Liquidity Services Inc

September 9, 2015 Dear [redacted], Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the Liquidity Services is in violation of a buyer’s purchase...

agreement regarding the standard 90-day repair warranty. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his customer was told the warranty had expired. [redacted] has stated that he has purchased [redacted] and [redacted] items on Liquidation.com that come with a 90 day warranty. [redacted] has expressed that he is a reseller and would like the warranty to be extended to start when he sells the product to his client. He has stated that often the items are not sold to his clients for weeks after he has purchased them from Liquidation.com. Per our lot listings pages, we state a limited 90-day warranty is included with some of the electronic items we offer. We also state the items carry a 90-day repair warranty from the date of purchase. As such, we cannot extend the warranty to begin when the Liquidation.com customer has resold the items to another individual. The warranty period commences on the date of purchase from Liquidation.com, not the date of resale from the Liquidation.com buyer to their client. We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled accordingly. Regards,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services

March 20, 2015[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  [redacted]...

described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because she is unhappy with the quality of her merchandise.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 20 refurbished digital cameras and accessories purchased via Liquidation.com.  She is displeased with the condition of some of the lot and disagrees with the values advertised by the seller.  However, [redacted] did not file a dispute on the transaction within the 48-hour inspection period following delivery of the merchandise.  She has requested replacement items in her complaint letter to the Revdex.com.The funds for this transaction were released to the seller after the 48-hour window passed with no dispute filing received.  The Terms and Conditions for purchases are clear that the inspection period for dispute claims is 48 hours.  Since the funds had been released to the seller, they could not be recovered even if the dispute filing was allowed outside the window.  As a neutral arbiter, it would also be unfair to ignore the Terms and Conditions to favor one party’s claim over another.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary *. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

August 4, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
 
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she disagrees with the application of our company policies. 
[redacted] was the winning bidder of five auctions for lots of Returns condition merchandise purchased via Liquidation.com. She said that despite receiving an e-mail indication that her loads were ready for pickup, that her freight company was unable to retrieve her merchandise as expected. There was one shipment that was scheduled to be shipped while four others were set for pickup. When her freight company arrived, they were unable to retrieve the loads of merchandise because the number of pallets on the bill of lading paperwork did not match the request in the warehouse records. [redacted] was told that she would have to reschedule the pickup.

Company policy requires that pickup by third party freight companies be tightly managed to prevent fraud or theft. Since the paperwork did not match the warehouse records for pickup, the warehouse personnel could not release the merchandise. When a buyer arranges for pickup by a third party on Liquidation.com purchases, the buyer takes on the responsibility of securing accurate paperwork and coordinating the delivery between the third party and warehouse. Further, our company is unable to refund money paid to other parties so we cannot reimburse [redacted] for her payment to the freight company. 
We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. 
 
Regards,
Cary ** H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

January 7, 2015Mr. [redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  Ms. [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear Mr. [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] with the...

Revdex.com.  Ms. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreements for transaction IDs [redacted].  Ms. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because she disagrees with the application of our company policies.Ms. [redacted] was the winning bidder of five auction lots purchased via Liquidation.com.  She said that sales taxes had been charged to her and that she contacted our customer service department to receive a refund as she is an exempt reseller.  Ms. [redacted] had previously provided her resale certificate to Liquidation.com.  Therefore, she believes that she is owed $60.26 among the five transactions for sales taxes.However, the resale certificate that Ms. [redacted] provided was rejected because the address on her submission did not match the address on her Liquidation.com account.  She had also not included her Liquidation.com username on the form with the certificate.  Therefore, we were unable to verify that the address of the resale certificate belonged to Ms. [redacted].When our customer service personnel attempted to discuss the matter with her and provide instructions for fixing the problem, Ms. [redacted] became loud, argumentative and extremely uncooperative before disconnecting multiple calls herself.  She groundlessly accused our company of attempting to “steal her money.”  She then filed chargebacks on all five transactions.  Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it.  For this reason, Ms. [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.  Without her cooperation, we could not achieve a peaceable resolution to the problem.We regret that Ms. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.Regards,Cary C. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

October 14, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: [redacted] ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted]...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he is unhappy with the amount of his partial refund.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 100 holiday home goods in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 12, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the items he received were not in the condition advertised in the auction listing. He said that the most expensive item in the lot arrived damaged and unusable. He requested that the item be replaced with another of the same item in good condition or that $100 be paid as compensation as the list price for the item.
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that a partial refund would be appropriate for the damaged item at the unit price. A partial refund of $3.00 was processed to [redacted]’s account on September 25. [redacted] was also informed that a shipping damage claim had been filed with UPS on his behalf. We continue to await the outcome of that claim.
We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

October 7, 2016Dear [redacted]Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  [redacted] describes concerns he has around auction ID 11456776 which consisted of 59 units of Housewares - [redacted], [redacted], [redacted].  The lot...

was ‘returns’ condition.  This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and [redacted]’s bid of $216 was the winning bid on 9-23-2016.  The total transaction cost after applicable, taxes, shipping charges, and or buyer’s premium was $233.28.  The product was delivered to [redacted] on 9-27-2016, and [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] on 9-26-2016 for the amount of $216.[redacted]’s claim is his [redacted] account was charged twice for $216, and that repeated calls to the Customer Service department didn’t yield a satisfactory response. Our Finance department had difficulty locating the double charge because the payment amounts did not match.  One was for $233.28 and the other was for $216.Please note, [redacted]’s user account was de-activated because of the chargeback. Reference Section 9 from the Terms and Conditions:  Charge-Backs. If you attempt to rescind a credit card transaction without our express advance written consent (i.e., a "charge-back"), then we may immediately and permanently de-activate your account in our sole discretion. If you perform a charge-back after receiving the Assets, we may file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and reserve the right to pursue all remedies available to us to recover any and all incurred damages. Our Finance department confirmed they refunded [redacted] in the amount of $216 as of today (ref [redacted] transaction ID [redacted]).  [redacted]’s user account with Liquidity Services will also be re-activated once we see that the chargeback [redacted] filed with [redacted] has been closed.  [redacted] can contact us at [email protected] once the case is closed, and request reactivation.  Sending a screenshot of the closed case would help speed up that process.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.  We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address [redacted]’s claim. Regards,Darren M

[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K Street, NW, 10th FloorWashington, DC  20005-3404RE:  [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com....

 [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted].  [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because his dispute was initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in his favor.[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for 13 pallets of Home Depot seasonal product in Returns condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On January 1, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was missing units and grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that once the pallets were opened that they were missing shelving valued over $4,000 and that many other items that had been listed on the manifest accompanying the auction listing were absent.  Also, some of the items that were included seemed to be Salvage condition rather than Returns condition.  [redacted] indicated that 37 items were missing from among the 500 items in the sale and that many of those were higher value items.  He requested a replacement of the items missing from the manifest.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and initially denied it because [redacted] had taken possession of the items from our Las Vegas warehouse and signed a materials release form approving the sale.  As detailed in the pickup confirmation/instructions sent to [redacted], by signing the materials release form [redacted] waived his right to a dispute on the transaction after removal of the property from the warehouse.  This is company policy because we cannot fairly evaluate the condition of a lot after it leaves our possession, as items could be damaged or removed in transit.When [redacted] filed his dispute, he was properly denied by sound company policy; however, given the logistical difficulties of inspecting such a large load (13 pallets) on site, the buyer was encouraged to file a reopen request for a re-examination of his claim.  It was then determined that a partial refund of 25% of his purchase price would be issued.  A partial refund of $553.14 was processed to [redacted] on January 16.We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the partial refund payment.Regards,Cary *. H[redacted]Corporate ParalegalLiquidity Services, Inc.

August 1, 2014
 
Mr. David Dennis
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
 
RE: Mr. Thomas F. Wittek, ID# [redacted]
 
Dear [redacted]...

[redacted],
 
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction IDs 4415882, 4414695, [redacted] and other related transactions. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of these contracts because his dispute was initially denied. However, his request to reopen the claim is still being processed by our disputes team.
 
[redacted] was the winning bidder of auctions for football memorabilia, signed sports collectibles, and other collectibles in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On July 12, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented. [redacted] believed that the autographed goods that he had purchased were not authentic as well as the certificates of authenticity and sent them to an authenticator to verify his claim. He requested a full refund for the purchase and the fees paid to the authenticator, for a total of $2,900.00.
 
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that the claim could not be honored because his support failed to conclusively show that the signatures and certificates of authenticity were not valid. [redacted] responded to the disputes team and requested to reopen the dispute. He has disputed not only these transactions, but several other transactions previously as a Liquidation.com user. [redacted]’s account has been disabled on multiple occasions for failure to pay the seller and for credit card chargebacks, which violate the terms and conditions of Liquidation.com.
 
The dispute is still under consideration, as [redacted] has resubmitted his evidence for his case on July 25, 2014.
 
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Mr. [redacted],
 
Please accept the attached response to the initial compliant
for [redacted], ID [redacted].
 
Thank You,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Better...

Business Bureau. Mr. [redacted] described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that he had over fifty percent of the items missing from auction ID [redacted] and his account was inaccessible after his claim was approved by our customer relations department. Mr. [redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of tools-nailer kits, twin stack compressor on Liquidation.com. On August 6th, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that over half of the items on the original manifest were missing. Mr. [redacted] requested the remainder of the items be made available to him instead of a partial refund. Our disputes team reviewed Mr. [redacted]’s claim and concluded that a full refund would be issued upon return delivery of the items. As such, his claim was honored, a [redacted] pickup was arranged and a bill of lading was sent to Mr. [redacted]. Our customer relations department communicated to Mr. [redacted] that his dispute had been honored and a full refund would be issued to his account upon return delivery. The pickup request was scheduled for August 19th between the hours of 12pm-5pm and would be picked up no later than August 20th if [redacted] was unable to pick up due to any unforeseen circumstances. A bill of lading was sent in a separate email for Mr. [redacted] to attach to the package for pickup. Our customer relations department also expressed to Mr. [redacted] once the seller had received the items, two days are allowed for inspection. We regret that Mr. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, however, we feel this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. Regards, Amanda O[redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity Services

October 14, 2014 
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
 
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the...

complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns she had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 30 designer handbags in Used condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On September 10, she filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the shipment she received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. [redacted] said that the handbags she received did not match the photos in the auction listing. She said that the handbags were very outdated and that some did not even have brand identification on them. Additionally, she had expected them to be genuine leather and they were not. She provided photos in support of her dispute and requested a full refund.
Our disputes team reviewed [redacted]’s claim and concluded that it could not be honored because the auction listing was accurate. The listing stated that “You will be receiving items similar to the ones in the pictures.” The photo evidence provided showed that [redacted] received 30 handbags that were “Designer Inspired Bags.” The auction also did not specify that only genuine leather items would be sent or what quantity of genuine leather would be included.
Further, [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] for the transaction. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited in our User Agreement because the buyer maintains possession of merchandise without paying for it. For this reason, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was de-activated.
We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. 
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

November 21, 2014
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
 Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted]...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services, Inc. were in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believed that our company was in breach of this contract because his dispute was initially denied, but we have since settled the matter in his favor.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of 1,000 name brand handbags and jewelry sets in Shelf Pulls condition purchased via Liquidation.com. On October 10, he filed a dispute with our Customer Relations Department asserting that the merchandise he received was grossly misrepresented by the seller in the auction listing. He said that the [redacted] Elements Crystal Necklaces and matching earrings that he received as part of the lot were counterfeit items. He requested a full refund.
Once the dispute was received, our team contacted the seller about the [redacted] Elements items in the lot. The seller provided information regarding the purchase of the items and also stressed that the eight (8) items in concern were well under the 50 items allowed under the 5% quantity variance for the auction. Therefore, a claim should be denied and funds released to the seller. Since the disputed items were below the quantity variance threshold, we informed [redacted] that his dispute had been denied.
[redacted] then asked for a more thorough description of our decision. An e-mail was sent to him the same day of his Revdex.com submission providing the relevant details and decision-making process of the disputes team. Then [redacted] asked to reopen the matter, as he was certain that he could have the items certified as inauthentic. After discussing the matter further with our disputes team, it was determined that a full refund would be appropriate upon return to the entire lot. After confirmation of receipt, a full refund of $187.25 was processed to [redacted]’s account on November 18.
We apologize for any inconvenience experienced by [redacted] and consider the matter closed with the refund payment.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.

Dear [redacted],Please accept this response in regards to the complaint submitted by [redacted], ID [redacted].RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described...

concerns she had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services was in violation of a buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because her dispute was denied.[redacted] bid on an auction for one lot of video games for [redacted] One & More (returns) items on Liquidation.com. On January 11th she filed a claim with our disputes department and stated the items were not in the condition listed and were grossly misrepresented. She also stated “13 of these games which is more than half of the lot are opened and I cannot get them to work”. [redacted] requested a partial refund.Our disputes team reviewed [redacted] claim and denied her claim based on the condition being listed as returns and the verbiage contained in this lot “these items are sold as is where is. No manufacturer warranty is expressed or implied.” However, this dispute was escalated to management and it was decided that all items were powered on and tested before being sold. As such, management has agreed to a partial refund.On January 29th, our disputes team informed [redacted] that a partial refund in the amount of $288.92 would be issued back to her. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused, as a routine practice our Liquidation.com team will be editing further auction listings so that there are no differing statements.We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled accordingly.Regards, Amanda O[redacted] Compliance Associate Liquidity ServicesThank You,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services

May 18, 2016Dear Mr. [redacted]Please accept this response to the complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] with the Revdex.com.  Mr. [redacted] describes concerns he has around transaction ID [redacted] which consisted of 11 units of Signed Hockey Merch - Connor McDavid, Jack Eichel, M. Fleury....

 The lot was listed as ‘shelf pulls’ condition.  Among other things, the lot was said to contain 4 signed and certified items as per the manifest on the auction. This auction was listed on www.liquidation.com and Mr. [redacted]’s bid of $100 was the winning bid on 4-23-2016.  The total transaction cost after taxes and shipping charges was $145.25.  The product was delivered to Mr. [redacted] on 4-27-2016, and Mr. [redacted] filed a dispute with us on 4-27-2016 which stated the following:I have received the products stated and came to find out there is only one certificate of authentication and that is on the Eichele. The collection that I receved is worth about 50 cent and the cards are worn and yellowed. This person should not be allowed to sell this crap on your site. I''m starting to see that you allow anyone to sell anything on your site with prices and descriptions that aren''t even close to what is received. I was sent like 30+ of the same junk that are worthless. I will be filling a claim with [redacted] if something is not done.Mr. [redacted]’s claim in the Revdex.com complaint essentially mirrors the claim and correspondence submitted to Liquidation.com for this transaction.   Our disputes department facilitated a return shipment from Mr. [redacted] back to the seller on the grounds that the merchandise was misrepresented.  Upon receiving the return shipment, the seller filed a counter claim charging that Mr. [redacted] failed to include multiple items in the return shipment which in turn lead to additional commentary from both parties including video footage of the seller going through the contents of the return shipment.  Ultimately, the amount refunded to Mr. [redacted] was based on the items the seller verified were returned, weighted against MSRP value in proportion to Mr. [redacted]’s winning bid amount, resulting in a partial refund of $36. Please note Section 19 Disputes Among Users in our Terms and Conditions;  While we may help facilitate the resolution of disputes between buyers and sellers using any of our marketplaces on our Site, we have no control over and do not guarantee the existence, quality, safety or legality of Assets advertised; the truth or accuracy of users' content or Listings; the ability of sellers to sell Assets; the ability of buyers to pay for Assets; or that a buyer or seller will actually complete a transaction or return an Asset or payment for an Asset.  When a user issue arises, we may consider the user's performance history and the specific circumstances in applying our User Agreement. We may choose to be more lenient with policy enforcement in order to do the right thing for both buyers and sellers in our sole discretion.Mr. [redacted] filed a chargeback with [redacted] on 5-17-2016 which is the reason why his account with Liquiddation.com is and will remain de-activated per our Terms and Conditions, which buyers agree to prior to participating on our marketplace.  Reference Section 9 from the Terms and Conditions:  Charge-Backs. If you attempt to rescind a credit card transaction without our express advance written consent (i.e., a "charge-back"), then we may immediately and permanently de-activate your account in our sole discretion. If you perform a charge-back after receiving the Assets, we may file charges with the appropriate law enforcement agency, and reserve the right to pursue all remedies available to us to recover any and all incurred damages.Liquidation.com offers a wide variety of bulk wholesale merchandise to cater to the unique needs of professional buyers. We regret that Mr. [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com, and as a one-time courtesy we will refund the remaining costs of Mr. [redacted]’s transaction in the amount of $109.25 if Mr. [redacted] contact’s [redacted] and closes the claim.  Mr. [redacted] can notify us when the [redacted] claim is closed by emailing us at [redacted].We wish to thank you for allowing Liquidation.com a chance to address Mr. [redacted]’s claim. Regards,Darren M[redacted]Sr. Manager, Customer SupportLiquidity Services

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

April 1, 2015Dear [redacted],We appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the claims associated with [redacted]’s auction participation.All potential buyers are informed of the auction procedures and agree to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration as well as upon...

placement of their bids. Our records indicate that [redacted] agreed to the Terms and Conditions at the time of registration and when [redacted] placed a bid on Government Liquidation’s website.[redacted] bid on Lot [redacted] from Event [redacted], a safe. The event opened on January 21, 2015 and closed on January 23, 2015. [redacted] placed a bid amount of $507.00 on January 22" at 5:39 p.m. (Eastern Time). The high bidder placed a bid amount of $829.00 and was awarded the property on January 23rd at 5:05 p.m. (Eastern Time). Supporting documentation has been included along with this response letter.Our records do not indicate that the auction was extended or that any technical issues occurred. Nevertheless, all auction participants must determine the details of the auction and participate accordingly, Section 6 of the Terms and Conditions relays the bidder’s responsibility if changes do occur to any auction listing:Each bidder is solely responsible for checking the Site or taking such other actions as are appropriate to learn of changes to a Listing, including changes to a closing date or time. We will not be responsible for notifying any buyer of a change in any Listing. The buyer bears the sole risk of transmitting bids so that such bids are received prior to close of the Online Auction. We will not accept a bid that is received after an Online Auction is closed.However, as previously mentioned, the auction in which [redacted] placed a bid did not have any changes.Based upon the information mentioned above, Government Liquidation is unable to further accommodate [redacted]’s request.Again, Government Liquidation wishes to thank you for allowing us to address the claims mentioned.Regards, Cary H. Corporate Paralegal Liquidity Services, Inc

June 24, 2015Dear [redacted], Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted] * with the Revdex.com. [redacted] * described concerns he had as a bidder on our website, stating that the seller and Liquidity Services did not honor his bid for auction ID [redacted]...

** believes that our seller denied his bid due to his bid amount.[redacted] * bid on an auction for one lot of 7,750 [redacted] Bobblehead items on Liquidation.com. The sale closed on June 5th and [redacted] * contacted our customer service team the next business day to inquire about the sale as he had not yet received an invoice.After a thorough review, [redacted] * was notified by our customer relations management that there was a listing error for auction ID [redacted] and unfortunately, the lot would not be sold and had been removed from the website. As such, an invoice was not generated as the items were not sold. Due to this listing error, all bids from all buyers participating in the sale were voided. Per our terms and conditions, we reserve the right to review, edit or remove any Listing that we believe is inaccurate. Although listing errors are infrequent occurrences, Liquidity Services may immediately remove a listing to review and ensure accuracy. We regret that [redacted] * was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace. Regards,Amanda O[redacted]Compliance AssociateLiquidity Services

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The liquidation team is sidestepping the question/problem about how their auctions are listed. For the auction in question and all other auctions by the same seller on liquidation.com the only information on which to base value are the pictures and listed MSRP.  There is no other information available on these auctions that can be used to judge their value. There is no other amount of research that can be performed to determine the value of these lots. What liquidation is telling me is that I cannot use pictures or MSRP to determine the value of the lots. Therefore what other purposes are the MSRP and pictures provided for other than to mislead the buyer. Please tell me what other research I could have done to know that they were going to send me items that were not representative of the pictures or MSRP that was listed.
Regards,
[redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution will be satisfactory if and when I see the money deposited in my [redacted] account. I have already been deactivated from a site I had purchased from for the last few years. I did call [redacted] and they said once the dispute is recinded I cannot file it again if I do not receive the refund. I am willing to cancel the dispute when the refund is deposited. My complaint is more with the seller then with the liquidity service. (but were not able to contact the seller)
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I do not wish to pay for damaged items.  It is unfair that a customer has to pay for damaged merchandise when no where in the item description this was stated.  Sufficient proof of damage was provided.  Liquidation.com did not dispute the validity of the damage when I reported the issue directly to them.  Therefore, I should be refunded the FULL amount that I paid.  Thank you.
Regards,
[redacted]

August 27, 2014 
[redacted]
Revdex.com
1411 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3404
RE: [redacted], ID# [redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Please accept this response to the complaint filed by [redacted]...

[redacted] with the Revdex.com. [redacted] described concerns he had as a buyer on our website, stating that Liquidity Services, Inc. was in violation of buyer’s purchase agreement for transaction ID [redacted]. [redacted] believes that our company is in breach of this contract because he disagrees with the application of our company policies.
[redacted] was the winning bidder of an auction for a lot of two (2) refurbished [redacted] computers purchased via Liquidation.com. He said that he discovered that one of the computers had a broken power switch that did not allow it to be turned on or off. The computer came with a 90-day warranty so he called the 800 service number and arranged to send his unit for repair. When his computer was returned to him, the power switch was still broken and it appeared to [redacted] that nothing had been fixed with the computer at all. He had a frustrating time finding resolution through the customer service personnel and ultimately had his account deactivated.

According to the transaction detail, [redacted]’s Liquidation.com user account was deactivated due to him making threatening remarks to a customer service employee. Additionally, [redacted] filed a chargeback for the transaction on May 6th, prior to filing his complaint with the Revdex.com. Chargebacks are specifically prohibited under the Liquidation.com user agreement that [redacted] signed when registering with our website. This action would have triggered a de-activation of his Liquidation.com user account had it not already been suspended. Chargebacks are not allowed because the buyer typically maintains possession of merchandise without providing the funds to pay for it. Once an account holder violates the chargeback provision, we can no longer pursue a remedy because that individual has ignored our disputes process.
We regret that [redacted] was dissatisfied with the auction services provided by Liquidation.com; however, we feel that this matter was handled in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Liquidation.com marketplace.
Regards,
Cary *. H[redacted]
Corporate Paralegal
Liquidity Services, Inc.