If you read thoroughly you will know the demo unit issue is resolved and compensated.

Althought TS and silverfire already agreed from the first place that TS would receive rm 100 as compensation, as the unit was a demo unit. Both compromised here. But Silverfire he himself already being dishonest, he never mentioned it was a DEMO unit but just a used unit. It was TS himself who found out it's a demo unit. Would u buy a car which was a demo unit(Tested by so many people)? Or a car which was owned by one/two owner(U definitely will choose the latter right?) Huge difference there. Silverfire already being dishonest from the very first.

If so he could've asked for a full refund, not compensation. Learn the difference. By the way, who's silverware?

Not sure if I'm blind or they can't learn the difference between refund and compensation.

The problem is he never mentioned it in his thread about the missing screws...also never mentioned about the demo unit even though he's a safe trader.[COLOR=red] Is it so hard to mention it? Coz he knows if he mentions it, no one will buy it. And the price for sure will fall.

Now, I'm in my good conscience agreed to accept RM100 bcoz he's still a kid. But very2 frustrated when found out that the lens was missing 2 screws before he sent it to me. I feel betrayed.

It's not possible to just buy the screws from nikon. Their technician said the 2 screw holes were already loose meaning that no screw will be able to hold itself in the screw cavity. So no point if they give me the 2 screws missing.

IF, nikon released the info about the last repair quotation I will leave the judgement to u guys. U tell me what to do since this will be a true con case. If no one can help, I will ask commercial crime division about this case. I won't let my good name here be tarnished by this stupid case. So many people think that I'm whining and trying to blame silverfire about the missing screws. No! The screws were already gone before I got it! 

honest means jujur.

Dishonest means tak jujur. In other words, it means lying. Think carefully before posting please.

If you think that hiding something means it is wrong, most seller and buyer (when trade in their units) do that unfortunately.

Sell high, buy low everybody likes it.

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

Well, this is embarrassing.

why the need for investigation?

As proven by "buyer",
the "Nikon len" have been "ICU" before same service center with same serial number.

So it have been proven so clearly that the 'Nikon len" is defective for a start.

Unfortunately, i am not sure what really transpired between you and the original owner.
Even if he cheated you by camouflaging the defects when you "buy" from the previous Owner have nothing to do with current seller.

You want prove, our kind buyer have  done that.

So by right, you should REFUND without any doubt.

So what, if you managed to get the Original Owner to refund you in (let say) in a month time,
don't tell me that you will requested our poor buyer here to wait for one month as well.

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. 

Just one question for now: Why is there no name on the previous repair quotation?

Just one question for now: Why is there no name on the previous repair quotation?

That is if my name is on that report.

You know, why bother? You can't prove its the lens I sold you, heck I can't even relate this lens to the first owner, unless of course the report has a name

Wow hadn't noticed your reply. Just saw it after someone quoted it.

Well with that attitude and assumptions from buyer, bravo to you if you can cope with it.

What proofs are there? Let us revise:

• I sold TS a Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4D
  
  
• Lens break down after ~50 days
  
  
• No serial number was mentioned or requested
  
  
• A prior service invoice that has no name but with valid warranty
  
  

I request a complete invoice with name, and now I'm the snaking ******* who tries to worm out of my way?

I think to end this, both party will need to make a list what they want from other party in order for him/her to cooperate.

Silverfire want :

1. Invoice with name ( if not mistaken)
2.
3.
..
..

Ts want :

1.
2.
3.
..
..
If all the request from each side had been completely fulfilled by each other, then this case will end in no time.
But that will only works if both parties want to end this by not dragging this matter any further.

Just my 2 cent.

Sadly I do not keep a record of lens serial number

Well this will work.

I want:

1. Previous service invoice with name
   
   

Izwan wants:

1. Never consistent since page 1
   
   

Sadly I do not keep a record of lens serial number

Doesn't mean I'm supportive of him but,

Isn't it common sense if you bought a demo unit, you used it for a year, it is still considered used unit.

Demo unit doesn't mean the unit is damaged.

He meant that when I found out it's demo unit, I should have demanded full refund since he never told me it's demo unit...

Forumer you are complaining against: Silverfire aka Tan Chia Way aka Cruxiaer Tan

please read before giving any more comments.

the reason that the two screw is missing is the "female" side "thread" is worn out.

The screw is useless as it won't be able to tighten firmly.

---

Added on August 2, 2012, 10:37 pm
Shhessshhh
you just don't get it!!!!
(1) Warranty still valid the 1st time until Nikon discovered two screw were missing and internal "impact damage" which is not cover by warranty.
Since the original owner refuse to pay for the 1.2K repair fee,
Nikon have "mark" the Nikon Lens with description "etc two screw missing..etc etc etc" by indicating serial number for future referance.
and at same time, update in their system that warranty is void even though still got 7 month left.

Warranty cover manufacturing defects NOT Impact damage

(2)Current buyer sent in to Nikon Center for 2nd time since Seller indicate it still have 7 month warranty left.
From Nikon database, it show that warranty is VOID as it is a repeat case.

SO , what the blooody suspicious you talking about?

Arrogant seller who reallly trying to find loopholes from paying.

There. You didn't answered my question. You just skipped the question, twisted it and blame it to whoever there is to blame, again.

So the query is what? I sold you a product which has void warranty to start with, but with the previous service invoice provided, its valid. It is only void when you submitted, clearly stated void due to impact damage. There must be some difference between in the state of lens. Plus, there's still no name. Even the previous owner do not want to claim responsibility now.

I wonder why there's no action from mods or admins...should have put dispute tag on him...