I have contacted Nikon PKNS just now and have forwarded to their service deportment. Their Assistant Manger is on leave to day but they now have the link to the dispute via email. Hopefully, they will get back to me concerning this soon.

If so, that pilot ought to be sacked for overlooking 2 screws.
Facts:

• Demo unit - Compensated
  
  
• 2 missing screws - You claim that you checked everything yet you overlook the 2 screws as opposed to the Demo word on the receipt
  
  
• Duration in your care - Approx 50 days although we've been discussing it as 1 month or more than 1 month
  
  
• I do not have photo of rear lens, preferably dated 2nd May 2012. This proves nothing as dates can be faked, so its neither here nor there.
  
  
• You do not have photo of rear lens, preferably dated 6th May 2012. This proves nothing as dates can be faked, so its neither here nor there.
  
  
• You said you care how many have used the lens before you. You did not ask how many.
  
  
• You said it is your standard to take a photo of rear lens. You did not request for one.
  
  
• You indirectly accused me of duping. Directly accused me of being dishonest.
  
  
• Nikon did not take apart the aperture ring, it was already in that condition when you submitted to them for repairs.
  
  
• Dropping or knocking a lens do not 100% guarantee a scratch or dent. Experienced users can testify to that claim.
  
  
• To quote the exact words from the quotation, it went: RETURNED UNREPAIR AS REQUEST. IMPACT DAMAGE, WARRANTY NOT APPLICABLE. SCREW MISSING, APERTURE PROBLEM, REPLACE G1, G2, G6 LENS, AF CONTACT, G4-G5, G7 ASSEMBLY, QUOTED RM1,202.00.
  
  

Assumptions:

• Assume your elements groups weren't damage, I don't see why Nikon would con you.
  
  
• Assume the 2 screws are already missing while in my possession, I overlook that and you overlook that upon receiving it. In that case, I fail to see how 2 missing screws on the mounting can cause so much damage.
  
  
• Now you claim the same lens was submitted to Nikon for repair prior to this incident, with similar issues. Namely: Impact damage, screw missing, aperture problem, replace G1, G2 & G6 lens, AF contact, G4-G5, G7 assembly. If that was true, I fail to see how the lens was still operable while in yours and my possession.
  
  

Solution:
Now, I'm not sure what kind of solution you're looking for but what I can offer you is only peace of mind even if indeed said lens was submitted for repair prior to this. For you now know the cause of 2 missing screws weren't you.

I did not see that he have the full responsibility to follow up EVERYTHING.

Yes, to an extent of explanation etc, but there would be a limit for the responsibility part. Any excess is up to the seller to provide.

Now, since it is proven that the screws are missing, i just wonder if there is a proper reason to actually refund in full or not.

The point is, it is never being covered by personal warranty at all. Even if it is covered, it won't be that long. It is between Nikon and buyer as stated in the thread.

Imagine if seller sell something to one fellow with 3 days personal warranty, should the seller be responsible for something that is proven due to seller's fault after 1 month??

Imagine if a manufacturer have build something that have 1 year warranty,but the nature of the item like tendency to overheating that lead to auto shut down and eventually timed out after operate about 1.5 years due to the manufacturing design.  Can they be held liable?

Where is the exact ground of asking for refund in the first place? It is a faulty item as proven by now, but even new items have a time limit on such a claims.

If like this, after settling this issue (assume settle), then "new" fault comes out again, can seller be held liable like this FOREVER??? Like this, all 2nd hand seller can BANKRUPT or out of business!!!

Me being online doesn't mean I'm obligated to give an answer to whatever accusations that are made against me. On the contrary, according to forum rules, I'm given a grace period of 1 week to provide an answer to any question given. Having said that, I will give my answer and asks a few or maybe just a question 6 days later. Cheerio!

P/S moderators and trade enforcers have already been notified

Well, it'd be interesting to see what others say(provided they have all read properly). I already have my answer and question on the ready but like I said, I will state them 6 days after.

Feel discontent with my attitude? Well, I'm not gonna make any baseless accusations here. You'll know it yourself.

Wow, uh.. So now innocent forumers who reads this thread but doesn't support you makes them my friend? Well said.

As Quantum_thinking and shahru98 so kindly pointed out, investigation from my side takes time as well. At least I give a time frame.

just my 2 cents,

referring to the pic here
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=2329241&hl=

(CTRL + F, search for "reason for funding". open the spoiler just above the "reason for funding" and below "photos by the lens")

not a camera guy, but from 5 screws, 2 is missing. and so coincidentally both the missing screw is at the back part of the picture?
anyone will know something is wrong here. if it only need 3 screw and not 5, the screw will be distributed around, not focused on 1 section only

absolutely rite..fully refund to buyer ....problem between u and ur friend no need to drag the buyer involve...

For other future comments:

1. In the sales thread, TS stated that the photo by lens which means that the photo is not the photo of the lens. It is understandable if you don't understand that simple English but please stop mentioning about the photo.
2. Before everyone keep asking TS to refund because he is at fault, are you sure that the buyer did not intentionally do anything to the lens in the one month's period just because he don't want the lens anymore and need the money. He may denied it butwho knows the truth ? However, silverfire may also be the one that knew the condition of the lens but hiding the fact that he knew about the screws.
3. A reminder to all sellers and buyers, please check your used items to make sure that the items are still in a good condition before you all engaged in any sort of trades. This is to avoid this kind of dispute in the future. We won't know who is actually the one that is correct or wrong in this situation. Furthermore, this matter occurs after a month which made everything much more worse.
4. Stop mentioning the word 'safe trader' and 'demo set'. This both words has nothing to do with this dispute at all. Safe trader doesn't mean that tag is going to be there forever. Demo set is used set. As long as it is usable, I don't see the point of mentioning it. If you want a totally VIRGIN set like TS stated earlier, get a new one then. A used set is always not a VIRGIN set no matter how many people used it. I don't blame you if you don't understand it.

5. Stop arguing and wait for Apis to settle this dispute. At this moment, both sides are possibly wrong. Someone is lying or both of them are telling the truth. Simple as that. So stop arguing and chillax a little. 

sorry if i interrupted but can u check with the previous technician if whether or not screws were missing when they repaired the lens back then?
usually technicians keep this remark in case customer say item is not the same as when they send it in.

Please, please start studying Human Right and stop embarrassing yourself.

I don't follow up this case neatly but Silverfire is a decent forumer that did help me with Roccat Kave stuff before.

So is there any reply from nikon for the screw parts? should come cheap.
dont see where this is going.. since the product is now having a RM1.2k damage tagged to it.

3rd time I'm asking, not sure how many times I have to repeat. Sigh.

1st report, warranty applicable.
2nd report, warranty void due to impact damage? So so suspicious. Not accusing you or anything, just pointing out
Read above, worried if I state 6 days later, he can't answer and I have to ask again and again repeatedly until the question is gone with pages at the rate this thread is increasing. I think I will still be asking the same questions 6 days later. Sigh.

Good tactic really, just dodge all my questions and blame everything on me. Bravo.

I don't support him in this case. I just stating that we did have a good conversation before, that's all.

Will read this case from the first page tonight. And yes, this is not the first time Silverfire been into this kind of problem before.

Just a hint :

Unless the money buyer paid is transferred to the original owner account, I believe Silverfire would have to bear FULL responsibilities when it comes to trading.

So yeah, why not the buyer take the police report and ask Nikon to release full details of the invoice released on April? Also if possible, ask them for the warranty status, as when it is VOID.
This will clearly show either it's Seller or Buyer's fault.

Pardon me, but warranty is void based on what Nikon staff said? or assumptions?

Btw, warranty doesn't void even if you are being CHARGED for parts replacements. It'll only void if Nikon sides said so.

Anyway, since buyer can email Nikon to provide the invoice, it'll not hurt if he can email and ask for the warranty history, right?

Don't come in here and throw rubbish and expect people to brain like this. Manufacturer doesn't COVER your physical damage doesn't mean your warranty is VOID once you scratch your lens, for example.

For a simple fact that, I always had my phone casing scratch last time within 6 months of use and I go to Nokia Service Center to change the casing, stating I will need to pay for such, and my WARRANTY is still VALID for another 6 months.

Like I said, this is a mere whether the warranty is still valid or not by the time the money exchanged. I cannot stand when people come in and throw rubbish fact around.


Even I did support buyers side, I believe it's better to judge this on a fair ground basis. And also, Demo unit and Used unit are actually the same. You won't know how one use a stuffs, exactly like what you guys deduced on demo unit.

FACT 1 : What I see is the warranty still "Y" as per stated on the APRIL invoice. TS's Quotation doesn't mentioned about warranty status.
FACT 2 : TL:DR, 1st post, TS just stated he is "UNABLE" to claim warranty because of Impact Damage. Still no fact of Warranty being VOID.
FACT 3 : Nikon staffs in email never said about warranty is VOID.

Tell me, where and when the warranty is VOIDED. Still baseless remarks are being thrown to sellers for GOD KNOW WHY.

To TS/Buyer, I'm still siding you, just because not EVERYONE knows about the missing screws. Heck who will go check about the screws? You buy, you check the outer conditions, plug in to your body then shot fine - DEAL.

YES!