I don't understand why ebay allows sellers to list an item's condition as "used" when the only testing that the seller has done is to see if it turns on or not, and they don't know if it actually works beyond that or not. I come across listings like these all the time. Some sellers list these correctly as "For parts or not working" since they have not tested further.
These are 2 of the definitions of item condition that ebay uses:
Used
An item that has been used previously. The item may have some signs of cosmetic wear, but is fully operational and functions as intended. This item may be a floor model or store return that has been used. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections.
For parts or not working
An item that does not function as intended and is not fully operational. This includes items that are defective in ways that render them difficult to use, items that require service or repair, or items missing essential components. See the seller's listing for full details.
Yes, many sellers state in the title and/or description that it has only been tested for "power on only" and they don't know if it works beyond that, but that is a contradiction to the definition that ebay, and therefore the seller as well, uses for the "Used" condition.
If an item has not been verified as "fully operational and functions as intended", then its condition should not be allowed to be described and listed as "Used" and therefore it should be as "For parts or not working". It seems like this is a bit of a loophole for the seller that gets him off the hook, because when the buyer receives it, and it does not work, then the seller can say that you bought it "as is" with no returns, no refunds, and that's the end of story. That to me is unfair because it was listed, using ebays own definition, as used but fully functional.
Does anyone know why ebay is not more strict about the listing of the item's condition when it comes to used and/or not working items?
