REGARDING THE TRUTHFULNESS AND ACCURACY OF THEIR CLAIMS:

Section 3: SELLER OBLIGATIONS (top)

Users who use GL's website to sell assets or merchandise of any kind agree that:

A. Sellers shall submit information about assets or merchandise to be listed on our website to the designated GL account representative. The GL account representative will post all the relevant information regarding the merchandise that will be necessary to sell (e.g. description, price, quantity, lot size, shipping information), promote and facilitate the logistic management. The information may be reviewed to ensure its consistency and accuracy and posted upon agreement of our Sales Team that will tailor the sales strategy to maximize your returns. Prior to any auction activation, the Seller must have a signed Asset Sales Agreement ("ASA") plus a Schedule I ("Schedule 1") for each inventory of assets provided to GL for sale.

B. Listing Information. Unless GL has been contracted to develop an Asset List at the Seller's facility, Sellers are solely responsible for the accuracy, completeness and validity of all the information describing the assets listed for sale (the "Listing Information"). Sellers, who provide information to GL regarding property for sale on GL's website, represent and warrant that they are the lawful owners of the listed assets or acting on behalf of and with the authorization of the lawful owner of the listed assets. Each Seller represents and warrants that all Listing Information provided is accurate and truthful regarding, without limitation, the type, quantity and condition of the listed assets in any auction posted by the Seller on GL's website. Sellers understand and agree that GL, at its sole discretion, may take any action it deems necessary to review, edit or remove any listing information provided by a Seller. Assets MUST be available for pickup within 3-5 business days of the auction closing. Auctions not available for pick-up within 3-5 business days may result in the assessment of fees and damages payable by the Seller.Desired Settlement: BEING AS THE DESCRIPTION AND PICTURES WERE GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS DRUM PICKED UP AND REPLACED WITH A DRUM OF [redacted] HEADSTAMP BRASS '10 OR NEWER,

OR

WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY ORDER TOTAL OF $5120.23 CREDITED BY HALF FOR $2560, AND HAVE THE [redacted] DRUM PICKED UP AND RETURNED. I WOULD ALSO LIKE A CREDIT FOR HALF OF THE SHIPPING WHICH WAS $520 AND HALF BEING $260. IN TOTAL I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE $2820 REFUNDED TO ME, AND WOULD LIKE SOMEONE FROM YOUR ORGANIZATION TO PICK UP THE UN-USABLE 55 GALLON DRUM OF [redacted] BRASS. I HAVE NO USE FOR THE BRASS, AND WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU ALL MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE A FREIGHT COMPANY PICK IT UP. I AM ATTACHING PICTURES AS WELL. I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE I NEED THIS MATERIAL TO RUN A BUSINESS, AND I CAN'T USE HALF OF IT....WHICH MEANS I NOW NEED TO FIND MORE.

OR

THEY CAN DROP THE PRICE OF SCRAP OFF OF THIS DRUM OF BRASS, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING I CAN USE IT FOR, WHICH IS CURRENTLY LOCALLY $1 PER POUND. SO IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO PICK IT UP OR REPLACE IT WITH THE BRASS THAT WAS ADVERTISED, I WOULD SETTLE FOR A PAYMENT OF $2820 - THE COST OF SCRAP ($630) FOR A TOTAL REFUND OF $2190.

Business

Response:

August 25, 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 Tuesday, April 23, 2013. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when [redacted] placed his winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Friday, April 4, 2014) on Government Liquidation's website. The lot's description advertised was advertised as, 1,340 lbs. (approx) of 5.56mm Fired Brass. Head stamp [redacted]. Property is on (1) pallet with (2) metal drums approximately 56 X 29 X 39 and the container is included in the weight of this lot. Mutilation not required. Material located at [redacted] Army Depot, in [redacted], Texas. Preview available prior to start of the sale, by appointment only and is recommended. Load out by appointment only, with a 48 hour notice required.Our records indicate that [redacted] did not preview the property as recommended in the lots description. In addition, [redacted] removed and signed for the property without objection. The following excerpts of the Terms and Conditions pertain to preview and removal:8:H Either you or your agent will be required to sign for all material in the presence of a GL representative (unless otherwise approved by an authorized GL agent) prior to removing property.8: I You or your agents are responsible for property count and verification of lots purchased at the time of removal. If the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it.Subsequently, [redacted] filed a claim, citing a material/description misrepresentation. [redacted] disputed lot [redacted] claiming that, the “Material received was not as described. Half of my order is usable and is [redacted] headstamps. We only use [redacted] to process and cannot use the [redacted] at all for our conversions. In our conversion process the [redacted] headstamp brass will not consistently/properly size to 300 blackout to run reliably, we do not use any other brass besides LC for this reason”.On May 14, 2014, [redacted] was informed that his claim was being processed and would take approximately 15 business days or longer for a resolution. A copy of this communication is enclosed.Government Liquidation determined that [redacted]'s claim was not valid and an approval of his refund request ($2,560.00), could not be approved do to the following reason:[redacted] removed lot [redacted] from the site personally and signed the removal invoice. The Terms and conditions expressly state that “You or your agents are responsible for property count and verification of lots purchased at the time of removal. If the property is not acceptable for any reason, do not remove it". Once a lot is removed from our site and signed for as correct a claim/refund request cannot be approved as the property is no longer in Government Liquidationspossession.A copy of the signed invoice has been enclosed.We have additionally included Section 4:D excerpts 1 & 2 from the Terms and Conditions below.D.1 YOUR PURCHASE OF OR PLACEMENT OF A BID ON THE PROPERTY CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPERTY "AS IS" AND IN A USED CONDITION. "ACCEPTANCE"AS USED HERE ALSO MEANS THAT, BY PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXAMINED, OR HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE, THE PROPERTY AND AGREED THAT THE PROPERTY IS OF THE SIZE, DESIGN, CAPACITY AND MANUFACTURER SELECTED BY YOU, IS IN PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL CONDITION ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, AND IS FIT FOR THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND USE YOU REOUIRE. WE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR THAT THE PROPERTY IS FREE FROM LATENT DEFECTS. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE NOT A MANUFACTURER OF THE PROPERTY, OR ANAGENT OF THE MANUFACTURER, AND THAT THE ONLY EXPRESS WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY IS THAT OF THE MANUFACTURER, IF ANY YOU WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST US AND THE SELLER FOR DAMAGES, LOSSES, COSTS, INJURIES, PENALTIES, EXPENSES, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LIABILITIES OF WHATEVER NATURE WHETHER IN TORT, CONTRACT, WARRANTY OR STRICT LIABILITY, INCLUDING THOSE RESULTING FROM INJURIES OR DEATHS OF PERSONS AND DAMAGES TO PROPERTY RESULTING FROM OR ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE, CONDITION, OPERATION, TRANSPORTATION, SERVICE, POSSESSION, RENTAL OR SALE OF THE PROPERTY, LOSS OR LIABILITY RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF WARRANTY, PARTS, LABOR, DELAY OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES, DELIVERY DELAYS, WORKSTOPPAGES, FAILURE TO WARN, OPERATIONAL DEFICIENCIES OR FAILURES, BREAKDOWNS, STRIKES, ACTS OF GOD, UNAVAILABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OR OTHER CAUSE (WHETHER THESE CAUSES AREAVOIDABLE OR NOT) CAUSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY YOU, US, YOUR OR OUR EMPLOYEES, YOUR OR OUR AGENTS OR THIRD PARTIES (COLLECTIVELY, "SPECIFIED CLAIMS"). UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PARTY, YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD US AND THE SELLER HARMLESS FROM AND AGAINSTANY AND ALL SPECIFIED CLAIMS.D:2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS: The information and descriptions found in the advertising materials for specific sales are not guaranteed. We neither assume responsibility nor make any warranty regarding the sale's contents. Condition codes, National Stock Numbers (NSN), Local Stock Numbers (LSN), National Item Identification Numbers (NIN), and Scrap Condition List (SCL) codes are provided as received from the DLA Disposition Services as assistance to our customers. We do not guaranty the accuracy of this information. It is your responsibility to verify an item's information and description, including but not limited to, product condition, estimated weight, count, measure or other factors that determine the bid price. Information provided by us is not guaranteed and should not be considered as a substitute for your due diligence and physical inspection of the propertyBased upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation will be unable to accommodate [redacted]'s request.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards, Cary HCorporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc

Review: This was a purchase of a refurbished desktop computer. The machine would freeze up after about half an hour of usage. I determined the cause was likely something overheating. I've purchased 5 other machines from this company without issues, so it's surprising they would give me such a hard time trying to just get this one machine fixed.

After contacting their customer support department, I sent the computer in for repairs. After it came back, the issue as not resolved. The computer still overheated. In addition to this, the operating system had now become corrupted. I could not even boot into [redacted] anymore. I only knew the overheating issue still existed because I spent hours trying to resolve the operating system issue and it would freeze up after some time.

I contacted their customer support department again and waited the standard 7-10 business days only to be told my case was being closed because it was determined that the cause of the computer problem was "customer abuse."Desired Settlement: I initially asked for a replacement of the same or similar model. I'd still like that, since this is a good machine and we will be in need of more computers in the near future. If no more replacements are available, I'll be willing to take a check as a refund. If that's the case, please send me some UPS labels so that I may ship back this defective unit.

Business

Response:

May 24, 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 using the [redacted] store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. **. [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because he has not received an acceptable solution via the product warranty, but he has since received a full refund.

**. [redacted] purchased a refurbished [redacted] desktop computer, but the unit began experiencing freezing issues. He suspected that the problem was caused by overheating of the unit, so he contacted our company to initiate a remedy via the 90-day warranty. He then sent the computer for repair, but it was returned to him without being repaired by our repair partner. **. [redacted] wants a replacement unit or refund for his purchase.

The warranty claim was initially denied by our repair partner because it was determined that the problem was caused by physical distress to the unit. Physical damage is not covered by the warranty so the computer was returned without any attempted repair. Since our company did not have photo evidence of the damage, our customer service department contacted **. [redacted] to arrange a solution. We agreed to provide a refund upon return of the unit. **. [redacted] returned the unit to us and a full refund of $291.59 was processed to his account on May 9.

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 was high bidder on two items offered by government liquidation, at a [redacted] Minnesota location on 1/9/2014 I was invoiced in the amount of $747.54.In the invoice I was told to arrange pick up. after 5 days of leaving messages I finally was told to call a [redacted] at ###-###-####, who told me that these items were no longer available, and sold to someone else in October of 2013.I called government liquidation and was told a form would be emailed to me at my email address, for refund, (there would be a 15 day delay in the refund) after waiting three days I still have not received the forI am disputing this purchase through [redacted].I suspect this purchase, and the purposes of the seller not to go through with the sale. I am hoping there is no fraud involved.This Invoice has been Paid In FullOrder Number | Type: [redacted] | ** LOT [redacted] Vertical Type. Serial Number: Located At: MN, [redacted], [redacted] Site Phone: [redacted] $150.00 $150.00 [redacted] Type: A 1 Buyer's Premium $27.00 $27.00 Order Number | Type: [redacted] | ** LOT 0[redacted] 1 2004 [redacted] 5 Digital Platform Scale. 5,000Lb Capacity. Located At: MN, [redacted], [redacted] Site Phone: [redacted] $440.00 $440.00 [redacted] 1 Digital Platform Scale [redacted] Type: A 1 Buyer's Premium $79.20 $79.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tax Group Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tax Code Tax State Tax Rate Amount Taxed Amount [redacted] MN 7.375 % $696.20 $51.34 Transfer, Credit Card ([redacted]TM, [redacted]TM or [redacted]TM) 7.375 % Sales/Excise Tax: $51.34 Payment is due within 3 days of invoice date. Balance Due: $747.54Desired Settlement: refund or replacement items delivered to me.

Business

Response:

May 2, 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 Oct 5 12:29:20 2006. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when [redacted] placed his winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Tue Jan 7 18:43:48 2014) and when he placed his winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Wed Jan 8 01:07:47 2014) on Government Liquidation’s website. Subsequently, on January 09, 2014, [redacted] was invoiced for both lots, and Government Liquidation received payment in full, $747.54, via his [redacted] account. A copy of the paid invoice is enclosed with this letter.[redacted] then corresponded with site personnel in an effort to schedule an appointment to pick-up the property associated with Lot [redacted] and Lot [redacted] from Sale [redacted]. [redacted] was informed by site personnel that the property could not be located and was advised to contact Government Liquidation’s Customer Service Department for recourse.On January 17, 2014, [redacted] contacted Government Liquidation’s Customer Service . Department. [redacted] explained the situation to a Customer Service Representative, and the Customer Service Representative advised [redacted] to outline his concerns in writing by replying to a claim form that we would send to him.Subsequently, on January 19, 2014, [redacted] initiated a charge-back, as the claim form had not been sent to him. On January 20, 2014, the Customer Service Department verbally informed [redacted] that a full refund, $747.54, was in process and that he would be receiving a written confirmation within the coming business days.On January 23, 2014, a full refund, $747.54, was issued to [redacted]’s [redacted] account and a written confirmation was e-rnailed to [redacted]. A copy of the refund confirmation is enclosed with this letter. A copy of the written confirmation is enclosed with this letter.Due to the aforementioned, [redacted] cancelled the charge-back with [redacted], as his dispute with Government Liquidation was resolved.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards,

Review: I bought a lot of goods from this site and the items I received were not as described plus I was also missing items. The company refused to escalate a dispute citing that the items were described as SHELF PULLS but the items were labeled CUSTOMER RETURN. The items I received were filthy dirty. I called the company and was told that a supervisor denied my request to speak to them and the customer service reps were no help and basically told me that there was nothing they were willing to do for me. DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY THEY ARE BAD BUISINESS.Desired Settlement: I will accept a proper order of merchandise or a refund...

Consumer

Response:

From: [redacted]

Date: Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Subject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington

DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #[redacted].

To: [email protected]

Regarding complaint #[redacted] I have resolved the issue with the company.

Review: I purchased two laptops from liquidation.com and under their description they said the laptops were missing hard drives. once I received the laptops they were completely destroyed due to water damage. I contacted the company and they would not issue my a refund or allow me to return the items because they said it was sold as is. Had I known the laptops had water damage I would not have bought them. They never told me the laptops were as is or that they do not accept returns until after I had this situation.Desired Settlement: Refund for the amount I paid which was $942.66

Business

Response:

July 16, 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 C Grade [redacted] and [redacted] Satellite laptops in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 15, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition listed in the auction. He said that that the [redacted] laptop not only was missing the hard drive as advertised, but also had water damage and would not turn on. He requested a full refund on the transaction.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the items did not fit the broad definition of Returns, given on the auction listing as follows:

Returns were sold to a customer, who then either physically brought the item back to a store or mailed it to a specified location. Reasons for returning a product may not have any correlation to its usefulness (i.e., size, color, model, etc.), and as a result that product may be in fine working order. The majority of Returns, however, do have some operational and/or cosmetic problem. Depending on a company's return policy, these items may also reflect a measurable amount of use. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a customer back to a store or a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. They generally do not come in original packaging and often do not have any of the advertised documentation or additional parts and/or accessories. Accordingly, Returns can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

**. [redacted] attempted to reopen the dispute, but was informed by our accounts team that his account information violated the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com. The account information, specifically the credit card used by **. [redacted] in this auction, belonged to his brother. Our team consulted **. [redacted], stating that his account could not be activated even for probationary use until the account information correctly reflected the user. He then filed a chargeback with [redacted], which is in violation with the Liqudation.com terms and conditions.

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.

Review: Company Description per their website: Liquidation.com is a Liquidity Services, Inc. marketplace where professional buyers can source commercial surplus inventory and government surplus assets in an online environment. Bulk lots are sold by the truckload, pallet, or small package, and conditions range from new in a box to customer returns and used. Our wide variety of product categories includes apparel, computers, electronics, housewares, industrial equipment, vehicles, and much more.

I decided to purchase items from the companies website Liquidation.com; On 4-9-14 I was the winning bidder on two separate lots of product from the same seller at the same location, through Liquidation.com I specifically choose to purchase two separate lots because they were being offered from the same seller and the same shipping location, where I had the understanding shipping cost would be less than if I bought at two different stores. I choose to purchase these two lots for this reason, shipping would be consolidated when buying from the same buyer and same shipping location. On Monday, 4-9-14 @ 8:02am CST, I called Liquidation.com customer service and asked for the shipments to be consolidated and I was advised they would be and I would receive an email on how to complete the payment. I continued with an additional purchase (bidding on other lots) until I was locked out from bidding any more (in the middle of a auction and bid) because the previous items haven't been finalized (due to customer service not combining the previous purchase) and therefore lost out on two additional purchases that I needed. Tuesday, 4-10-14, I still have not received an email confirming that the first two items would be combined. I called customer service again, where I was advised that the items would be combined and shipping would be less. By the way, the minimum estimated estimated shipping for the items was $40.25 for each lot. One weighing 9lbs and the other 6lbs = $80.50. Obviously, very expensive, which is why I was glad they would combine the shipment. On Tuesday, 4-10-14 @ 10:00am CST, I called customer service again where I was reassured that the two lot purchases would be discounted and combined, but sometimes it takes 24-48 hours for accounting and shipping to make the changes to be reflected on the invoice and for shipping to make arrangements. As of Wednesday, 4-11-14 @ 9:36am CST I still have not received an email confirming the adjustment. However, I did receive and email advising me that the payment deadline for the purchase was past the 48 hour time frame. I called customer service again, 4-11-14 @ 9:36am CST, to inquire about the purchase again, where I was told this time that they could not and would not combine the purchases. If this was the case I would not have bought both items, just one of them. After explaining everything for a third time, the customer service representative offered to speak to her supervisor, since I was told on two occasions that the shipment would be discounted. The customer service representative advised me that since I was told this they might go ahead and honor what I was told. However, the supervisor was occupied at the moment and could not speak to me about it, so the supervisor would call me back withing a couple of hours. As of 1:41pm CST, I have not received an email nor have I received a phone call, so I called customer service again. I tried to explain, for a fourth time, to the customer service representative, yet she continued to interrupt me, saying they were not going to combine the shipping. I asked the customer service representative to stop interrupting me and allow me to finish talking as I needed to speak to a supervisor, at which point the representative put me on hold (hung up on me), where I waited online for 6 minutes and the phone call was disconnected. It is now 2:31pm CST, still no email and no phone call. I tried to contact the main office and speak to Bill A[redacted], CEO, but was unable to reach him or anyone else for that matter. Customer service representatives were very rude each time I called, with the exception of the third call, where I was told someone would call me back.

The fees associated with shipping are massive and outrageously out of line with actual cost. you don't really know the actual cost until you have actually won the bid for the items in the auction, but when you buy from the same seller in the same shipping location, there is no reason for this company to charge double fees for somethings. Which is why they have the statement on their website regarding combining shipments (see below, as I copied and pasted their words directly from their website regarding combining shipments). I was told on Monday and Tuesday that the shipments would be reduced to one fee and shipped. When a company tells me they are going to do something, they should honor their words and do it. They should not give people the run around. They obviously don't care, as if I don't complete the purchase they said I would be charged a $200.00 cancel fee. Bait and switch.

The company website states the following....directly from their site:

Liquidation.com does however provide shipping discounts for customers who ship multiple auctions from the same location using LSI-arranged shipping. To take advantage of this, one of your transactions must exceed the minimum shipping charge of $40.25. Consolidation must be requested within 48 business hours of winning the auction and prior to payment.

For more information, or to consolidate a shipment, please contact us at ###-###-#### or [email protected] Settlement: I was told the shipment would be combined into one. So, the charge should have been $40.25 for both lots (costing $200.00) not $80.50, so I expect them to refund me the $40.25+ applicable tax as they said they would do the first two phone calls. otherwise I would not have bought both lots. This massive shipping fee made the items higher than their worth.

Business

Response:

June 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 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] and [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his shipping costs were higher than advised.

[redacted] was the winning bidder of two auctions for two separate lots of credit card knives in new condition purchased via Liquidation.com. After he had won the auctions, he contacted customer service and asked for the shipments to be consolidated because the two lots were from the same seller and shipping location. He was advised by a customer service representative that his request would be met, and that he would receive his email confirmation within 24-48 hours. After the 24-48 hour request period ended, [redacted] was informed by a customer service representative that we could not accommodate his request to consolidate the shipping. This was the case because the lots were packaged and handled by the seller and not by Liquidation.com personnel at one of our warehouses. If the shipments had come from one of our warehouses, we would have control over the packaging and consolidation of these lots.

[redacted] was dissatisfied that his request was denied and that the shipping costs remained in full for both lots. He said that he would not have purchased both lots if he could not reduce the shipping costs to $40.25 from $80.50. [redacted] also said that he did not know the “actual cost” of the lots until he had won the bid. However, [redacted] purchased both lots before inquiring about our shipping policies. As a user on Liquidation.com, [redacted] voluntarily bid on these two, individual lots and then asked to clarify some of his shipping questions after winning the auctions. Additionally, for each of these auctions, there was an opportunity to view an estimate of shipping costs through the “Get a Shipping Quote” feature found on the auction listings.

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.

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: Where did this person get their information. This is typical cover up response. I will clarify for this [redacted]. I did check the shipping rates on both auctions and found the shipping cost to extremely high for such a small shipment. This is when I went further into researching the shipping possibilities of combining the shipment for items purchased from the same seller in the same location. knew this before bidding, hence the reason for the phone call to customer service where I was told twice it would be combined. It wasn't. I was instead told on a third phone call it would not be combined. Then I received an email from Liquidation.com stating that I better pay for the auction or I would be charged a 200.00 cancellation fee. So I had no choice but to pay for the auction. After paying for them transportation informed me that they now cannot combine shipment. This company is the worst I've ever seen. I will never do business with them again. In fact I had another purchase that was not what they advertised, the seller took care of it before I even heard from these guys.See emails below.

Auction Purchase

Review: I purchased items from Liquidity Services in mid-June. I received the items and, within the acceptable time frame laid out by the company, submitted a dispute on the grounds of quality. The items were designated as light use but came to me broken.

I contacted the company's customer service office once to make sure the dispute was filed, on time, and everything was in order. I was told that it was by the customer service representative. I waited until the allotted ten business days were completed and contacted customer service again to wonder about the result of my dispute. I was told it was denied because I did not provide picture evidence. I informed the customer service representative that I submitted the dispute via my phone, several times in fact because of connection issues, and apologized that the time it went through didn't have photos and promptly submitted the photos again that same business day. The next day, I received an email that my dispute was automatically denied because I did not submit photos.

I contacted my account manager and she informed me that the dispute department had erred; if there was a problem, they were to contact me to rectify it before closing the dispute. This is clearly stated on the company's dispute page. I was never contacted, and my continued attempts and that of my account manager to resolve the action were met with no reply. The account manager admits that the company is in the wrong.Desired Settlement: I would like to be refunded for my faulty merchandise under LSI's policies.

Business

Response:

September 5, 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 his dispute was denied despite his belief that he filed a proper dispute claim.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of three (3) light use digital cameras in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On June 21, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that the merchandise he received was not “light use” as described, but heavy use with broken components. On July 11, he provided photo evidence in support of his claim.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s and concluded that it would be denied because he had provided insufficient support during the inspection period. Therefore, the funds were released to the seller and no longer withheld for possible refund. The delivery was made to **. [redacted] on June 19, and while he filed a dispute claim, he did not provide the necessary supporting documentation in the 2-day inspection window during which the dispute and support both must be received in accordance with the User Agreement.

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,

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: the response provided by the business is wholly inaccurate. I submitted my dispute within the time frame and submitted proper photos. I was never informed of the lack of photo evidence and further called customer support twice to inquire whether or not my photos had been processed through the system and if the claim was fine: both times I was informed that they had and it was. Further, my account manager informed me that IF such a problem regarding lack of photos were to occur, proper company policy is to notify the buyer. That never happened

Regards,

Review: I have won an auction on liquidation.com ...here is the the description of the auction I won :Auction Title: Samsung Blu-Ray Players, Portable DVD Players & More - Original MSRP $1,619.53

Transaction ID: [redacted]

Auction ID: [redacted]

Total: 256.00

Buyer's Premium: 20.48

Shipping costs: 40.25

Total Amount: 316.73

after I received the shipment and opened the boxes to check the items I find out there was five items are broken and defected and not as described in the manifest . emailed them and explained to them the problem and they emailed me back to file a dispute which is I did but their web site wont let me do it for some reason . this is the second time happened to me because it happened to me first a week ago and had the same problem with them . hopefully someone will put the stop to this dishonest business practice .Desired Settlement: to get a refund for the defected useless items I had to pay for .

Business

Response:

September 5, 2013

**. [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 he is unhappy with the amount of his partial refund.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 21 Samsung Blu-Ray players, portable DVD players and other consumer electronics in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 25, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was missing units and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. He said that he was missing one Insignia portable DVD player and that two of the Blu-Ray players were missing remote controls.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that a partial refund for the missing portable DVD unit would be appropriate. The partial refund offer for one item as 10.5% of the MSRP of the lot plus prorated shipping and fees was calculated. On July 26, a partial refund of $29.02 was processed to **. [redacted]’s account. The missing remotes are allowable under the definition of Returns condition merchandise so no refund was provided for that portion of **. [redacted]’s dispute.

Subsequent to his initial dispute, **. [redacted] attempted to file additional disputes on the transaction; however, only one dispute claim is allowed per transaction. That dispute should be comprehensive of all claims made on the transaction. Therefore, no additional claims could be evaluated for settlement.

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,

[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: this company is a fraud and they sale their customers nothing but trash items . very unethical business practice . this company should be out of business .

Regards,

Review: I have contacted Liquidation.com both by phone speaking with a customer service rep and via email requesting they do not send any emails to my business account and they continue. I receive at least 10 emails per day some times more. I have never given them permission to send them to begin with.Desired Settlement: I want the emails to stop immediately. I never signed up for them.

Business

Response:

November 21, 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 recipient of multiple company e-mails that he did not request.

[redacted] said that he received several unwanted e-mails and wanted them to cease. He was not on any of the distribution lists for the company e-mails he received, but his e-mail was located in a database for another marketplace.

There was an error that caused some of our users to received multiple, unsolicited e-mails in succession. Once we became aware of the problem, we moved quickly to identify the source and correct it so that no further disruption would occur. Additionally, [redacted] has been globally unsubscribed from all of our marketplaces per his request.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with his removal from all distribution lists.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

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.

Regards,

Review: Liquidity Services Inc. provides the warranty serivces for [redacted]. My laptop had a 90 day warranty upon purchasing. When I first received my laptop I noticed the computer would only charge when restarted. That was issue number one. Issue number two was that even at 95-100% battery level the computer would just die as if I pulled out the battery. This was due to bad hardware because even in the boot sequence my laptop would sometimes die, meaning its not a software issue. Normally the warranty is there for this reason but here is where things take a turn for the worse.

I bought my laptop in August and was doing a warranty repair by October. I got authorized a label on October 16, 2013. I sent it in and waited over 3 weeks to received the same unit without any repairs done. I called again and sent it back. After not hearing anything for over a month I had to write email and make calls until they finally admitted that they didn't have a replacement unit for me. So they offered me an "upgraded" unit. I say "upgraded" because some specs where better, some the same, and some worse. I accepted this unit on January 5, 2014. However, they decided not to ship it for reasons unknown. On January 9, 2013 I get an email saying a laptop that was the same model as the one I send in was found and it would be shipped. I am perfectly fine receiving my original model instead of the "upgraded" unit, but the fact that they lied about what and when it would be shipped out is what angered me. When I received this unit it had a fake windows version installed. Which prompted another return. They received the unit on January 21, 2014. I had to call February 10, 2014 after not receiving any info from them. They informed me the same generic talk (for lack of a better term) that it takes 7-10 business days to process a repair, to which I promptly told her it had already been 14. They apologized and authorized a next day shipment. I received a different model this time, no biggie as the specs where all nearly the same, however it was still a defective unit, with the same problems as my original laptop. It is now February 13, 2014 and they said the only thing they can do is have me ship it back so they can ship out another one. However, by Februrary 14,2014 they still had not given me a label so I had to call again. I have been without my laptop since October 17, 2014. February 17, 2014 will mark 4 months of incompetency with this company because of a faulty laptop.Desired Settlement: I would like a refund for the full price of the laptop as the warranty hasn't been honored.

Business

Response:

May 24, 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 using the [redacted] store operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. **. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he has not received an acceptable solution via the product warranty.

In October 2013, **. [redacted] contacted our company to initiate a repair of his [redacted] laptop under the 90-day warranty. The laptop had been purchased in August 2013 and was experiencing multiple power failures. **. [redacted] sent his laptop to us for repair; however, upon return the unit was not effectively repaired by our repair partner. For this reason, our company began to search for a suitable replacement laptop. Two different laptops have since been sent to **. [redacted], but both of them have also had problems.

We continue to search for an appropriate replacement for **. [redacted]’s laptop; however, we do not control our inventory from [redacted] so we must wait for a fully functional unit to become available for replacement.

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,

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.]

The solution was satisfactory in the end. I eventually received an almost completely working unit and decided to keep it because I just couldn't deal with support anymore. The problem was that it took multiple shipouts (4) and 4 months of waiting which is unacceptable.