Thanks again for the really useful input.ASB1960 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:47 pmAs a result of the discussion you had I would think his description was not met.
Was it a business seller or an individual ? That can affect things.
What you need to do a little research on is the consumer rights act. That determines that things must be satisfactory quality (even second hand - I think they probably are). But they also need to be as described. It would appear not (I think an argument could be made that common use of the word immaculate would allow for refurb. But I also fully see your and other views, i.e. I don't know which would prevail - but I think yours should).
With the tyres and how they were described well they were all dunlop sport - but I think the ad was misleading. A reasonable person would have expected them all to be exactly the same and the wording used encouraged that.
There are also the distance selling regulations. They give you 14 days inspection and you can return for any (or no) reason. But you will be down 2 lots of carriage.
If it was private neither of the above really apply.
However I am guessing ebay, paypal will generally arbitrate and generally side with the buyer (i am simlly trying to highlight the difference between statutory protection under consumer law and the contractual protection offered by ebay and paypal as that might affect your approach).
It was actually Facebook marketplace - perhaps a little brave of me, but I've used it in the past with a lot of success and made sure that I paid with PayPal just in case anything like this happened.
My case with PayPal will be that the item was not as described- 1) no wheel caps 2) misleading description of tyres 3) not offering up that they had been refurbished despite being specifically asked. They may not side with me, I know - but I am aware they usually side with the buyer and I think I have a reasonable case.
Thanks again for the input. Drop me a PM if you're curious about the ad and I'll send it over!