Liquidity Services Inc

Don't ever buy " return" product from them. because they will throw Junk item ( broken item should just list item condition is Salvage , you will easy see they can only throw in trash like : Expensive air headphones they add pictures of U[redacted] H[redacted] ( value items : $80- $100) But one side of headphones was broken off, you only throw them away (almost of value items) - don't need test you will see when item delivered. If you open Dispute they will denied.
Which kind of business let seller cheat like that?
Anyone can tell me how to open a complaint against them ?

Review: The seller misrepresented the auction to the buyer.

I gave 2 email sets of photos of all goods that I received.

Which you do not see any of the handbags represented in the photos that the auction was representing at all.

The photos they showed were of really nice looking bags and tags on a lot of them not what I received at all in any of the lot

I bid on the item per what I was seeing in the photos on what I would be receiving and how much I was willing to pay on items in photos of the goods.

But what I received was nothing as described not even the Brand names they said. I was totally lied to in the auction

So what they are telling me is that what you are seeing in the photos of a listing, is not what you will be getting at all , But something similar to it.

They refuse to refund me the money.

I gave them proof of the items in photos that was sent.

They refused my dispute even though I had the proof on my side.

I have all emails and photos that I have corresponded with them

These guys are defrauding the consumerDesired Settlement: I would like a full refund on my items.

Business

Response:

August 22, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

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

[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 30 designer handbags in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 31, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. [redacted] said that she only received one of the items from the auction photos and that the name brands shown in the listing were not sent. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was properly represented. The seller sent the correct number and type of items advertised. The auction listing states that there will be designer inspired handbags and genuine leather bags. It also reads, “You will receive items like the ones shown in the pictures.”

Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated. Due to the chargeback, we can provide no further consideration of the dispute. When [redacted] registered as a member of our website, she agreed to follow our dispute procedures and stands in violation with the chargeback.

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.

Review: I recently bid entered a bid and won a "lot" that represented four (4) [redacted] 7" Tablets within a "Lot". As with all other products that are up for auction within www.liquidation.com's website, they provide the "Quantity in Lot", which in this case reflects four (4). These tablets average around $60 per tablet. I won the lot at $145.00 + $40.00 S&H and Other Misc Fee's totaling $192.50. All I was sent was ONE (1)7" [redacted] Tablet.

I immediately filled out a dispute form with www.liquidation.com in which they stated the four items were listed in the manifest: 1) The 7" Tablet 2) The AC Charger 3) USB Cable 4) User Manual.

The item is brand new therefore these items come all together as a single package. By reading the manifest it would appear that there is one of each (above) included in each of the packages as the "Quantity in Lot" shows four (4)Desired Settlement: It is unrealistic to pay $145+$40 S&H on one (1) Tablet worth approximately $60. I would expect to be sent the other three (3) tablets as the advertisement reflects the quantity for -OR- be able to return the product for a full refund.

Business

Response:

May 17, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

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

Dear **. [redacted],

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

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of four (4) items, including an [redacted] 7-inch [redacted] tablet, purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 28, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was missing units advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that he had expected to receive four [redacted] tablets, but that he had only received one tablet and some accessories. He requested that three more tablets be sent to him or that he be allowed to return the shipment he received for a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate his claim that he was missing items. The auction manifest clearly lists each of the four items: 7” [redacted] Tablet, Ac charger, USB Cable, and User Manual. Buyers are responsible for performing due diligence before bidding on an auction. The users of our website are equal, professional buyers and sellers conducting transactions via our Liquidation.com marketplace. A bidding mistake by the purchasing party cannot be grounds to reverse a completed transaction by a seller.

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

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: I recently bought 15 lots from Liquidity Services inc . Upon pick up I checked to make sure that the item numbers match the manifest in the auction . 1 lot did not and I brought it up to there attention. The item number did not match the item in the manifest . After waiting an hour and half they wrote up a report and they told me it will be refunded. the next day I called the 800 number and they told me it will be taken care of . They refunded me for the lot that did not match what I paid for it which is $205.00 .then they turned around and send me an email that they suspended my account and they want $200 to reinstate it . When I called in to ask why they said that because I rejected the lot and even though its there mistake they are still charging me that .

I then started opening up all the merchandise I bought from them . They where all suppose to be returned items or open box items. More than half the items are completely salvaged and should not been sold as returns. The company has auctions for returns and auctions for salvage items. I bought only return items and clearly those items are not and should have been sold as salvage. When I tried to contact them again about this issue they basically said you need to pay $200 to reinstate the account so I can look into it and they might suspend it again if I make a complaint.Desired Settlement: I want my money refunded .

Business

Response:

February 5, 2014

**. [redacted]

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

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

Dear **. [redacted],

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

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 34 home goods in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 16, he refused to accept a purchased lot from our warehouse personnel because he discovered upon inspection that one of the items was misidentified in the auction listing. A lantern that was part of the lot was listed in the auction advertising with the item number of an aluminum lantern with glass, but the lantern included in the lot was plastic. The lantern item number had been selected from an online search and both items look similar.

Afterward, the buyer was assessed a $200 cancelation fee for refusing pickup of the lot he had purchased. The buyer then filed 14 chargebacks on other transactions he had completed. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. When **. [redacted] registered as a User on Liquidation.com, he agreed to follow the dispute process detailed in our User Agreement. For this reason, **. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

Upon further consideration, it was determined that **. [redacted]’s outstanding $200 cancelation fee will be removed from his account. The warehouse personnel entered that the lot was refused and accounts personnel assessed the penalty per our standard procedure. However, the circumstances of this refusal fully justify a lifting of the cancelation fee. Regarding his Liquidation.com user account, **. [redacted] will need to withdraw all 14 of his chargeback disputes and confirm the withdrawals with our customer service department before his account can be reinstated.

We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and would appreciate his continued cooperation in settling this matter amicably.

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: Bought 100-piece mixed goods lot. Values range from $1 to $100. Only most valuable items shown online with no complete manifest of all items to be received. Cheapest items or quantity of those items not shown in photos nor listed. Most valuable item received broken. Complaint filed with photos of damaged and retail sticker of piece. Request made for replacement piece of same item broken to adequately compensate for this 1 piece. Not provided. Rather total paid divided by 100 for refund of 1 piece. This does not adequately compensate for the loss. The company does not bare any responsibility of transparency requiring a complete manifest of all items being sold in the lot or any specifics about whether 1 item is broken that you'll only receive 1/100th of the total price paid regardless if it is the most valuable item in the lot. Company holds no one responsible for how items are packed and shipped so that if the value of all pieces in the lot are not made clear to buyers and the most valuable piece(s) is/are damaged that all that we be refunded is a fraction of what item is worth. A replacement of the exact piece would be acceptable and should be forcibly provided if broken or the full value of the piece refunded, especially since no complete item by item manifest of all items being sold is made known to buyer or details about only 1/100th of total cost will be refunded if most valuable item is broken in a 100-pc. lot as in this case. When consulted by phone, company made clear only 1/100th of price paid would be refundable, but this amount does not adequately compensate for the loss sustained with this transaction.Desired Settlement: Replacement of same item or one of equal value in the same category. Or, refund of sticker price as shown on the manufacturer's packaging box of item in question which has already been provided in detail with photos.

Business

Response:

October 14, 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 he is unhappy with the amount of his partial refund.

[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 100 holiday home goods in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 12, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the items he received were not in the condition advertised in the auction listing. He said that the most expensive item in the lot arrived damaged and unusable. He requested that the item be replaced with another of the same item in good condition or that $100 be paid as compensation as the list price for the item.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that a partial refund would be appropriate for the damaged item at the unit price. A partial refund of $3.00 was processed to [redacted]’s account on September 25. [redacted] was also informed that a shipping damage claim had been filed with UPS on his behalf. We continue to await the outcome of that claim.

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.

Review: I recently won a Liquidation.com auction for 10 print cartridges (transaction [redacted] & auction [redacted]) and paid $155.75. I received the merchandise however, there are two issues with it. Firstly, the auction manifest states that there are 5 ** 3A ink cartridges in the shipment, however, only four arrived. The missing ink cartridge is valued on the secondary market at $39. Secondly, the two ink cartridges listed in the manifest as "Misc toner" are not in "new" condition and did not come in sealed plastic bags as promised in the listing description. These two ink cartridges have been opened and are in "used" condition. The yellow cartridge has yellow ink covering the inside of the bag. The black cartridge shows signs of use in a printer as evidenced by the black ink found around the cartridge exterior. These two cartridges have UPC codes [redacted] & [redacted] and are valued at $120 & $170 respectively on the secondary market. I used Liquidation.com’s online complaint form and submitted the above dispute description with photographic evidence. Within 12 hours Liquidation.com responded via email that because I took longer then 48 hours after shipment arrived to submit my dispute my complaint is invalid. I assert that Liquidation has systematically failed to fairly regulate their marketplace and has put policies in place including, the 48 hour dispute window, that intentionally favor the deceitful auction seller and use these unbalanced policies to provide an excuse for permitting merchandise to be delivered with missing products and not in the condition promised, thus allowing Liquidation.com to keep the fee it levied on it’s customer.. Furthermore, Liquidation.com coerces it’s customer into signing a user agreement that includes such unfavorable clauses without advising the customer to seek legal counsel prior to signing the agreement. I am seeking compensatory damages for the misrepresentation of this product.Desired Settlement: Refund of the $155.75 total paid for the purchase and shipping of the merchandise.

Business

Response:

May 8, 2014[redacted] Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

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

Dear **. [redacted],

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

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 10 printer cartridges in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 25, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that he was missing one of the ** 3A ink cartridges that was listed on the auction manifest. He also said that some toner cartridges showed evidence of use by having ink on the outside of them and were therefore clearly not new items as expected. He provided photos in support of his claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team could not review the claim because the dispute form was sent well beyond the 48-hour inspection period provided. Section 4.2.1 of the User Agreement states that buyers have two days from the date that the product is delivered to inspect the shipment and file a dispute with Liquidation.com. The shipment for this transaction was received on February 10, and the dispute was received 13 days after the inspection period had ended. Funds for the transaction had already been paid to the seller and we could no longer recover them. This is why the inspection period is set and must be followed by our users.

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 ordered 101 pairs of designer jeans that stated various sytles and sizes. when I recieved them they where various stles but out of 101 pairs of jeans 90 where size 27 which is not that common a size. I filed a dispute after talking to a manager at liquidations who agred over the phone that 90 of one size was not various sizes. I sent pictures and documentation of the listting and my dispute was denied by liqidadaters saying that ther was various sizes. I think that 11 different pairs of jeans and 90 the same size was very decieitfull and product dumpping , I exspected many diggerent sizes 30 and over. I told them I would be happy with the exchange of 50 pairs of jeans for sizes 30 and above and a equal mixture.. I feel they did not stand behind there policy of disputes and I was ripped off and very unhappy with there business. I also had to ask to speak to someone in mgt. several times and told I could not , until I buged them every day and finally was able to speak to some one in mgt. who would not give there name. again 90 pairs out of 101 the same size is not assorted various sizes to any normal thinking personDesired Settlement: would like a replacement of 50 pairs at various sizes 30 and above assorted equally. company needs to change there policy and list exactly how many of each size is in lot not say assorted and send 90 out of 101 the same size

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.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 101 pieces of new designer jeans purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 12, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that he expected a greater range of sizes but that 90 of 101 jeans were size 27. He said that he had no problem with the quality, but that the jeans would be difficult to sale because so many were the low-demand size.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s and concluded that it would be denied because the support he provided validated that the Seller complied with the auction listing. Even though there is little diversity of sizes, there are some different sizes. There was no detailed manifest representing that there would be a wide range of sizes. This was an assumption of the buyer which was incorrect, but it is not grounds for overturning a transaction.

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: I dont feel that 90 pairs of jeans out of 101 pairs is varies sizes. I feel that this was very deceptive and liquadations should require a manifest, with a complete listing of all sizes for its auctions so this wont happen, I do not belive this is fair to the consumer and compannys can take advantage.

Review: I am a seasonal buyer on liquidation.com (Oct-Feb) . I purchase mostly winter gloves and since 2012 I have purchased over 3000 pairs, spending $20,351 (that does not include the proxy bids I get out bid on). A good portion of the auctions won came from seller, [redacted], with relatively few problems ex., pairs pictured not in shipment, mismatched or damaged pairs , returns stickers on "Shelf pull" items etc., but never a big enough issue that would affect profitability and force me to do a dispute. My past two shipments, within one week of each other, were like any other auctions from this seller, until I received the shipments. The first one had 44 out of 50 damaged pairs of gloves. Damaged meaning unsaleable and non-repairable- tears and rips, thumbs missing, large patches of sticker adhesive over leather, gloves literally stuck to one another and further damaged when pulled apart, and the adhesive cannot be removed from leather without further damaging gloves. When I brought this to dispute (with attached photos that didn't match what auction photos showed), I was told this is normal for "returns" auctions and therefore non-refundable. I called liquidation.com and explained. The employee I talked to understood and agreed, and then told me to respond with more detail to the refund denial. I did and was once again quoted their "returns" auction definition. Now, I've had "shelfpull" lots with return labels from store on them, and "returns" lots with an obviously mismatched pair of gloves. Do not quote me your "returns" definition when you obviously don't follow the definitions yourself. This seller set precedent on what their "returns" were on numerous auctions that I won, which was acceptable, and I continued to bid and buy from seller. This is not representative of their photos for auction, nor are they "returns". They are "salvage" - as in unsaleable. At the very least, the photos for auction should have accurately represented what was in lot and the description should have detailed as to the quality of the gloves. I received the last shipment today and these are of same poor quality. Since a dispute has done no good, I find myself here. Let me explain what this means for me. If you, liquidation.com, cannot back your seller's auctions, then I can no longer purchase from you, entirely. This may be small beans to you, but it has become a successful small business for me. I have won 60+ auctions and disputed one, and that one dispute gave me the confidence to continue bidding, thinking that you stood behind your seller's products. I understand the "returns" definition and these are not "returns". If I wanted to be picky, I would have stopped after first auction not 100% accurately represented. But I allow for normal amounts of "returns" or "shelfpull" type damages. I have other options, however, I would prefer to continue our business together, with mutual benefit.Desired Settlement: I would like to return two shipments of gloves, and receive a full refund on both auctions.

Business

Response:

May 17, 2014[redacted]

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

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

Dear **. [redacted],

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

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of 50 men’s designer leather gloves in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 28, 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 44 of 50 gloves had sticky residue on then and that many also had tears or scuffs that made them unsuitable for sale. He believes that these gloves are more properly classified as Salvage condition rather than Returns.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the support he provided did not validate his claim that the gloves were in a condition other than advertised. The defects described by **. [redacted] fall within the acceptable range set by the definition of Returns merchandise on our website. While these defects may not be typical of Returns auctions, they can occur given the broadly acceptable returns policies of various retailers. This particular lot would require additional work to prepare for sale in some outlets, but that is not to be completely unexpected for Returns merchandise. **. [redacted] expected merchandise in better condition within the Returns designation, but this is not always the case. Most buyers expect the upper end of the range, but we cannot control the returns policies of the various retailers from whom our sellers obtain merchandise to list on Liquidation.com.

Regarding the other transaction mentioned in **. [redacted]’s complaint, no dispute was filed. Further, **. [redacted] filed a chargeback with PayPal for both transactions. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, **. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

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

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: Seller delivered goods not ordered and refused to pick up such goods, and issue a full refund to include delivery cost. Liquidation allowed seller to bait and switch items in an auction and deliver severly defective merchandise, food which had rodent feces, and did not have any toys as indicated in the description. Seller showed photos of merchandise to be sold and had completly switched mostly all of the merchandise.Desired Settlement: Pick up and remove merchandise and issue a full refund.

Business

Response:

May 17, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

[redacted], DC 20005-3404

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

Dear **. [redacted],

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

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 24 pallets of general merchandise, including toys, light fixtures, sink, toilet, etc., in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On March 1, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented and not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. She said that she did not receive the pallets pictured in the photos accompanying the auction listing. **. [redacted] opined that the merchandise she received is mostly garbage that could not even reasonably be classified as Salvage (to be used for parts only). She also said the shipment contained broken and bent light fixtures, food that had been violated by vermin, and worn out sneakers. She also stated that there were specific items, such as a wreath, which she had wanted and not received. She provided photos in support of her claim and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because her supporting photos did not show that the merchandise was in a condition other than advertised. There were no signs of vermin, and the defects described and shown fell within the acceptable range for Salvage condition merchandise. Our definition of Salvage merchandise as provided in the auction listing reads, “Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts.” Furthermore, we do not allow for returns of Salvage lots. The following notice is explicitly listed in the auction advertising:

IMPORTANT: Please note that the condition of this lot is SALVAGE. Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for parts. These assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working condition.

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

Regards,

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

I agree with the previous complainer. I bought 281.00 worth of designer store returns and all I received was a box of junk. Nothing was resalable. All the designer cuff links were broken, the wallets were unsalable due to their poor conditions. Nothing in the description of the products stated they were broken. Read all the reviews on the internet, you will not even find 1 good one. I should have done my research first. Liquidation . com is a place where high end dept. stores can sell their trash.

Review: I have tried to contact you guys by calling you and emailing you twice. I haven't had a response? I am writing you today about getting the $100.00 you shorted me on my check. The check sent was for transaction ID # [redacted] on my check you only gave me $31.00 instead of $131.00. The transaction ID # [redacted] you gave me the correct amount of $179.35. But you put a transaction ID # [redacted] a dispute hold of $100.00 on here??? This had nothing to do with what this check was. You are already holding money for this transaction so why would you take it from a different transaction number? I have one more problem I list my items with mixed lots and that is clearly stated and I have been getting a lot of disputes you have sided with the buyers over me. As clearly stated in the auction that it is mixed lots and they are not guaranteed to get what is pictured. I give the best mixed lots I can and I am not sure why you side with the buyer and put me out a lot of money.Desired Settlement: I am looking to get the $100.00 you shorted me on the check before I cash it. Which the check was sent out October 2 and I have been trying to contact you guys to figure this out. Revdex.com was my last resort to get this money you owe me. I am also wanting a fair dispute case when it does happen. I list my auctions and if the buyer doesn't read it right then that should be on them. They are all expecting a huge lot of Clinique or estee lauder and that isn't what is described in the auction.

Business

Response:

November 21, 2014 [redacted] Revdex.com 1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404 RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted], Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a seller on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. had not properly paid her for completed transactions; however, the matter has since been resolved. [redacted] sold a lot of 200 cosmetics items on Liquidation.com on September 17. That Transaction ID [redacted] would have paid $131.00 to her in an October 2 check; however, in the meantime another sold auction had received a buyer dispute (Transaction ID [redacted]). When a dispute is filed on an auction, $100.00 is withheld until the dispute is resolved. This is why [redacted]’ check was $100.00 less than she expected. After resolution of the buyer dispute on Transaction ID [redacted], the $100.00 was released to [redacted] and paid on October 23, which was after her Revdex.com dispute filing. We include paperwork with our payments to describe the payout calculations. We apologize for any inconvenience or misunderstanding experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the funds disbursement. Regards, Cary *. H[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

Review: The merchandise I received from Liquidation.com appears to be stolen. I contacted liquidation because I wanted to return the merchandise. I provided support documentation including pictures. One of the pictures submitted shows a store security tag still on an item. Other pictures show items with a small hole near the seam of the item where is appears security tags have been forcibly removed.

Liquidation.com refuted my dispute based on the fact the merchandise was listed as "salvage" meaning I could not return it based on condition; however I am not asking to return it because of holes or defects, I would like to return the merchandise because I do not want stolen goods.Desired Settlement: I wish to return the merchandise and get a refund

Business

Response:

August 22, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that 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 60 sportswear items in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 30, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. [redacted] said that she believed that the merchandise was stolen. She said that one item had a security tag attached to its collar and several other items had small holes where the security devices were removed by something other than the professional device that would not damage the items. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. Our definition of Salvage merchandise as provided in the auction listing reads, “Salvage assets have been identified as defective for reasons concerning their functionality, appearance or both. Salvage assets usually can only be used for parts.” Furthermore, we do not allow for returns of Salvage lots. The following notice is explicitly listed in the auction advertising:

IMPORTANT: Please note that the condition of this lot is SALVAGE. Salvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for parts. These assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working condition.

We also contacted the seller to confirm the status of the merchandise. The seller said that they usually remove all security tags, but that they had missed one in this lot. As a result, we decided to provide a refund for the one item that still had a security tag at the $1.75 per unit price. This seller has over 800 completed auctions with us.

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.

Review: I purchased a [redacted] 13.3" Laptop 4GB 128GB | [redacted] on 12/3/13 from Liquidity Services Inc, with a provided "Recertified Product Limited Warranty". I received the product on or about 12/12/13 and wrapped the original, undamaged, box as a Christmas gift. The box was opened approximately 1/1/14. The product was found undamaged and in good working order. On approximately 1/10/14, the laptop cover was opened normally whereupon the '[redacted] glass' exterior cover cracked. Given that this was normal use, I am only to assume this is a manufacturer defect in the glass itself.Desired Settlement: Repair or replacement of the [redacted] 13.3" Laptop 4GB 128GB | [redacted]

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 his warranty request was denied.

On December 12, 2013, [redacted] received an [redacted] 13.3-inch laptop computer in an undamaged box in fine working condition. About January 10, the “[redacted] glass” exterior of the laptop cracked upon normal opening. Since this was normal usage, [redacted] suspected that the glass may have had a manufacturer’s defect so he contacted our company for remedies under the limited warranty. He provided photos of the laptop and requested a repair or replacement for the laptop.

Upon review of the photos sent by [redacted], our team noticed physical damage to the laptop. Unfortunately, the limited warranty does not cover any defects related to physical damage to the laptop, which would include the glass.

We regret that [redacted] is dissatisfied with his purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions.

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

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:

Review: This company falsified the weight masters weight ticket making my purchase 160 pounds heavier than its actual weight. They falsely advertised the sale as 6020 pounds of copper wire, when there was 1000 pounds of optic fiber included in the load. Optic fiber is not copper wire. When I contacted the company to resolve this matter, they never responded. They have a general phone number and email so as you can never contact a specific person in the company. No one ever called me back to attempt to resolve these disputed charges. This purchase was $9780.87, I am disputing 1160 pounds not received at $1.68 per pound. This purchase did not warrant even one customer service call to resolve. Once I disputed this charge through [redacted] the accountant from Government Liquidation, [redacted] called me and agreed to credit my account back for $1680.00, this amount was never credited back. This company is dishonest, they falsified documents and lied to me as a customer regarding the credit. This is completely unacceptable behavior for any business. This business does the majority of surplus sales for the government and it sickens me that they conduct themselves in this manner.Desired Settlement: I have requested that my account be credited for the 1000 pounds of optic fiber I was charged for the total amount $1680.00.

Business

Response:

March 28, 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 Fri Jun 22 10:50:34 2012. Agreement of the Terms and Conditions also occurred when [redacted] placed her winning bid on Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted] (Tue Jun 11 16:58:55 2013) on Government Liquidation’s website. Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted]’s description is as follows:6020 lbs (approx.) of Insulated Copper Wire with foreign attachments in five 4 cu. yard hoppers. Hoppers are not included in the weight or sale. Mutilation not required. Wire has been sufficiently mutilated prior to sale. Preview and load outs by appointment only. GL will only load an open top conveyance.Our records indicate that [redacted] physically removed the property associated with Sale [redacted], Lot [redacted]. At the time of removal, [redacted] received 6,020 pounds and was issued a weight ticket indicating such. A copy of the weight ticket is provided along with this communication. [redacted] did not object to the contents of the lot; she signed for the property as correct. A copy of the signed invoice is provided along with this communication. Section 8:1 of the Terms and Conditions indicates that the buyer should reject the property if it is not acceptable. Section 8:1 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below for your reference and understanding.Section 8:1. 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.After removal, [redacted] filed a claim with Government Liquidation. [redacted]’s claim indicated that she received approximately 4,870 pounds of insulated copper wire, 1,150 pounds less than the advertised amount, and was issued a weight ticket reflecting 5,860 pounds, 160 pounds less than the advertised amount. Government Liquidation reviewed [redacted]’s claim and determined that her claim was not valid since she signed for the property as correct and was issued a weight ticket reflecting 6,020 pounds. However, as a courtesy, good-will gesture, Government Liquidation issued a 160 pound shortage, resulting in a refund amount of $259.88. Subsequently, Government Liquidation advised [redacted] of the claim denial and her pending S259.88 credit card refund.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards,

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

When I arrived to pick up the lot which had been advertised as copper wire, my weight ticket was falsified intentionally by the weight master. This should be apparent in the original weight ticket that was issued. This company will penalize it's customer fining them two and half times the total cost of the lot purchased. That is why they issued the refund reflecting the fraudulent difference in the actual weight. It is a crime for a weight master to falsify the weight on a weight ticket. This company is responsible for accurately advertising the contents of the lot they are selling. They included material in this sale that was fiber optic wire, it has no copper in it all. 1000 pounds of the lot was this fiber optic wire, so as a result I was lead to believe it was copper when it was trash. If a customer misrepresents the contents of a sale they are held responsible. This company has a very long list on it's contract advising that honesty and accuracy of the lots sold will be upheld by all parties and if customers are found to inaccurately describe the contents of a sale they would be prosecuted. The optic wire was buried in the lot and was is spools, the only way it was identified was to actually cut every piece of wire. This was not a practical means of inspection at the time of pick up, as their representative loaded the wire and hurried me off the pick up site which was a military base. After arriving to my destination, I immediately called Government Liquidators to advised them of the 1000 lbs. of optic fiber that should not have been included in this sale which was advertised as copper and the 160 lbs of weight that was falsified by the weight master over charging me for weight I did not actually receive. I called at least ten different times and could get no one to return my calls. This was approximately a ten thousand dollar sale which I had to pay for within three days after the auction. Which was way before the merchandise was picked up. So with no other choice since Government Liquidators would not return my calls, I disputed the payment with my credit card company. Only then did I receive a call from the accounting department of Government Liquidators which he told me consisted of himself, Keith Isler. He agreed to refunding the cost of the 1000 lbs of optic fiber which should have never been included as part of this sale, and when I asked him to also add the refund of the 160 pounds of weight added to the weight ticket, he became very angry and told me he did not have to refund anything to me. He advised he handles these situations all day and had [redacted] in the bag. He hung up on me and never called back. I called him and he never returned my calls. I attempted to contact his supervisor and they never responded.

Review: I was bidding on auction ID [redacted] for $124. I was not aware or told about the shipping and logistics fee of $615.32. I believed that the website company intentionally deceived me into buying the item without letting me know how much money I have to pay in total.Desired Settlement: I want to warn other people about joining Liquidation.com. The website is not what it seems. It is a major ripoff.

Also, the company may try to charge an unauthorized amount of $749.24 (grand total) from my account if they still have my debit card information. I do not trust them. I hope that the payment does not process at all.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

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: I bid on an auction for genuine leather handbags and the handbags I received were not genuine leather. My invoice also states that I would receive the following designer bags: [redacted], [redacted] & [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]. I did not receive a [redacted] or [redacted] bag and the [redacted] was not geniune leather! When I filed a dispute with Liquidation.com they told me the dispute could not be honored. They completely ignored the fact that the advertisement listed the bags as genuine leather and the bags I received are not. From what I can tell searching the web this is not an unusual practice for this company. I want my money back!Desired Settlement: I want a full refund in the amount of $361.28.

Business

Response:

October 14, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

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

[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 30 designer handbags in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 10, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. [redacted] said that the handbags she received did not match the photos in the auction listing. She said that the handbags were very outdated and that some did not even have brand identification on them. Additionally, she had expected them to be genuine leather and they were not. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. The listing stated that “You will be receiving items similar to the ones in the pictures.” The photo evidence provided showed that [redacted] received 30 handbags that were “Designer Inspired Bags.” The auction also did not specify that only genuine leather items would be sent or what quantity of genuine leather would be included.

Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.

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

Regards,

Cary *. H[redacted]

Corporate Paralegal

Liquidity Services, Inc.

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:

Review: I scheduled 5 transactions to be picked up from this company ([redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted]). I received an email back stating that the transactions would be ready for pickup on 3/19/14, so I paid for a freight company to pick the 5 pallets up. On the morning of 3/19/14 I received an email that stated that one of the transactions had been shipped but that the others had not. I called the customer service phone number and they tell me that they only had one pallet scheduled to be shipped and that I would have to reschedule picking up the other 4 pallets.

While I was on the phone with the customer service people, I get an email from the freight company that Liquidation.com would not let their driver pick up any of the transactions because the amount of pallets on the Bill of Lading did not match what they had in their records. Because of that, I would have to pay a $150 fee to pickup a second time. I prepaid over $800 to a freight company to pick up all 5 pallets and I am not paying any more money because of their mistakes. I told the customer service person to cancel all five of these transactions and that I expected a refund immediately. Thanks to the incompetence of the people behind [email protected] and the poor customer service of Antoinette in customer service, I have lost over $800 for their mistakes.

Over the last 4 months I have purchased over $7,000 of products from Liquidation.com. Because of this disaster, I will be sure to let every other reseller I know what a poorly run company this is.Desired Settlement: I want at the very least a portion of the fees that I lost to the freight company because of Liquidation.com's mistakes.

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 a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she disagrees with the application of our company policies.

[redacted] was the winning bidder of five auctions for lots of Returns condition merchandise purchased via Liquidation.com. She said that despite receiving an e-mail indication that her loads were ready for pickup, that her freight company was unable to retrieve her merchandise as expected. There was one shipment that was scheduled to be shipped while four others were set for pickup. When her freight company arrived, they were unable to retrieve the loads of merchandise because the number of pallets on the bill of lading paperwork did not match the request in the warehouse records. [redacted] was told that she would have to reschedule the pickup.

Company policy requires that pickup by third party freight companies be tightly managed to prevent fraud or theft. Since the paperwork did not match the warehouse records for pickup, the warehouse personnel could not release the merchandise. When a buyer arranges for pickup by a third party on Liquidation.com purchases, the buyer takes on the responsibility of securing accurate paperwork and coordinating the delivery between the third party and warehouse. Further, our company is unable to refund money paid to other parties so we cannot reimburse [redacted] for her payment to the freight company.

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.

Review: The stated description, of products I purchased, was a blatantly lie. The items were described as shelf pulls. Nowhere, in the description, did they indicate they were used, severely worn, and missing material. The condition of the [redacted] games is sad. Their are scratches all over the cases, all of the games have been opened and used. The back side (data side) for some are in need of cleaning, and the guides for some are missing. If these were shelf-pulls, why do they contain "Not for Resale" items. The images, provided for prospective buyers, were of no help. All we could see were the game case spines, making it impossible to know that they were open, used and scratched. Claims of what the games may sell for sounded reasonable, if they were unopened. With the condition they are in, though, one would be lucky to get 50% of what the lowest acceptable bid was.Desired Settlement: The items need to be returned, at Liquidity Services expense. Their practice, and that of their sellers, of claiming what items will sell for needs to change, so it reflects the true expectation based on the condition of items that are offered via their site. Don't base it on the item's price AS A NEW ITEM FOR SALE, especially when the items are in poor condition. Better descriptions, about an item's condition, are desperately needed - state if they are opened, worn, used to what extent. The sellers need to also be held accountable for their false advertising, but that is another issue.

Business

Response:

February 13, 2014

Revdex.com

1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005-3404

RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns 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 50 [redacted] video games in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On February 1, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing. He said that all of the games had been opened and that many of the game cases were scratched. He also found that some of the game discs were scuffed and that some game instruction manuals were missing. A few games even had stickers indicating that they were “not for resale.” [redacted] said that these items were should be considered Used and not Shelf Pulls as indicated. He requested a full refund.

Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the items were properly listed as Shelf Pulls, which are defined on our website as follows:

Shelf Pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never sold. They usually possess one or more price tags and/or stickers, indicating multiple markdowns and have been exposed to appreciable customer contact. In addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.g., from a retailer back to a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handling. Accordingly, Shelf Pulls can exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.

[redacted] then requested that his dispute be reopened for further consideration and provided photo support of the two “not for resale” games. However, our secondary review also determined that his photo support did not validate the dispute claims for the lot in its entirety.

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:

Review: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:

Review: I had the winning bid for auction number [redacted] and was billed and charged sales tax of $21.00. The purchase was for items to resale so I submitted (as requested) a scanned copy of a completed resale certificate to the email address they provided. I also provided additional information in the email they asked for that referenced the transaction and my user name. I payed from my bank account using my debit card. (I wonder if I need to also contact my bank? Would this be considered an unauthorized debit? Since they have not returned the taxed amount. Certainly there is a government agency involved, the Texas Comptroller's Office. I can call them if they do not want to resolve the issue quickly.)

I made numerous attempts to resolve this, 2 phone calls, 2 emails and a Live Chat option. I am tired of chasing them.Desired Settlement: Immediate refund of the sales tax of $21.00.

Business

Response:

June 7, 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 his sales tax had not been refunded for transaction ID [redacted].

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 50 designer handbags purchased via Liquidation.com. He says that he sent his resale certificate to the proper e-mail address and followed up with phone calls, but that he had not been refunded $21.00 of sales tax at the time of his complaint. The resale certificate would qualify him for the sales tax refund.

There is no transaction detail indicating that **. [redacted] was denied his sales tax refund, so it appears that the issue was resolved from the information being evaluated. The buyer can confirm via rebuttal if he has still not been refunded. Otherwise, we will understand that the issue is resolved.

We apologize to **. [redacted] for the delay in his sales tax refund payment and hope that our belief that it has been paid to him is correct.

Regards,

[redacted]. [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 have not refunded my $21.

Review: I win two bids for transaction #[redacted] and #[redacted] from the same seller [redacted] on June 20, 2013.These transactions consist most of the [redacted] cosmetics. However when I receive these two parcels, I found all the [redacted] cosmetics,including the blush, the pressed powder, the value set and the body cream, all are counterfeits.-They look quite the same like the real ones, however when you compare them with the REAL ONES, the ones I purchased from [redacted] Store, an authorized seller of [redacted] cosmetics, they are totally not the same in many details like smell, color, packages and printings. I called the Liquidation.com customer service at the first time and submit the disputes of these two transactions within 2 business days, the required reasonable time of this website. Since I was told by the customer service manager that the proof are the most important part of the disputes, so I updates all the Powerpoint slides including the pictures of the comparison of the fake ones I received and real ones from [redacted]. I pointed out all the visible differences such as color, printing and package. However the Liquidation.com still denied my disputes and claimed that my disputes were lack of supporting documents,I emailed them to reopen these unclear disputes but no one answered my email. Since it is from the same seller and all the [redacted] cosmetics are fake, the whole order are not reliable. So I need to return the 2 orders and get the full refund.Desired Settlement: I deserve the transaction totals and shipping totals. There are two transactions fee including shipping, and the total are 617.75+229.25=$847

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 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.

**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of two auctions, one for a lot of 20 assorted cosmetics in Shelf Pulls condition, and the other for a lot of 100 assorted cosmetics in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 1, he filed disputes with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received from both auctions were grossly misrepresented by the same seller in the auction listings. **. [redacted] said that the merchandise he received appeared to be counterfeit. He said that he had purchased some product from a local store and compared to his shipment. He found that the received items had a different color, smell and texture from the confirmed, purchased product. There were also packaging and printing issues which caused him to believe that he had received counterfeit goods. **. [redacted] said that he then sent a PowerPoint presentation detailing his findings so that his claim could be evaluated. He requested a full refund for both transactions.

Our disputes team could not view the attachments sent by **. [redacted] and sent the following correspondence to him via two e-mails, one for each transaction, on July 2: “Your support for the dispute of transaction ([redacted]/ [redacted]) could not be viewed. Please provide support within the next 24 hours to validate the claim. If you are sending photos please provide the photos in JPEG format.”

After receiving no response from **. [redacted], our customer service department determined that it could not properly evaluate the claim and that the inspection period had then expired. Therefore, the disputes team had to deny the claim.

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