A complicated issue over here because it is a postage deal,

1. The lens was a DEMO unit that seller should inform buyer or post the information at his advertisement. Buyer asked for RM200 refund and Seller accepted it but only for RM100, so Seller know its a DEMO unit at the first place.

2. "He said that the lens was his friend's so he never saw that lens actually." If yes, at this point Seller also didn't know that the 2 screws still on the lens or not. He only know that the lens is working fine.

3. The picture on the ads, Nikkor AF 50mm 1.4D is a front & front images and Nikkor 35mm 1.8G is a front & back images I believe Seller just switch lens to take the photos but didnt make it standard.


Buyer fault for not inspect the lens overall but I think he did tried on the lens and found out it was a bit loose and thought is normal because it still working fine until it failed to focus later.

The lens is from Seller friend and it is a DEMO unit, can Seller guarantee 100% the 2 screws was there when he get it from his friend or just trust his friend like how Buyer trust Seller (Safe Trader), working fine and 2 screws missing is different story.

Previous case, but this was 4 years ago. http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...5&hl=Silverfire

His friend involved & reason no money to refund, nearly same reasons to this case

but maybe now Seller more matured

While waiting for the proof from TS, can you check with your friend is the lens been sent to Nikon's service centre before? If yes, for what reason?

Item is from your friend, so you the one sell it because you are not selling on behalf of your friend. If TS can proof like what he said, TS the only victim and your need to take full responsibility. Mean that you didn't inspect the lens carefully when you got it from your friend.

Did you read what TS posted? lol Seriously

From TS statement, Nikon try to make profit rather than just screw back the 2 screws. TS request them to put back the 2 screws but they refused and said that it is not standard to send for warranty just to put back the 2 screws.

Agree with 779364, we just wait the information from Nikon.

I don't know, and you also don't know. Nobody know, but if TS did drop it then 100% there is scratch on the lens.

There is one more thing to clarify, is the item already missing the 2 screws before delivery and receive by TS.

Some people in Lowyat said DEMO = USED at my POV both of the terms are totally different

I think you can replace the Nikon's technician.

Glad to about this news and stand at the right side

When no evidence from TS you didn't take long time to reply. But now when there is evidence, you take long time to reply. I thought you prepare for this since you did nothing wrong lol Well the safe trader tag need to be take down

NOW only you notified to the first owner that is your friend? You should do it EARLIER as I also mentioned it to you before, to check with your friend since you got the item from him.

How can such person deserved for safe trader tag?

Yes since it is between you and the SAFE seller. Nothing to do with the first owner. I think he will give the same reason, "no money for full refund".

Seller made it clear that he is not selling behalf of his friend, so why is seller try to get the first owner involve on this case?

To clarify about the item?

Cool Report TS for defamation and attempt of fraud? LOL

So you friend came back to you and said that the lens isn't the original lens? because the serial number is incorrect?

You got take note on the serial number when you sell it? Your friend got the original receipt with serial number?

*I demand this case to be shared with the public if Seller found guilty, attached with photos of him. Let him famous

Cool siggy safe trader, isn't that over than 15 lines?

Again, I thought you are well prepared with your answers and questions. And for your info, I did read this issue properly. again

Silverfire himself stated that he will give his questions and answers after 6 days on 31st July 2012. But funny thing happened that the questions came out 1 by 1 on 2nd August 2012 by 12:08AM, 09:37AM and 09:54AM. So I guesss there will be a lot more question on 6th August 2012

Suspicious I try to brain upcoming questions will come out from him lol

Again and again, on first page your mentioned that you are not selling behalf of but now you said that previous owner do not want to claim responsibility. That is the deal between you and the first owner.

TS deal with you or first owner? Why need to involve first owner in this case?

Funny thing is the arrogant boy try label you as conman artist, what a jerk and this case already been delayed so long then there is no dispute tag on him

Yes, agree with this. Really shameful yet there is no DISPUTE TAG on him.