Liquidity Services Inc

June 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 he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. **. [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because his dispute was initially denied; however, it has since been resolved in his favor.
 
**. [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 100 assorted [redacted] 5/5S cases purchased via Liquidation.com. On April 15, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that his shipment was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. **. [redacted] said that the lot was advertised as having mixed color cases whereas all of the cases received were solid colors only. He requested a full refund with return of the merchandise.
 
Our disputes team reviewed **. [redacted]’s claim and initially denied his claim because he did not provide any evidence supporting his position. **. [redacted] was unfamiliar with our disputes process and failed to respond to our April 17 e-mail notification that support was needed. Therefore, he was advised by our customer service personnel to request that the dispute be reopened and then to send photos in support of his claim. Review of the reopened claim brought a change in the decision in favor of **. [redacted] that allowed a full refund upon return of the merchandise to the seller. Return labels were sent to **. [redacted] and the return was finally confirmed as received by the seller. The full refund amount of $145.25 was processed to the buyer’s account on May 20.
 
We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by **. [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.
 
Regards,
[redacted]
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 response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
This is the same answer as received before, instead of addressing the description of the item, which was misleading at best, they are addressing the quality of the items, which is not at dispute. If the auction describes phones then I should receive a phone,  not a phone cover or phone screen.
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:1) The Liquidation.com story line continues to grow.  Answer # 1:, "Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the dispute was filed well past the two-day inspection period allowed on Liquidation.com transactions. The delivery of this shipment was scheduled on September 18, but the dispute on the shipment was not filed until over a month later, on October 31." Now...there is an admission that "our customer service team suggested that the dispute be given special consideration due to the amount of the loss."  Well..it seems clear that I was telling the truth initially and the initial response from Liquidity Services (LS) was at best not considered in full.2)  I am not accusing the warehouse of stealing anything yet I did "speculate" that they could have.  My point is not that they stole it but there should be a requirement of due process even with an internal investigation.  Just saying, "our guys  say they did it right" when it is self serving for LS to do so is not a thorough investigation as previously claimed.  3) Liquidity Services claims "A coordinated chain of individuals would be required to undertake the action raised by [redacted]." Perhaps, this is true.  On our end here's how it happened and why "such a large lot was reported so late".  We received the shipment and sold several items fairly quickly without opening the boxes. Shortly afterwards (2-4 weeks), our customers returned several items saying the transceivers were missing.  Perhaps...I'll speculate again...our customers ordered the product just to get the transceivers.  Our response at that point was to open the remaining 8 Home Theater systems of which 3 had transceivers and 5 had no transceivers.  Our mistake is not completing a full receiving protocol and for trusting LS and their meticulous process that they investigated and describe as "reviewing our internal data system which records detailed lotting and shipping information. This check showed that the shipment was complete and ready.  It was a refurbished lot that had been inspected and given a Grade A rating.  It had also been reviewed prior to sending.  Finally, a discussion with the warehouse manager raised no issues."  So, here's the truth once again.  We received 5 [redacted] Home Theater Systems without transceivers. Given all of LS checks, rechecks and detailed systems analysis and oversight...we are still missing 10 transceivers.  Since we last wrote we found 10 transceivers on [redacted] for $20 each. They have also been for sell for near $100 each and [redacted] is selling them for $52.  Send us $200 for the transceivers and let's end this dispute.
Regards,
[redacted]

September 1, 2015 Dear [redacted], Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services 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] bid on an auction for one lot of toy figurines items on Liquidation.com. On August 21st, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was grossly misrepresented. [redacted] stated “These are so dang small, I didn’t even realize that they had arrived. I thought they were normal miniature size not microscopic. Had I known they were so small I would have never bid on them much less bid that much. The size should had been stated.” [redacted] sent in photos to support his claim.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was properly listed. The auction listing clearly states “each lot contains an assorted mix of the styles shown below, 400 pieces, mini-figurines, charms, multiple small sizes, great for pendants and cake toppers.” Also, the manifest included on the lot details page states “Assorted Small Toys”. As such, his claim was denied.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. Regards,  Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services

January 7, 2015Mr. [redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  Ms. [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear Mr. [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  Ms. [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].  Ms. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she disagrees with the application of our company policies.Ms. [redacted] was the winning bidder of five auction lots purchased via Liquidation.com.  She said that sales taxes had been charged to her and that she contacted our customer service department to receive a refund as she is an exempt reseller.  Ms. [redacted] had previously provided her resale certificate to Liquidation.com.  Therefore, she believes that she is owed $60.26 among the five transactions for sales taxes.However, the resale certificate that Ms. [redacted] provided was rejected because the address on her submission did not match the address on her Liquidation.com account.  She had also not included her Liquidation.com username on the form with the certificate.  Therefore, we were unable to verify that the address of the resale certificate belonged to Ms. [redacted].When our customer service personnel attempted to discuss the matter with her and provide instructions for fixing the problem, Ms. [redacted] became loud, argumentative and extremely uncooperative before disconnecting multiple calls herself.  She groundlessly accused our company of attempting to “steal her money.”  She then filed chargebacks on all five transactions.  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  For this reason, Ms. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.  Without her cooperation, we could not achieve a peaceable resolution to the problem.We regret that Ms. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary C. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

August 22, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted]...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he did not receive the items he purchased.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 20 [redacted] GPS and [redacted] in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 1, his wife picked up a package from our Plainfield, Indiana warehouse that was thought to include this merchandise. However, when he was inspecting the items at home, [redacted] noticed that the wrong package had been provided to his wife. He contacted our customer service department to discuss the matter and arranged to return the package for the correct merchandise. Then on May 13, he traveled back to our Plainfield, Indiana warehouse to drop off the incorrect package and to pick up the correct package. He was not given the corrected package even though he had confirmed a week earlier that it was ready for pickup. Therefore, [redacted] requested a full refund in his complaint.
[redacted] filed a chargeback dispute on the transaction to reclaim his money. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited under the Liquidation.com user agreement that [redacted] signed when registering with our website. His action triggered a de-activation of his Liquidation.com user account as a result. Chargebacks are not allowed because the buyer typically maintains possession of merchandise without providing the funds to pay for it. However, that is clearly not the case in this instance because [redacted] never received the proper merchandise and even returned the mistakenly provided items to our warehouse.
There appears to have been a missed communication between our customer service personnel and warehouse personnel that caused [redacted] to seek alternate recourse. The transaction record shows that [redacted] contacted customer service, made arrangements to return the mistake package and confirmed that his correct package was ready for pickup. Therefore, [redacted] may have his Liquidation.com user account re-activated if he wishes. He needs to reply to this letter indicating his wish and await further instruction, if any.
We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and hope that we can settle the matter amicably.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

March 23, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the...

Revdex.com.  [redacted] described concerns 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 250 assorted women’s fashion bracelets purchased via Liquidation.com.  On February 10, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that 45 of the 250 units were not included in the shipment.  He also said that although the bracelets were advertised with values between $9.99 and $49.99 he discovered that the manufacturer’s brand had no product in the higher price range.  Additionally, [redacted] believed the value of the bracelets to be less than $1.00 each.  He provided photos in support of his claim.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because the photo evidence was insufficient to support the claim.  The disputes team requested additional information and photos since the photos received did not cover the entire claim but only a single item.  However, the request for more support was ignored, and the claim was denied.  When [redacted] expressed his displeasure with the decision, he was told that he could submit a reopen claim request along with more robust support.  No reopen request was filed.  Without the cooperation of [redacted], the claim remained denied.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary *. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc..

April 10, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Better...

Business Bureau.  [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services was 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 was unable to receive a refund for withheld taxes; however, his reseller certificate has since been applied to the transaction.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 464 mixed customer returns purchased via Liquidation.com.  He was pleased with his purchase; however, he did not receive a refund on his sales taxes paid on the transaction.  [redacted] said that he had been reassured by a Liquidation.com employee that his reseller certificate could be applied retroactively after it was filed since he had indicated his eligibility to the company.After reviewing [redacted]’s complaint and contacting the appropriate internal parties, we have decided to process a refund for the $433.44 tax payment to [redacted]’s account.  Please allow time for the payment to be processed and entered into the account.We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and appreciate his cooperation and patience in settling the matter in his favor.Regards,Cary *. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

June 19, 2015
Dear [redacted],Government Liquidation is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint.[redacted] bid on an auction lot of 100 each (apprx) [redacted] transmission part kits from Govliquidation.com and believed that his bid of $5,268.00 should have stood when we normalized his subsequent $20,188.00 bid amount.In our initial response, we said that the auction monitoring team normalized [redacted]’s bid of $20,188.00 as we found it to be an error as it was a drastic jump in bid amount. Our management team explained to [redacted] “based on the bid amount and sequence of the bids, this was determined to be an error and was normalized”.In his most recent response, [redacted] stated that his previous bid of $5,268.00 should have stood when his $20,188.00 was normalized. However, at the time of the $20,188.00 bid that [redacted] placed, the auction amount had not yet reached his previous maximum bid amount of $5,268.00 therefore it cancelled out his $5,268.00 maximum bid limit and raised it to $20,188.00. When bids are normalized, they are brought to the current bid price of the auction at that exact time, as such; the bid was normalized to the current auction price which was $1,810.00.In deciding this matter, our auction monitoring team normalized [redacted]’s bid to the auction price at that time and temporarily suspended his account until we received a response from him. Government Liquidation received [redacted]’s response after the bid had closed.Liquidity Services may limit, suspend, restrict or terminate our services, a buyer’s account, access to our site, and activities on our site with or without notice. In [redacted]’s case, our auction monitoring team normalized the bid, temporarily suspended the account and notified him as soon as possible.We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; but we hope that we have provided some clarity regarding our current position.Regards,
Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services

August 21, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404 
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted], 
Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In her response, [redacted] states that she is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to her initial complaint. 
[redacted] filed a claim regarding general merchandise purchased via Liquidation.com that she believed had been grossly misrepresented in the auction listing. Our disputes team requested support (photos, videos, etc.) for her dispute and after reviewing the support, we concluded that [redacted]’s claim could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. [redacted]’s support confirmed that the shipment she received was in the correct condition of Shelf Pulls and that the items she received were similar to those pictured in the auction. In her initial complaint, [redacted] also noted that the watch she received and the one pictured in the auction were different and differed in MSRP by $50, which was a large part of her $400 investment. Those MSRP values, however, did not dictate the prices of the items within this auction. The “per unit price” of this auction was $3.07, accounting for the $402.00 winning bid. Under our terms and conditions, we do allow a quantity variance on our Liquidation.com auctions.
Quantity variance is the percentage of items that are deemed to be either in excess of or less than the amount listed on the auction; ranging from 1-10% per auction. The quantity variance is calculated on a per unit price, and pertains to all merchandise within an auction, including missing or damaged items. However, asset condition of the merchandise within this variance may differ from the rest of the auction items.
With the above calculation, the quantity variance was less than 1%, whereas 3% was allowed by the auction. This was visible on the auction page. As per the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com, this variance was permitted. For this reason, we cannot accept [redacted]’s secondary complaint, which argued on behalf of the MRSP and value of this watch. Lots are sold in their entirety with consideration for quantity variance so a buyer should not bid for the purpose of receiving an individual item. If the item had not been shipped at all (a “missing” item) it would have been covered under quantity variance. Likewise, the lesser item is acceptable so long as the lot meets the advertised requirements for 97% of the merchandise.
We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute because the auction was properly listed. 
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

August 27, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
 Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted]...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a warranty customer, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s warranty agreement for his [redacted] computer. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he was unable to receive a properly working computer.
[redacted] acquired a [redacted] computer on December 13, 2013 with a 90-day warranty serviced by Liquidity Services. On December 18, 2013, he started a warranty claim because his computer was not booting up properly. The unit was sent for repair and then returned to him on January 15. [redacted] then contacted our service personnel to notify them that the unit was still defective so it was returned for repair on January 21. The computer was then sent back to [redacted] from the repair facility on February 17. Unfortunately, the computer was still found to be defective so he requested a warranty extension to cover additional repair. On March 18, [redacted] was granted a 60-day extension on his 90-day warranty.

According to the transaction detail, we received no further communication from [redacted] after the March 18 extension so the matter was considered resolved. In his complaint, it appears that [redacted] had simply momentarily abandoned the effort, not unreasonably.
We regret that [redacted] had a poor experience with the warranty services provided by Liquidity Services. Our company handles the customer service portion of the warranty contract while another business partner handles the repair and replacement servicing portion of the warranty contract. We will follow up with our business partner to seek an improved resolution.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I did not file a dispute with [redacted] until after they deactivated my account and left me no alternative. 
Regards,
[redacted]

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 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] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because his dispute was initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in his favor.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 1,000 name brand handbags and jewelry sets in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 10, 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. He said that the [redacted] Elements Crystal Necklaces and matching earrings that he received as part of the lot were counterfeit items. He requested a full refund.
Once the dispute was received, our team contacted the seller about the [redacted] Elements items in the lot. The seller provided information regarding the purchase of the items and also stressed that the eight (8) items in concern were well under the 50 items allowed under the 5% quantity variance for the auction. Therefore, a claim should be denied and funds released to the seller. Since the disputed items were below the quantity variance threshold, we informed [redacted] that his dispute had been denied.
[redacted] then asked for a more thorough description of our decision. An e-mail was sent to him the same day of his Revdex.com submission providing the relevant details and decision-making process of the disputes team. Then [redacted] asked to reopen the matter, as he was certain that he could have the items certified as inauthentic. After discussing the matter further with our disputes team, it was determined that a full refund would be appropriate upon return to the entire lot. After confirmation of receipt, a full refund of $187.25 was processed to [redacted]’s account on November 18.
We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

March 4, 2016Dear [redacted]Thank you for the opportunity to respond to [redacted]’s claim. [redacted] describes concerns he has around auction ID [redacted] which he was bidding on. This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and [redacted]’s bid of $1,975 was the last bid on...

2-26-2016 when we ended the auction ahead of its scheduled closing time.Except as otherwise stated in our Terms and Conditions, we reserve the right to close early or extend internet auctions at our discretion. We also reserve the right to withdraw any Assets offered for sale up to the time the Assets are removed.In this case, there were extenuating circumstances which required us to withdraw the assets from sale. 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. Please note, we re-listed the same inventory on 3-3-2016, auction ID [redacted], thus making it available for sale again. This auction is a standard auction and the winning buyer is the highest bidder at the scheduled closing time. As of the time we are writing this letter, we are pleased to see that [redacted] is bidding on the newly listed auction.We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted]’s claim.

May 24, 2013
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404 
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
 Please accept this response to the complaint filed by...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer using [redacted], with the warranty operated by Liquidity Services, Inc. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her warranty request was denied.
On December 27, 2013, [redacted] purchased a [redacted] through [redacted]. The laptop began to experience display issues so [redacted] contacted our company on March 10 to initiate a claim under the 90-day warranty. She provided photos of the unit in support of her claim.
Upon review of the photos, our team discovered that the screen was cracked. Unfortunately, the warranty does not cover problems related to physical damage to the laptop. If the damage was present upon arrival, then a shipping claim should have been filed through [redacted]. If the damage occurred later, then it would fall outside the responsibility of the warranty.
We regret that [redacted] is dissatisfied with her purchase; however, we feel that we have handled the matter in accordance with the warranty conditions.
 
Regards,
[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

December 15, 2014 [redacted] Revdex.com 1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3404 RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted] Dear [redacted], Liquidation.com is in receipt of the response submitted by [redacted]. In his response, [redacted] states that he is dissatisfied with the reply provided by our company to his initial complaint. [redacted] claimed that the [redacted] home theater systems he purchased via Liquidation.com were missing significant items that prevented several from being operable. Our disputes team decided that claim should be denied because it was well past the inspection window for shipment disputes. In his most recent response, [redacted] states that he began the dispute after talking to our customer service personnel who were in full knowledge that his dispute filing would be beyond the inspection window. He worked with our disputes team and even reopened the dispute for further review before being told that it had been filed too late. He also took exception to the other reason given for final dismissal, which was that the shipment had been confirmed as complete after consultation with our warehouse. [redacted] speculated that the warehouse personnel could have performed the theft and covered it up.  [redacted]’s dispute would normally have been denied on entry for being too late; however, our customer service team suggested that this dispute be given special consideration due to the amount of the loss. The disputes team investigated by reviewing our internal data system which records detailed lotting and shipping information. This check showed that the shipment was complete and ready. It was a refurbished lot that had been inspected and given a Grade A rating. It had also been reviewed prior to sending. Finally, a discussion with the warehouse manager raised no issues. Therefore, the records were found to be accurate and reliable. Also, a disputes manager reviewed the matter and found it odd that such a large loss was reported so late. Thus the dispute was denied, which is within the discretion of our disputes team. Regarding the theft speculation, a coordinated chain of individuals would be required to undertake the action raised by [redacted]. A review showed that no unusual patterns existed with our handling and any merchandise claims with this specific warehouse. With no evidence of theft by our warehouse personnel, that has been ruled out as an explanation. We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our response; however, we stand by our decision to deny the dispute based on the evidence provided. Regards, Cary *. H[redacted] Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc.

June 10, 2015Dear [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 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
women’s tights & socks purchased via Liquidation.com. On May 26th,
2015, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that
the shipment he received was not in the condition listed and was grossly
misrepresented as advertised by the seller in the auction listing. [redacted] said
“These were represented as shelf pulls. The pictures show items with packaging.
What I received is mostly loose socks, and tights with very bad packaging, and
staples through the panty hose.” Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded
that the auction listing was accurate and did not validate his claim that the
lot was misrepresented.  The auction
manifest clearly states the condition of the items as “shelf pulls” and
“pictures in this auction are illustrations of items we carry.” Our disputes team then replied to [redacted] stating “per the
definition of Shelf Pulls in the auction listing: Shelf Pulls can exhibit a
wide range of individual product and package conditions that can differ
substantially from the original manufacturing”. As such, his claim was denied.We regret that [redacted] remains unsatisfied with our
response; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the
Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services

Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services 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] bid on an auction for one lot of Major brand name & Fashion jewelry (shelf pulls) items on Liquidation.com. On June 22nd, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment he received was grossly misrepresented. [redacted] stated “total retail value is not even $2,000.00 items have retail value on them. Not even close to the quality shown in the photos.” [redacted] sent in photos to support his claim and requested a full refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the auction listing was properly listed. Our disputes team informed [redacted] that his dispute claim could not be honored as the photos posted on the auction listing are provided for descriptive purposes only. They are not to be considered a detailed manifest of specific units to be received. The auction listing clearly states “you will receive the items similar to the ones pictured. You may not receive the exact units pictured.” As such, his claim was denied.Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement. For this reason, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. Regards,  Amanda OCompliance AssociateLiquidity Services

January 7, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  [redacted] described...

concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because he had not received his purchase or a refund, but he has since been refunded in full.On November 28, [redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 34 medical devices and equipment in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com.  When he did not receive his shipment after several weeks, he filed a chargeback with [redacted] on the transaction.Shortly after the shipment should have been delivered, we discovered that the tracking number for the shipment was incorrect and therefore the shipment could not be located.  On December 8, it was decided that we would issue a full refund if we did not receive confirmation of delivery from the carrier.  In the meantime, we waited for delivery confirmation to arrive.  After three weeks, we moved forward with the refund and authorized a full payment of $288.65 to [redacted]’s account on December 26.Further, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated as a result of the chargeback he filed with [redacted].  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in the user agreement which [redacted] agreed to follow when he registered as a user on our website.  There was no record of a dialogue between [redacted] and our customer service team to attempt to settle the matter, and it does not appear that an effort was made by [redacted] to request a refund.We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.Regards,Cary H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

April 27, 2016Dear Mr. [redacted]Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  Mr. [redacted] describes concerns he has around transaction ID [redacted] which consisted of 200 units of Designer Neckties - [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted],...

[redacted], [redacted].  The lot was listed as ‘shelf pulls’ condition.  This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and Mr. [redacted]’s bid of $121 was the winning bid on 3-31-2016.  The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $167.30.  The product was delivered to Mr. [redacted] on 4-8-2016, and Mr. [redacted] filed a dispute with us on 4-8-2016 under the incorrect transaction ID, and then again on 4-16-16 under the correct transaction ID.Mr. [redacted]’s claim in the Revdex.com complaint differs slightly from the 2 disputes filed with our company regarding the merchandise in transaction ID [redacted]: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 4-8-16 (under the incorrect transaction ID) stated: “These ties were listed as "returns".  Out of 200 ties only 2 had tags, and I believe the other 198 ties are used. A lot of the ties have rips and some are grossly dirty.  No store would accept a return that is grossly dirty. Also, some of the name brands listed in the auction are not included. I want a full refund.”The claim filed with Liquidity Services on 4-16-16 (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 dispute. I want to return all these ties and I want a full refund immediately. Provide me with return postage and I will send the ties back immediately. These 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 false fraudulent auction.”The photographic support submitted by Mr. [redacted] to Liquidity Services for the claim on 4-8-16 shows 2 image files of what appears to be the same necktie in each picture.  1 image shows a small tear at near the loop on the backside of the tie.  Please note Mr. [redacted] 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. [redacted] 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. [redacted]’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 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 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. [redacted]’s claim about receiving broken electronic items, which were listed as new condition (Transaction ID [redacted]).  The merchandise was delivered on Jan 14, 2016, and Mr. [redacted] filed a claim on the merchandise on Apr 3, 2016.   The dispute was denied due to the excessive amount of time that had passed from delivery to filing a claim.  Section 12 from the Terms and Conditions addresses the need for buyers to inspect assets on delivery.  An excerpt from Section 12 of the Terms and Conditions is posted below as a reference:Claims for Incorrect or Inaccurate Description Where Inspection Not Permitted; Returns Process. In limited circumstances, our sellers only permit inspection on buyer's receipt of the Assets after their shipment. For 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 buyer. In 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 buyer. Thereafter, a buyer's right to make a claim expires. Buyer'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. [redacted] 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 normal window for investigating post-transactional claims, but as a courtesy if Mr. [redacted] has additional evidence that he feels would substantiate a claim on the neckties, we will review it.  Mr. [redacted] 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. [redacted]’s claim. Regards,Darren M[redacted]Sr. Manager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services