2024 NIKE SB DUNK THREAD_____GRs and QSs added

Probably tiffs. Again. That would be the 4th time? Restock yoths or somps. But that definitely won't happen.
 
31st states didn't release in anything smaller than a 7 on NDC---how magically they gon' have a 6 and 6.5??

#suspect
They did tho. Got my pair from Premier. Nike just didn't sell them. They're always suspect with saying what starts at size 7 or 8 and then I see a 6 pop up on flight club for some exorbitant fee. 
 
Also what's the point of restocking Bp's when Ndc has a fsr. I did just see lm's on a list, but it's a different list also claiming a red October restock so it could be bs
 
laugh.gif
I said "on NDC".... meaning on that website, they didn't release anything smaller than a 7.
ah. Missed that part. My bad. Like I said, they're always shady with that. 
 
^ true...

my thing is according to that list , which is the master NDC restock list, they have Cali's restocking in sizes smaller than a 7. Just seems odd to me since those sizes weren't available to begin with.
 
I disagree...in my opinion, the seller is completely off the hook for any QC issues, whether mentioned or not, as long as they don't affect wearability (rips/tears/separation/etc.).

I can understand the disappointment, but asking for a partial refund is completely unreasonable in my opinion.
pics from the original listing. No signs of anything wrong in the pics. I find it kind interesting some of you think the seller has zero blame here. My perspective is, I don't want the sneakers - I would've never purchased them had these flaws been shown to me. So what are my options? Try to get a refund or flip them myself. Just as a seller in general, not even a sneakerhead, I would never try to hide a flaw like in an ebay listing. To me it's dishonest but whatever.
So you're saying if I list something (that is brand new) with a stock image, and the item has a defect from the FACTORY, something that is 100% out of my control...that a buyer could file a dispute against me?

FOH.

Lemme know your eBay usernames so I can throw you on the block list rq.
I LITERALLY couldn't disagree with you more. It is the SELLER'S OBLIGATION to show all flaws, whether affecting wearability or not, and if you don't that is both dishonest AND against most marketplace rules (whether the marketplace be Kixify, eBay, etc) or even against the law. There's a reason that Significantly Not As Described is a viable PayPal claim to make. The defects of the shoe are obviously not in the control of the seller, but showing the flaws is entirely in the seller's control. You and I both know how crazy shoe geeks can get about minor or major flaws. For me, if that happened, I wouldn't even contact the guy I'd just file a dispute immediately. It's one thing to list stock photos if your pair is Brand New without flaws or defects. It is another thing entirely to list a brand new pair with defects and have stock photos with no mention in the description of those flaws. It is actually illegal to misrepresent your product like that. It is tortuous to misrepresent any product so long as it can result in monetary loss. In this instance, say he wanted to buy the shoes to save and resell. Well, now he may not be able to resell because of the factory flaws that were not listed. This is an offense that you can be sued for, generally so long as the monetary loss is significant enough. I don't see how it's somehow alright to do something illegal on a smaller scale.
 
Back
Top Bottom