Mondo

As Gary posted before the website was changed, the parts offered were a direct replica of the original J spec rear mudguards, specifically for the SWB Z32. Therefore that's exactly what I believed I'd be getting. There were no part numbers to mix up or options for me to select the wrong one. Let me put it another way: if a breaker offered a 99 Spec front bumper, but when it was delivered it turned out to be the 89 Spec one, the buyer would be unhappy. If the seller's response was along the lines of "it came off a 1999 car so it must be the right one. And it'll fit your car so everything's fine" would anyone expect the buyer to just chalk it up to experience?

Taken from the Consumer Contracts Regulations (which replaced the Distance Selling Regulations in June this year):

The highlighted part is where, in the original description, these were described as being direct replicas of the OEM 2+0 rear mudguards. Therefore, in my opinion at least, the parts are not what was advertised. Your situation would be a different story if you'd (for example) purchased something explicitly stated to be a LWB propshaft and the seller sent you a SWB one instead. You say you didn't check part numbers carefully enough, whereas I relied on an advert that clearly stated what the parts were and what original parts they'd been moulded from.

Thank you - at least you agree that the original $155 (including the original $65 shipping) should be refunded. I'm prepared to wear the Customs charges if need be, and I'm prepared to pay out to send these spats down to Si (with tracking information, of course). That way, Jose gets his parts back, I get refunded the money I paid to him and everyone gets something out of this. As I said earlier, I've opened a Paypal dispute for the $155 - Jose will no doubt be aware of that already. Therefore the next move is his...

I appreciate everybody's feedback on this, so thank you. I paid $155 including shipping for a pair of "J Spec replica rear mudguards for the 2+0 Z32." The description stated, as Gary has said, that no changes were made to the design and that they would only fit the SWB. Based on that, I genuinely don't think that my assumptions regarding the spats were unfounded or unreasonable. What I am genuinely annoyed at is the prospect of forking out $130 on two lots of international shipping, just to receive a $89.99 refund. No matter which way you look at that, the maths simply doesn't add up!! Jose has then gone on to say that he was not aware of any variations, but that isn't my problem or my fault. If he wants to market a product to a specific vehicle derivative then the onus is on him to to do all and any research necessary to ensure that his product will fill the niche that he believes it will! Surely people can agree with that?? I'm gonna refer again to my scenario about the armrest: if someone on here had ordered a LWB armrest from me and I sent them a SWB one and then told them that "it would fit therefore it's fine", I would be staring at a thread filled with comments demanding that I sort it out as the error was mine and the customer shouldn't have to suffer just because I made a mistake!! My demands here aren't unreasonable in the slightest. I'm quite happy to send these spats down to FunkySi so he can take them over on his next trip - but I want $155 refunding first. How is that unreasonable? Why should I pay even $65 and have nothing at all to show for it? How many people reading this would honestly be in my position and not be pushing for a full refund? Well? For the record, I don't for a second believe that Ionic Dynamics intentionally marketted these incorrectly. The quality seems very good and their communication, until recently, was superb. But the fact remains that their product wasn't what they stated it was, so again I ask the question: How many people reading this would be in my position and not want a full refund?

C'mon then... who thinks I'm being unreasonable here? I'm genuinely interested to know.

I've highlighted something I feel is important in your response: Gary has owned a Z32 for many many years, whereas I haven't. He may be able to tell the two apart based on a side view, but I can't. So my decision to buy was based solely on your description, in which you clearly stated that these spats were for the 2+0 model and would not fit the 2+2. Now, the OEM Nissan spats for the 2+0 will not fit the longer car's bumper because the underside part is shorter and wider. As your site stated that these were directly moulded from original 2+0 mudguards and would not fit the 2+2, I believed I was ordering the part I wanted. I shouldn't need to check that you know exactly what you're supplying because your site and descriptions suggested that your knowledge was good. But that's obviously a lesson learned for myself here. I'd like you to explain how my "demands" are unreasonable please. My only "fault" here was trusting your knowledge and descriptions to be accurate, Jose! You want me to be out of pocket because your knowledge regarding a product that you make and sell was sadly lacking. Regards, Simon.

I've just changed my head unit so my old Kenwood is up for grabs. It's a KDC-BT8044U single DIN unit, with Bluetooth, USB, remote control and hands-free microphone. Full specs can be found here but I'll copy and paste some bits below. It's a very nice bit of kit and I've never had any issues with it whatsoever. My reason for changing it is simple: I wanted red illumination! The head unit comes with a cage, ISO harness (brand new), remote control and the hands-free mic - I don't have a case for the detachable faceplate, sadly. Looking for £80 delivered to your door. :)

If I lose the £18 odd I paid in Customs charges then it's not the end of the world, Andy. What I'm objecting to (in the Paypal dispute I've opened this morning) is the premise I'll have to pay international shipping twice (roughly $130 in total) and only be compensated for the cost of the parts themselves. As Tony so eloquently stated earlier: ignorance is no excuse!

I'm going to add to this as a suitable fictional analogy has come to mind: A member PMs me from across the water and asks me to make a central armrest cover for their 2+2 Zed. I tell them that I have a spare lid here so I'll trim that and send it to them. They pay the asking price including international shipping, and I get to work. When this member receives their new armrest, they find it's a little short at the back edge. This is because I've used a 2+0 lid when they asked for a 2+2 one. They say it's not what they ordered and ask for their money back. I explain that it will fit their car (because both lids use the same fixing points) and offer a refund on the work but not the overseas shipping. I also expect them to cover the cost of shipping the incorrect part back to me. As I said, the part will fit, but it won't look right. It's not the part the customer ordered and they are, quite rightly, very unhappy. So, what would I be expected to do in this hypothetical situation? 1. Accept that I got a customer's order very wrong and refund all their costs as the error was mine. 2. Continue to offer the refund for the part only, based on the premise that "it will actually fit, therefore it's what they ordered." Thoughts please, people...

Jose, I'll address your points in order here: 1. I am aware that it can be impolite, yes. Are you aware that it is both impolite and incredibly poor business practice to offer goods for sale that aren't what you claim them to be? I started this thread here because this is an enthusiasts forum, so there will undoubtedly be other people like me who desparately want the correct parts for our cars - it therefore stands to reason that there may well be other owners who look at your website and assume (based on your very specific description) that your rear spats are direct replicas of the specific 2+0 parts, rather than (as you state in your third point above) parts that have simply been moulded to fit that variant! 2. Because of the description on your website that explicitly stated these spats were for the 2+0 model only, I felt I shouldn't have to clarify anything as you were clearly a company that was familiar with the Z32. The onus is on your description to be accurate and factually correct, Jose. 3. You may have updated your site, but I was still mis-sold as you do not supply the items you advertise! And please don't type things like "don't cry that you've been mislead" - it comes across as very unprofessional and rather childish. 4. I did indeed receive the parts as they were pictured and yes, they will fit my car but, and I simply can't stress this enough to you, they are not the parts I expected when placing the order! Nissan obviously designed the two different shapes of rear spats to compliment the lines and shapes of the different bumpers. As you stated yourself in email, you weren't aware of the size differences between the two, but that is your problem as the supplier, not mine as the unfortunate recipient. I should not be forced to be so hugely out of pocket here just because your technical knowledge is lacking. At the very least, you should be offering to refund the cost of the items, the shipping and the Customs charges because, if your description had been accurate, I would never have incurred any of those charges. I assume that this matter will now be dealt with here on this thread as I've received no further emails from yourself. Regards, Simon.

I've already sent it, Si. I copied my last response to him on the previous page. I have a feeling that he'll stick to his guns though, regardless of his company's website being incorrect.

This link shows the difference between the two variants, Si.

I'm not prepared to send them at this point if I'm going to be £60 or so out of pocket, Si. I've explained to him that his website is incorrect and, had it been correct, I'd have never placed the order. I don't see why I should lose so much money simply because he wasn't aware of the differences. The OEM's came off a black 2+2 on eBay last year. Whilst they do fit my Shortie (as do the Ionic Dynamics ones), they're not the correct size and shape for the 2+0 rear bumper.

Okies, the black pair are the Nissan originals (for the LWB) and the grey pair are Ionic Dynamics' SWB replicas that apparently will not fit the LWB...

Nope. But I can take a photo of them next to the OEM Nissan pair I've got to show they're identical.

Hard to tell without seeing them from underneath, mate. But if they are the right ones and you do go for the Twinz ones, first dibs on those ones please!! :lol:

My response:

He may be offering a partial refund, but I'll still be out of pocket on shipping and Customs charges! The bit that really irks me is where he says he didn't realise there were any differences - to my mind, I've still been mis-sold and had to pay for the privilege when, if his description (and knowledge!) had been correct, I'd have never wasted my time and money...! Based on today's exchange rates, I'll be £60.42 out of pocket... and that doesn't even take into account the cost of shipping them back. That, to me, is unacceptable...

And the latest: Unhappy here!!!

No worries, mate :) I've explained at length in my reply why they're the wrong ones, but I still don't hold out much hope of getting any pennies back from them...

The LWB ones do fit the shorter car, but they're not designed for it specifically. Head. Battered!

I don't want to question your knowledge here, mate, but are you certain the ones you sent him were for the SWB? Cos if he's moulded mine from them, then they were the LWB ones. I'll wait and see what their next email says...

As I predicted: I've sent him Gary's picture of the two different versions side by side, but I reckon I'm on a losing streak with them... :(

Their website specifically states that these are for the 2+0, Gary - that's why I went for them. If it had said "300ZX rear spats" them I'd have questioned the hell out of them to make sure they were the right ones. Looks like Diesel will be wearing the LWB spats for the time being (probably forever)... :(