Agreed. Seller, please check with your friend if indeed the lens was already broken and was sent for repair @ nikon, however was not repaired. Or is it you who sent it to nikon for repair? Electronic items always have this mysterious habit of working intermittently until it fails completely.

Until then, let's wait for nikon service center report and we can deduce this case once and for all.

Have you ever had an electronic item say a TV which sometimes work sometimes dont but you cannot pinpoint the problem? Send to repair shop also cannot solve? You found out later, that it was fixed with an inferior component.

Or when you buy a car, start wonderfully every morning, but after a month, cannot start because there is a problem with the alternator. After inspection, you found out that the alternator was a rebuilt alternator which is waiting for its death.

I'm just stating the logic from experience. Things can happen. Let's wait for nikon center report and testimony from seller's friend.

Any updates? Anybody? Or already settled out of court?

There is a difference between knowingly selling a defective item with the intention to deceive and not knowing. Let's wait for the seller's explanation.

Undoubtedly, the lens was already broken when it was sold. Your example is not applicable here.

Seller can also be charged for false info - nikon warranty still valid when it is actually already expired.

Izwan, do get in touch with apis. He may be able to advise further and do something on the seller's LYN account.

Errr, why are you asking the same questions again? Answers were already given in the last 2 pages? Dodging?

Excellent. Mr seller, what do you have to say now?

Hmmm. A point there. However, warranty aside, the crux of the matter is that the previous owner damaged the lens; tried to fix thru nikon warranty claim but unable to do so because warranty doesnt cover. Lens was returned to previous owner, then sold it as a good item, hoping that the new owner doesnt notice the damage. No matter how you look at it, there's an element of deceit.

This post has been edited by sengih: Aug 4 2012, 01:12 AM

I dont see the need to get the previous owner's name since seller can conveniently claim later that he does not know the person. Unless seller name the person first and Nikon can provide the name to a third party eg moderator. However, who/what can prevent the seller from giving a fictitious name?

The other scenario is that the seller is actually the previous owner. So, if TS gets the name from Nikon, then seller has nowhere to run already.

We already know for a fact that seller had misrepresented his merchandise (awesome and used). Fact is the serial number in both reports are the same. Fact is the impact damage was already there before it was sold to TS. Fact is Nikon warranty does not cover impact damage so lens was not fixed the first time.

hmmm... smells something burning....

Smells like dead fish... Only done after a gazzilion pages of ranting?

Look at the timeline carefully. 1st May bought the lens, 2nd May advertise, 3rd May sold to TS. This may not be a coincidence.

I have my doubt... smells very much like a thousand rotten eggs. Dilly dallying tactic. Transfer of blame.

Sleeping together huh?

Nice...

Yup. Time consuming but worth it since TS will get ALL his money back and everything will be officially documented by the authorities. Future trades will be difficult for seller. In other words, no business anymore.

Very wise advice indeed. Will work out fine unless both sellers are actually a team/gang.

Timeline : Salvator advertised lens on 5th April : 1st Nikon invoice dated 27th April : Silverfire COD lens with Salvator 1st May : Silverfire sold lens to Izwan898 3rd May.

Serious gap in timeline... especially from 5th April to 1st May.

Jolly good to hear that. RM100 for how many months?