due to a true accuser from someone like you..

due to ur characteristic..

Why are you asking for prove?You and your brother DIDN'T CON!!UNDERSTAND THIS LINE!

You sold an item to the buyer which is new and should be functioning but IT'S NOT FUNCTIONING AND THE BUYER ALREADY CALLED THE SERVICE PROVIDER BUT THE NUMBER CAN'T BE ACTIVATE ANYMORE!The buyer bought the card to use it but COULDN'T BE USE!YOU LOOSE NOTHING! BUT THE BUYER LOOSE HIS RM100+.


Solution;
YOU as a seller who sold an item to the buyer- You should call digi and make the sold sim functioning or replace the sim with another sim which carry the same value of RM100+,else refund the buyer and settle the problem yourself with digi or accept that your loose is with digi not the innocent buyer.

Remember YOU OR YOU BRO DIDN'T CON SO THERE'S NO PROVE TO SHOW,ONLY PROVE NOW IS THE SIM CAN'T BE ACTIVATED,the buyer can send back the sim to you so that you can make sure the sim really can't be use and he's not trying to con you.That's the prove!

Sorry for the caps,just want you to look at the line and understand.

Thread starter,
Pls edit you thread title with "Bought nice Digi number for RM105 but cannot be activated". This is to make sure the seller don't misunderstood the case.

This post has been edited by kingmaker_20: Aug 12 2007, 12:39 AM

This comment has been made before and has been answered to.

---

Added on August 12, 2007, 12:37 amYes, all crime has to prove prove. That's what court are for. Accident depends on quantum of liability. As on the issue on checking before selling, answer to this already.

---

Added on August 12, 2007, 12:38 amand let the blaming game begin...

This post has been edited by rene: Aug 12 2007, 12:38 AM

do u really understand all of our comment and suggestion to you.. and what resolution have you come to settle this.. or u just like the thick face..

Coz we were accused of conning, that's why. And as for responsibility, I said already not bro fault the card being terminated prior to its expiry date when the number has not been activated. You are repeating the same thing. You will say i don't understand, i will say you don't want to understand my explanation and my stand.

---

Added on August 12, 2007, 12:45 amCall it whatever you want. I can't change how you all view my stand. I have given my solution.

This post has been edited by rene: Aug 12 2007, 12:45 AM

and who is responsible to sell this "sim card that being terminated prior to its expiry date when the number has not been activated"

Don't just simply accuse someone a con and then just edit... Even if buyer change topic now, it doesnt make any different.

---

Added on August 12, 2007, 12:48 amAnd didn't I say bro doesnt have knowledge of the termination? Am I denying bro did sell the number?

This post has been edited by rene: Aug 12 2007, 12:48 AM

You were accused because you don't have an intend to solve this issue.

I'm repeating,You don't understand.

If the sum is little maybe the buyer can accept but he bought the item @RM100+.You are the one sold the sim card to him,not digi and he already tried himself to settle the sim with digi without dragging you into dispute but the sim doesn't work.

Another example,

You bought a sim card from digi outlet but when you try to activate it,it couldn't be activated and the number had been purged,so what will you do?If you bring the sim back to the outlet owner,he should or i will say "He will" try to activate the number with any method but if it's still doesn't work,the outlet owner will replace another number or refund your money if you can prove the item is totally un-usable.

do u understand what ur saying... and whose fault it is that did not know that the item his selling is being terminated?
buyer?

10. The "DISPUTE" tag means an unsolved issue has been reported against a member at the Dispute Resolution Forum. Dealing with members with Dispute tags is not recommended.

According to lowyat.net rules&regulations Dispute tag means an unsolved issue has been reported against a member at the Dispute Resolution Forum,not to point a member as Conman.

Similar example given before. So i'm not repeating the answer here.

Firstly, I must say that you are biased towards the buyer. I'm trying to be biased to neither, so in your view I'm seemingly biased towards the seller.

I'll explain the "solid case" that you didn't understand the first time around. Simply put, the buyers need to put themselves in a position where rene cannot defend her actions, because to do so would defy common sense and logic. This is done by gathering the necessary facts and presenting them. Does the seller's dispute tag status affect the buyers' ability to do that? If it doesn't, then you agree with me that a dispute tag need not be given at any time in the week that has passed.

On rene's side, I'm giving her time to evaluate what's been put forth and to realize that her trading ethics are dodgy. I believe that giving her a dispute tag pressures her into making a decision against her mindset. Changing her mindset is the outcome I hope for, i.e. a "everyone walks out a winner" outcome. So what if it takes more than a day? I'll give her a week to think about it (which is the prescribed time in the dispute tag FAQ that's currently being drafted). No rush man.. take a chill pill

The week's almost up by the way, and I'll look at both sides of the story tomorrow.

Lastly, there is no rule that states "no selling for another". You don't have to trust me on this - just demonstrate it to yourself by finding the page that says that.

Same comment has been given before this and I have answer to it already.

---

Added on August 12, 2007, 1:36 amSeemingly I'll be sticking to my stand and if that mean Mod accept it as dodgy then there is nothing I can do about it although it do seem like an automatic dispute tag and the question is when it will be imposed.

This post has been edited by rene: Aug 12 2007, 01:36 AM

you answer, but still, u dont understand what all of us have said to u.. the simple thing you still not understand..

And? Do you want to keep repeating it? then be my guest.

What example?You never want to accept the fact!That's all.

yes i can... because ur not responsible...

err...
rene.....
if those post you have nothing other then "answered already"
please do ignored them,
no need to reply...

my take on this case
the problem is between the buyer and the seller
this case it rene with babana

where as digi is just the supplier

the thing is
this is not a complain asking you(rene) to do something like...
activating roam service, or even activating the number

what now babana have is not a reduced usability/service
what he has now is Zero usability/service product

If you(rene) is certain that the problem is with digi
then it is up to you to solve it
because you are bond to business transaction with digi
like how babana is bond to you
but not babana with digi, since the money is not with Digi
it is with you

if situation remains now
you profited "unethically"(be clear here, it is not wrong, just unethical)
babana suffer losses
Digi profit as usual

The norm solution
means you did not profit, and did not suffer loss
babana also suffer no loss
Digi is then responsible for the whole fiasco

example:
you bought a SE S500i phone and there is a problem with the keypad
SE told you the problem is during the pigmentation
and they say they dunno why is like that
all the say is to ask you to go settle with their China plant to get the keypad fixed.

Would you accept this explanation?

And you can keep on repeating... I'll stick to mine, you stick to yours.