Liquidity Services Inc

RE: *** *** * ***, ID# ***Dear *** ***,Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by *** ***In his response, *** *** states that he remains dissatisfied with the replies provided by our company to his initial complaint*** *** states that the items cannot be sold separately and included screen shots from the *** website advertising selfie sticksHe also says that he was expecting boxes and received boxes each including the monopod stick and phone mountFinally, he stated that the advertising was confusing to himOur dispute department has communicated with *** *** regarding his denied dispute and explained that the auction was properly listed and did specify “Selfie monopod telescoping stick (pcs) Universal phone mount (pcs)”The manifest includes the quantity as *** *** sent in pictures showing boxes total that he received-each including a monopod selfie stick and universal phone mount totaling piecesIn deciding *** ***’s claim, our claims department verified that *** *** had received the sticks and mounts totaling pieces as manifestedThe auction listing clearly stated the number of sticks and mounts in the lot descriptionAlso, Liquidity Services cannot use the screen shots of the *** items as support in *** ***’s claim as it is from a competitor’s website and holds no weight for items sold on Liquidation.comAs such, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence providedWe regret that *** *** was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled accordinglyRegards, Amanda O*** Compliance Associate Liquidity Services

August 22,
*** *** ***
Revdex.com
K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-
RE: *** *** ***, ID# ***
Dear *** ***,
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***
*** with the Revdex.com*** *** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *** *** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied
*** *** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of sportswear items in Salvage condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn 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*** *** said that she believed that the merchandise was stolenShe 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 itemsShe provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund
Our disputes team reviewed *** ***’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurateOur 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 bothSalvage assets usually can only be used for parts.” Furthermore, we do not allow for returns of Salvage lotsThe following notice is explicitly listed in the auction advertising:
IMPORTANT: Please note that the condition of this lot is SALVAGESalvage assets are intended for professional buyers, as most can be used only for partsThese 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 merchandiseThe seller said that they usually remove all security tags, but that they had missed one in this lotAs a result, we decided to provide a refund for the one item that still had a security tag at the $per unit priceThis seller has over completed auctions with us
We regret that *** *** 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***
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc

Dear *** ***,Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** *** *** with the Revdex.com*** *** described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that Liquidity Services has not yet provided his refund amount of $for transaction ID
***.*** *** bid on an auction for one lot of children’s clothing *** *** items on Liquidation.comThe sale closed on July 2nd, however, due to a listing error, the sale was cancelled and an invoice was not generatedAlthough listing errors are infrequent occurrences, Liquidity Services may immediately remove a listing to review and ensure accuracy.On July 9th, the customer relations department issued a refund via check, check number in the amount of $It was later determined that *** *** did not receive the check therefore it was cancelled*** *** provided his bank information on January 5th so that the funds could be wired back to his accountThe wire was processed to go back to *** ***’s account on January 8th, however the wire was rejected as the information was invalid.Our customer relations department then reached out to *** *** to inform him that the wire had been rejected and they have not yet received a response with valid bank information from *** ***.Liquidation.com would like to resolve *** ***’s claim immediately and obtain valid bank information and this matter can be resolvedYour cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated, please provide us with a valid phone number and email address where we can reach you to obtain valid bank informationYou may also provide your bank information via this Revdex.com response

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: The company removed my responsibility of paying for this auction, no money owedHOWEVER, I feel that not only did, does and isthis company aware of the business pratices, auctions misleadings, sellers mislead with adsI will NOT ever use the business again for these reasons, the sellers are allowed to mislead customers, advertise auctions in a way that is not truthfulFor these reasons alone, I will not do business with this website / companyThey claim to have no knowledge of wrong doings? It is there website, auction, customers, sellers, advertisersIt is the job / responsibility of the company / business to know what their sellers / advertisers are doing on thier website / businessI understand I should of done MY homework before bidding, I understand that partBut I was mislead into believing the sellers description of items we're factual pricesWhich I discovered were false, advertising, inflated pricing and numerous other ads also reflected this practiceI tried contacting customer service, no reply, finally called, was hung up onLast attempt was contacting Revdex.com and only thenthen did the company / business respond back to meExplaining how they were sorry, that the final bid, the bid I wonwould be reversed / cancelledI would owe no moneyIt litterally took the Revdex.com responding to this company to get a reply / action started to releave me of this obligationDUE to misleading advertisingSo don't try to again, mislead others in your reply to thisYOUR company allowed / allows sellers to mislead people in their advertising / adsThe truth is you were going to charge me for a auction that was INFLATED PRICING to lure me as many other customers also have been taken advantage ofYOU allow sellers to place misleading ads, then you go after the bidders / buyers if they don't pay, only because they have discovered the / misleading adYou ignore customer complaints, refuse to show FEEDBACK or customer complaints, because your company is shady! Truth is, you would of charged my credit card, had I not reported this to my bank and the Revdex.comHad I not repoerted your company to the Revdex.comHad I not stood up to you and your business practices, I would of been taken advantage ofI fought back, I even tried to resolve this between your business and myselfSo don't paint a pretty picture, your company is just what I stated, SHADY!Page after page of complaints online reflect this about your company, numerous complaintsAND now myself included, your company should be sued and shut downYour not capable of running a straight up legit businessI can only reflect my personal experienceAnd that is as mentioned above, no respectable business would ignore, hang up or not even repsond in a email until days after the problemOr after the Revdex.com goes after you to resolve a problemSADglad I'm aware now of your business practicesI will NOT ever click on your website againDo the right thing, screen your sellers, proof read their ads, lay blame on the people responsiblebut your company is right along side of this. Almost all your auction ads show ballon inflated pricesCausing customers to think, they are getting a great deal*( Mind you, for most items advertised as returns / broken, etcNOT NEW ) I could buy every item - that was advertised in the auction I was bidding on and won, at cheaper prices NEW from the storeBrand new and cheaperYES, yes, I failed to look / search firstBut once I found out that the seller mislead me, advertised pricing, I was extremely upset, called, emailed and recieved no response about thisBAD BUSINESS practicesBAD
Regards,
*** ***

March 14, 2016Dear *** ***Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** *** with the Revdex.com*** describes concerns she has around auction ID *** which consisted of pieces of *** *** Boutique Jewelry This auction was listed
on www.liquidation.com and *** ***’s bid of $was the winning bid on 2-16- The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $234.06.*** claim, through the Revdex.com, is that the merchandise received was not good quality and cheap looking Additionally, *** indicated she could not sell the items for $or $or more as the seller suggested Our disputes department denied ***’s claim on the basis that the auction properly advertised the items for sale based on what the customer received Further MSRP values are suggested retail values of a new unit given by the manufacturer as a reference point, whereby actual resale values will vary based on several factors throughout the retail process and region The MSRP as advertised on the auction was done so as a grand total figure as seen in the manifest and in the auction’s title, and was not itemized Again, MSRPs are published by manufacturers, not the auction’s seller Nowhere on auction does the seller suggest or guarantee that the product can be sold at the prices *** states in the claim.Section from the Terms and Conditions addresses the need for buyers to be as informed as possible prior to bidding, taking into account the information on the auction as well as being aware of marketplace and industry factors which may influence purchasing decisionsAn excerpt from Section of the Terms and Conditions is posted below as a reference:Perform independent research and do not bid or purchase based on assumptionsLiquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers Most Liquidation.com auctions start at $with no reserve, letting the marketplace decide the final price *** also filed a chargeback with *** on 3-9-which is the reason why her account was de-activated Reference Section from the Terms and Conditions: Charge-BacksIf you attempt to rescind a credit card transaction without our express advance written consent (i.e., a "charge-back"), then we may immediately and permanently de-activate your account in our sole discretionIf you perform a charge-back after receiving the Assets, we may file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and reserve the right to pursue all remedies available to us to recover any and all incurred damages.We regret that *** was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address *** ***’s claim, and standby the decision of our disputes department. Regards,Darren M***SrManager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services

Review:
Government Liquidation sells surplus equipment for the United States Government It is a massive undertaking They run several sales each day, selling thousands of lots of surplus equipment at sites all over the country and in U.STerritoriesWith so much volume, they are bound to make mistakesIn my case, Government Liquidation made a representation that each lot I bid on had a collapsible 10,gallon water tank in the crate I successfully bid on lots and went to Oklahoma City (miles, one way) to pick them upWhen the GL forklift operator brought out the crates, one was disintegrating, one was intact and open, and one was nailed and bolted shut After inspecting the first two, I asked the operator if he had a way to open the third crate He did not I had ordinary hand tools, but they were not enough to open the crate, so I relied on Government Liquidation's description and photos You guessed it, big mistakeWhen I got home and CUT the bolts holding the lid on the third crate, there was nothing more than an oversized ground cloth inside, and not a 10,collapsible tankI contacted Government Liquidation and was told to file a claimI wrote a detailed explanation and provided invoice copies and pictures of what I had received instead of the represented tank I had to file the claim times, and call, before they finally acknowledged receipt After waiting about a week, my claim was summarily dismissed, citing the fact that I had signed for the lots That is true And I signed believing in their description and photos, not being able to open their sealed containerDo I think the crate was bolted shut to intentionally keep me from viewing the contents? No I do believe it was an honest mistake, coupled with employees too lazy to unbolt the crate and photograph the actual contents They instead substituted photos of another tank under this lot number, thereby misrepresenting the actual contents and what I paid for This was easy to prove to them as it is shown on their own website, and I provided pictures of what was actually in the crate, something I could only have gotten from them by mistakeGovernment Liquidation is a big company, doing business with thousands of members of the public and the United States Government I expected better of them Perhaps I've grown too comfortable dealing online with reputable companies like Amazon and even EBay, who recognize that customer service involves more than waiting a week and then denying the claim, with no questions askedAdditionally, crummy customer service by a government contractor like Government Liquidation deprives the government and the taxpayer of the opportunity to recover maximum revenue from surplus By driving potential bidders, such as myself, out of the bidding pool, GL not only lowers their own income from the 10% buyers premium, but also the government's recoverable revenue by ten times that amount The successful bid raised by $by an interested party nets GL $more, but the U.SGovernment $moreConversely, once Government Liquidation has driven bidders out of the pool through their poor service, their bottom line will drop slightly, but the Government's by times that amount It's a good thing nobody likely cares about thatSo, if you do chose to do business with Government Liquidation, be warned They hide behind their disclaimers, they misrepresent their merchandise, and they do not stand behind what they tell youAfter reading other horror stories about Government Liquidation on this website I feel fortunate that I lost "only" $350, or so, before learning my lesson to stay away

August 27,
*** *** ***
Revdex.com
K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-
RE: *** *** ***, ID# ***
Dear *** ***,
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** ***
*** with the Revdex.com*** *** described concerns she had as a warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Incwas in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for her refurbished computer*** *** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because she was unable to receive a properly working computer
*** *** purchased a refurbished computer with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity ServicesOn November 15, 2013, she started a warranty claim because her computer was giving her error messages that it needed repairThe unit was sent for repair on November 27, 2013, and it was determined that a replacement unit would be sent to herOn December 21, 2013, *** *** received a replacement unit which she also found to be defectiveShe then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the replacement unit was experiencing problems as well so it was returned for repair on December 26, Finally, yet another replacement computer was shipped to *** *** on January to fulfil her purchase
According to the transaction detail, we received no further communication from *** *** after the January delivery of the most recent replacement computer so the matter was considered resolvedIn her complaint, it appears that *** *** had simply momentarily abandoned the effort, not unreasonably
We regret that *** *** had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity ServicesOur company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contractWe will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution.
Regards,
Cary *H***
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:This company knowingly misrepresents the items in their auctions and refuses to refund the purchase I have read complaints all over about this company and their business practices and then will close your account as soon as you file a dispute with the way you purchased the items which in my opinion shows that they are at faultAs for the comments about the other three auctions I disputed, I did not dispute them on their website because it was beyond their very short dispute window and because they closed my account I was unable to dispute them Two of the disputes were part of four auctions I had won that were picked up on two pallets Two of the auctions were not on the pallets which is why the disputes were filed Coincidently I lost the dispute which this Revdex.com complaint was about plus the two auctions I did not receive This company illegally scammed me by misrepresenting one auction and then not supplying me with the two other auctions I had won I am out of almost $because of this and after doing some research I find that Paypal the company I used to purchase, dispute and lose disputes works closely with Liquidity Services, Incto sell their items that are returned to them The Fourth auction referenced in the response letter is still in dispute with Paypal and was originally disputed as not received but after communicating with Paypal and the carrier service, the box was found but now is in dispute as not as described as the items I received is all infant/toddler items but what I won was person electronics, movies, games, LP records, etc Liquidity Services, Incshould be investigated for their fraudulent and probably illegal business practices
Regards,
*** ***

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: Liquidation .com is not offering any type of resolution for this issue
Regards,
*** ***

*** *** filed a dispute with Liquidation.com on 5/26/regarding the quality of the items received The auction listing had the items condition listed as salvage, and the attached file shows a portion of the original auction listing stating that the items offer no other guarantees and/or warranties. The phones were sold as-is. The auction description also included the following disclaimer: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 partsThese assets are offered "as-is, where-is" with no returns, guarantees, or claims as to working condition

*** ***, The Liquidity Services inc.'s legal and disputes teams appear to want to divert the issues of this dispute towards retail values and shelf pulls, but as I stated in my initial complaint, it is not just about the differences of the retail values, and the fact that the items were shelf pulls was never even an issueThe only issue here is the uncomplicated fact that SurplusXchange DISPLAYED A PICTURE OF A REALLY NICE WATCH IN THE AUCTION, AND THEN SENT ME A MUCH MORE INFERIOR ONEIt is just that simple, and no, they are not similar, anyone viewing them with an impartial eye can see thatI'm not unreasonableI was willing to overlook the other items they switched, but I just can't believe they would try and switch the most featured piece in the auctionAnd if somehow Liquidity Services' Terms and Conditions allow these unethical practices, then that is just plain wrong and it should be amended immediatelyAgain, in case they missed this part too, other than the fact that the watch pictured in the auction has so much more appeal than the one I received, the differences areThe watch I received has a small single ring of *** crystals on the dial, compared to the much larger double ring of *** crystals that are embedded in the bezel of the watch displayed in the auctionThe watch I received doesn't have any sub-dials, compared to the sub-dials ornamented with more *** crystals in the watch displayed in the auctionThe watch I received has basic simple numbers on the dial, compared to the much more eye appealing Roman numerals displayed in the watch shown in the auctionAs I stated before, I would have NEVER bid on this auction if they had displayed the watch that I receivedI'm not a trouble maker, and I detest the fact that I have to spend what little spare time I have to dispute this, but I will make time, because I don't think anyone should be treated in this mannerIt appears as if they think because they are a large corporation with a legal and a so called disputes team, they can bully the small business guy/gal, do anything they want, and get away with itBut I'm confident that just about anyone that's not on their payroll will see my pointIt's simply just not rightThank you for your valuable time, *** *** ***

April 27, 2016Dear Mr***Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr*** *** with the Revdex.com Mr*** describes concerns he has around transaction ID *** which consisted of units of Designer Neckties - *** ***, ***,
*** ***, ***, *** ***, *** *** The lot was listed as ‘shelf pulls’ condition This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and Mr***’s bid of $was the winning bid on 3-31- The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $ The product was delivered to Mr*** on 4-8-2016, and Mr*** filed a dispute with us on 4-8-under the incorrect transaction ID, and then again on 4-16-under the correct transaction ID.Mr***’s claim in the Revdex.com complaint differs slightly from the disputes filed with our company regarding the merchandise in transaction ID ***:The claim through the Revdex.com is that the ties is the clothing (ties) were listed as shelf pulls but they were all in salvage condition.The claim filed with Liquidity Services on 4-8-(under the incorrect transaction ID) stated: “These ties were listed as "returns" Out of ties only had tags, and I believe the other ties are usedA lot of the ties have rips and some are grossly dirty No store would accept a return that is grossly dirtyAlso, some of the name brands listed in the auction are not includedI want a full refund.”The claim filed with Liquidity Services on 4-16-(under the correct transaction ID) stated: “I initially filed this dispute on April 8, but it appears the wrong transaction ID was noted in the disputeI want to return all these ties and I want a full refund immediatelyProvide me with return postage and I will send the ties back immediatelyThese ties are all used, and some are grossly dirty and damaged If I do not receive a refund I will be contacting consumer affairs and disputing the charge with my credit card due to the fraudulent auction.”The photographic support submitted by Mr*** to Liquidity Services for the claim on 4-8-shows image files of what appears to be the same necktie in each picture image shows a small tear at near the loop on the backside of the tie Please note Mr*** references the ties as being listed in three different conditions: shelf pulls, returns, and used To clarify, the auction was listed using shelf pulls as the condition, and we generalize that Mr*** did not agree with the condition of the merchandise Additionally, the auction indicated the following statement “Lot May Include an Assorted Mix of the Following Ties” followed by a non-inclusive list of brand name ties that could appear in the lot This statement was used to highlight that the seller did not guarantee that all name brands would be included in the lot Effectively, our disputes department denied Mr***’s claims for lack of supporting evidence (the photographs do not substantiate a condition outside of shelf pulls) and on the basis that the auction properly advertised merchandise in the shelf pulls condition; Shelf pulls were previously available for sale in a retail environment but were never soldThey usually possess one or more price tags and/or stickers, indicating multiple markdowns, and have been exposed to appreciable customer contactIn addition, since most of these items are sent through a reverse supply chain (e.gfrom a retailer back to a centralized warehouse), they can show signs of further handlingAccordingly, Shelf Pulls may exhibit a wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ substantially from the original manufacturing.Essentially, the ties were likely exposed to appreciable customer handling (people trying them on), and then further handling in the reverse supply chain.Regarding Mr***’s claim about receiving broken electronic items, which were listed as new condition (Transaction ID ***) The merchandise was delivered on Jan 14, 2016, and Mr*** filed a claim on the merchandise on Apr 3, The dispute was denied due to the excessive amount of time that had passed from delivery to filing a claim Section from the Terms and Conditions addresses the need for buyers to inspect assets on delivery An excerpt from Section of the Terms and Conditions is posted below as a reference:Claims for Incorrect or Inaccurate Description Where Inspection Not Permitted; Returns ProcessIn limited circumstances, our sellers only permit inspection on buyer's receipt of the Assets after their shipmentFor example, this may occur in a drop-ship arrangement where there is no inspection permitted by the seller and the seller or Liquidity Services coordinate shipping of the Assets directly to the buyerIn such circumstances, buyer must make a claim for any incorrect or inaccurate Listing description of the Assets within three (3) Business Days after delivery of the Assets to buyerThereafter, a buyer's right to make a claim expiresBuyer's right expires regardless of whether buyer actually conducts an inspection of the Assets.Liquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers. We regret that Mr*** was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we stand behind the decision to deny these disputes based on the evidence provided and feel the matters were handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace We are well outside the window for investigating post-transactional claims, but as a courtesy if Mr*** has additional evidence that he feels would substantiate a claim on the neckties, we will review it Mr*** can submit that information to us using our “Submit a Dispute” process.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address Mr***’s claim. Regards,Darren M***SrManager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services

Date: Thu, Aug 24, at 3:PMSubject: Liquidity Services complaint updateHello all,Complaint *** needs the following response appended to the complaint :Buyer had filed a dispute with us on 5/5/and the dispute was honored and a total refund was processed to the buyers
*** account on 6/6/17. Thanks,Andy

Dear *** ***,Thank you for the opportunity to respond to *** ***’s claim*** *** describes concerns he has around not receiving a refund for returned product. *** *** purchased transaction ID *** on 10-8-2015, and received the goods on 10-13-2016. The customer
filed a dispute with us regarding the products on 11-1-2015. The basis for the dispute was that the products were grossly misrepresented and did not match the advertised product description of *** *** *** headphones Our claims department denied the dispute and refused authorizing a return on the basis that the inventory shipped matched the product *** *** received as supported by photographic evidence *** *** emailed to us. Except as otherwise stated in writing, disputes must be submitted within business days from the time product is delivered. *** *** was well outside an acceptable amount of time to file a dispute on the product. Also, we receive thousands of shipments each day which is why we have our customers agree to a return process in which shipments to us must be authorized and properly labeled with reference numbers. We were unable to tie *** ***’s unauthorized return to his transaction until now, and as a courtesy to the buyer we have processed a full refund in the amount of $ 312.20. Please note, the buyer’s account with us will remain de-activated with us for violating our Terms and Conditions.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address *** ***’s claim. Regards,Darren M***SrManager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services Tell us why here

July 21,
*** *** ***
Revdex.com
K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-
RE: *** *** ***, ID# ***
Dear *** ***,
Please accept this response to the complaint
filed by *** *** *** with the Revdex.com*** *** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *** *** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied
*** *** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of sleepwear items in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.comOn June 5, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was missing units and that the merchandise she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing*** *** said that she only received out of items that were advertised in the auction listingShe also said that the merchandise that was shipped did not meet her expectations of pajama sets, and instead were items that were assorted sleepwear pieces and could not be coordinated as isShe provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund
Our disputes team reviewed *** ***’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurateRegarding the missing units, it was determined that the correct count of items would be reached if the buyer distinguished between the individual pieces and the sets, which are shown on the garment tags of each itemAdditionally, the auction listing did not indicate that the buyer would receive any sets, so there should not have been an expectation that the buyer would receive sets
Further, *** *** filed a chargeback with *** for the transactionChargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for itFor this reason, *** ***’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated
We regret that *** *** 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

March 17, 2016Dear *** ***Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** *** *** with the Revdex.com *** *** describes concerns she has around auction ID *** which consisted of pieces of Furniture - *** Sink Cabinet The lot was ‘returns’
condition This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and *** ***’s bid of $was the winning bid on 10-12- The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $ The product was delivered to *** *** on 10-21-2015, and *** *** filed a dispute with us on 10-22-2015.*** ***’s claim is that both pieces of merchandise received were broken and/or missing pieces, and that the auction’s photos do not show broken pieces Our disputes department denied *** ***’s claim on the basis that the auction properly advertised in returns condition with this disclaimer on the auction; Return furniture may reflect signs of use, wear and damage including cosmetic defects and structural damage including but not limited to bent frames, broken, cracked, stained, damaged or missing pieces and incomplete or partial sets.Additionally, the auction states that generic/stock product photos are for illustrative purposes only The auction further states that supplemental details including the "Notes" and "auction photos" are provided for the convenience of the buyer and represent a sample of the items included in the auction.Liquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers Section from the Terms and Conditions addresses the need for buyers to be as informed as possible prior to bidding, taking into account the information on the auction as well as being aware of marketplace and industry factors which may influence purchasing decisionsAn excerpt from Section of the Terms and Conditions is posted below as a reference:Perform independent research and do not bid or purchase based on assumptions*** *** also filed a chargeback with *** on 11-20-which is the reason why his account was de-activated Reference Section from the Terms and Conditions: Charge-BacksIf you attempt to rescind a credit card transaction without our express advance written consent (i.e., a "charge-back"), then we may immediately and permanently de-activate your account in our sole discretionIf you perform a charge-back after receiving the Assets, we may file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and reserve the right to pursue all remedies available to us to recover any and all incurred damages. We regret that *** *** was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace As a courtesy, we are going to process a refund in the amount of $considering the unit count on the auction was so low, at units, and the yield of severely damaged items was so high.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address *** ***’s claim. Regards,Darren M***SrManager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services

April 3,
*** *** ***
*** *** ***
*** * *** *** *** ***
*** ** ***
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** ***Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** *** *** with the Revdex.com ***
*** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *** *** *** believed that our company was in breach of this contract because her dispute was initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in her favor.*** *** was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of women’s sports bras in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com On January 28, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that her shipment was not in the condition advertised by the seller in the auction listing *** *** said that she received two boxes of bras and that each box contained at least one moldy bra which then gave a moldy odor to the rest of the merchandise in each box She entered a claim for three (3) moldy bras and said that she could not sell the others either She requested a full refund for her purchase.Our disputes team reviewed *** ***’s claim and initially concluded that it could not be honored because the three (3) bras in the claim were less than the percent Quantity Variance advertised in the auction for this lot The percent Quantity Variance allows for up to of the items to be missing or not in the expected condition Then the buyer asked for further consideration, indicating that mold spores on the remaining bras meant that they could not be legally resold A reopen dispute claim was created, and upon further review, a full refund was granted upon return of the merchandise to the seller.The refund was unable to be processed, however, because *** *** had already filed a chargeback claim before our reopen dispute had concluded Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it For this reason, *** ***’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated. The merchandise was returned and a full refund was confirmed on April 1.We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by *** *** and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.Regards,Cary CH***Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc

May 25, 2016Dear *** ***Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** *** *** with the Revdex.com *** *** describes concerns he has around transaction ID *** which consisted of units of In New Designer Brand Womens Shoes, Boots & More,
Pair Per Lot! The lot was listed as ‘new’ condition This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and *** ***’s bid of $was the winning bid on 5-12- The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $ The product was delivered to *** *** on 5-18-2016, and *** *** filed a dispute with us on 5-19-which stated the following:I received shipment from seller and product not as describedpair of shoes is completely used and has a duck tape on a hill and second pair has hill damage2)I found only one pair in size and majority of shoes not as on picture.3) majority of shoes are in *** bags and other bags not as it comes from manufacture.I would like to return entire shipment since its not as advertised.I can not sell product like this.*** ***’s claim in the Revdex.com complaint essentially mirrors the claim and correspondence submitted to Liquidation.com for this transaction Our disputes department is aware *** ***’s claim and is working diligently to facilitate a resolution We strive to close all claims in as short amount of time as possible, however certain cases may take additional time There is usually a need to facilitate correspondence from all parties involved so that the facts of the case can be considered during the resolution processOur goal is to not have a claim open more than business days As of today, *** ***’s claim has been open for business days.Liquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers. We regret that *** *** was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however I assure you we are aware of the issue and will see to it that the matter is comes to a close as soon as possible I have asked one of our agents to call *** *** today with an update. We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address *** ***’s claim. Regards,Darren M***SrManager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services

February 24, 2017Dear *** ***Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** *** *** with the Revdex.com *** *** describes concerns he has around auction ID *** which consisted of Football Collectibles - *** ***, *** ***, More - MSRP
$2, The auction was listed as ‘Shelf Pulls’ condition on www.liquidation.com and *** ***’s bid of $was the winning bid on 12-26- The total transaction cost after applicable, taxes, shipping charges, and or buyer’s premium was $ The product was delivered to *** *** on 12-30-2016, and *** *** filed a dispute with us on 01-02-stating:Hello, The items that I received from winning this auction are clearly counterfeit because the signature isn''t even similar to real ones that have been verified and authenticated by reputable sourcesIf you *** *** ***s'' signature you will see that it looks nothing at all like the one on the football I received, or the one shown in the auction I wonAnother giant red flag is that the COA that accompanied this football is not signed by anyone, and the supposed certification company "*** *** ***" can''t be found anywhere on the Internet and doesn''t even existI need to get a return authorization from you because I was duped into believing that this was authentic memorabilia, when clearly it is not.*** ***’s claim is that the items didn’t appear to be authentic We regret that *** *** was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, in good faith we honored the claim and processed a full refund to *** ***’s *** account on 01-25-(*** Transaction ID: ***) We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address *** ***’s claim.Regards,Andrew B***SrManager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services

March 26, 2015*** *** ***
*** *** ***
*** * *** *** *** ***
*** ** ***
*** *** *** *** *** ***
*** *** ***Please accept this response to the complaint filed by *** *** *** with the Revdex.com
*** *** described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Incwere in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID *** *** *** believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.*** *** was the winning bidder of an auction for lot of new bracelets, including bangles, cuffs, and more purchased via Liquidation.com On August 2014, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was misrepresented as advertised by the seller in the auction listing *** *** said that she “only received one item that was remotely similar to the photosAll others are cheap beaded bracelets and plastic banglesThe photos show beautiful metal and rhinestone bangles, cuffs, and bracelets”.Our disputes team reviewed *** ***’* claim and concluded that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate her claim that the lot was misrepresented The auction manifest clearly states “styles include bangle, cuff and more, assorted colors and sizes, you will receive units similar to the ones picturedYou may not receive the exact units pictured.” As such, her claim was denied. Further, *** *** filed a chargeback with PayPal for the transaction Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it For this reason, *** ***’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.We regret that *** *** was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Amanda O***Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services, Inc