How do I legally enforce my rights in a private sale ?

masculinist

An adverts.ie seller with 200 positive rep and no negatives who invited me invited me into his house and sold me a phone he claimed only needed unlocking while behaving very politely and insisting the phone only needed unlocking and if theres any issue whatsoever I can ''return the phone and I know where he lives.''

I think thats a scenario that reasonable people would find easy to take a chance on
However...

When I got the unlock code at home later, it turned out the phone was blacklisted. He had fraudulently sold me a phone which cant be unlocked and cant be used. He had lied to me.

According to the Gardai , the phone is not reported stolen. Therefore he must have sold me a phone for which he had not paid the contract.

Went to sellers house 3 hours after sale and stood my ground, his personality changed jekyl and hyde style and he threatened violence but I wasn't having any of it. I kept the conversation rational.
Then he claims he spent some of the money on a ''takeaway'' and to pay off debts he had etc. He ended up giving me half back saying he didnt have any more. I said he will be seeing a lot of me at his door if he doesnt pay up.

The small claims court seems to only deal with businesses. Its obvious that a phone which is permanently unusable is unfit for purpose. Is there any way I can enforce the agreement for him to either give my money back in full of give me a working phone ?

bren2002

Sorry. You've no rights here, it's a private sale. Buyer beware. Frankly you're lucky you got half the money back.

masculinist

bren2002 wrote: »

Sorry. You've no rights here, it's a private sale. Buyer beware. Frankly you're lucky you got half the money back.

its not fraud ? His adverts description and the actual product are at odds with one another.

bren2002

You're right it is fraudulent activity. But you have no 'rights' to enforce against an individual.

Caveat emptor.

P. Breathnach

While consumer legislation does not apply to your situation, you do have rights under the law of contract. The seller misrepresented the goods that he was supplying to you, and if you can prove that (a copy of the advertisement would be very useful) you should be able to win a case easily enough.

But...

Taking an issue like this to the court is cumbersome and expensive, and there is always some little uncertainty about the outcome, so it might not be worth your while. That is why the Small Claims Court was set up, but it is not available to you if the vendor is not a business.

Toots

The guards are probably your best option I'd say. Although whether they'll do anything is another matter.

Denny_Crane

You *might* have an argument for dealing in the course of business with 200+ transactions, depending on what period it's over. That would allow you to use the Small Claim Procedure, however it doesn't really matter how you go to court, the chances are you'd win and then be unable to enforce - as the old adage goes, you can't get blood from a stone.

In regard to keep turning up to his door that's textbook harassment so bear in mind you would at best end up with a friendly word from a Guard and at worst a criminal record for your trouble.

Sucks but I think just move on, I don't buy anything from adverts I can't verify there and then.

AndrewJRenko

Have you done adverts feedback and/or reported the seller to adverts?

P. Breathnach

Toots wrote: »

The guards are probably your best option I'd say. Although whether they'll do anything is another matter.

They'll do nothing; it's a civil matter.

P. Breathnach

Denny_Crane wrote: »

You *might* have an argument for dealing in the course of business with 200+ transactions, depending on what period it's over. That would allow you to use the Small Claim Procedure....

Worth considering, especially if all or most of the stuff sold was of a similar category, such as consumer electronics.

masculinist

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you done adverts feedback and/or reported the seller to adverts?

This is a guy who threatened to stab me when I called over to his door to state the obvious , that he intentionally sold a blacklisted phone. However I still managed to walk away with over half my money back and still have the phone which is good damage limitation I suppose.
I am keeping up the pressure for more. I am of the view that using getting his account banned while watching his comments is extra leverage. I don't want them to ban the account while I can still reason with and apply pressure on this erratic person. If he engages in any more selling over the weekend I am there to derail it and protect the innocent by watching his comments but while his account is not banned he then has more to lose. I need to engage with adverts properly. One problem is the email I would use to contact adverts which is associated with my account there has a double verification check via phone. And I dont have a phone for my sim card for now. Therefore I wouldnt get to see any reply. Also , Im unaware if a report leads to the emailing of a second stage in the report process which would then go nowhere while Im locked out of my email. Is it possible to phone adverts or call into adverts in person ? I know they have offices on Golden Lane in Dublin 2

Spocker

You can contact Adverts Support on support@adverts.ie

See here: https://help.adverts.ie/hc/en-us/articles/201420691-I-think-I-have-been-victim-of-a-scam

Spocker

masculinist wrote: »

I don't want them to ban the account while I can still reason with and apply pressure on this erratic person. If he engages in any more selling over the weekend I am there to derail it and protect the innocent by watching his comments but while his account is not banned he then has more to lose. I need to engage with adverts properly.

Please don't do this.

masculinist wrote: »

I need to engage with adverts properly.

^^ Do this instead; there is a process for dealing with situations like this

nhunter100

masculinist wrote:

An adverts.ie seller with 200 positive rep and no negatives who invited me invited me into his house and sold me a phone he claimed only needed unlocking while behaving very politely and insisting the phone only needed unlocking and if theres any issue whatsoever I can ''return the phone and I know where he lives.''

As per your thread title, private sale no rights. 'Buyer beware'. There is a Latin phrase but why bother.

L1011

If he has threatened to stab you, the Gardai should be interested in this from that angle.

TerrorFirmer

Unless the phone was worth a serious amount of money surely you're better off just moving on and learning from the experience? You got half your money back and you still have the phone, you can sell it on Ebay or similar and get most of the money back that way. At the end of the day it was a private sale.

Also, you say you called to his house, he threatened violence and to stab you - but you hung around until he went on to hand over half the money? Truth can be stranger than fiction but it all sounds a bit odd.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Unless the phone was worth a serious amount of money surely you're better off just moving on and learning from the experience? You got half your money back and you still have the phone, you can sell it on Ebay or similar and get most of the money back that way. At the end of the day it was a private sale.

Sell on a phone that the OP is complaining about because it's unusable? That makes little sense.

pleasant Co.

Iris Limited Whole-wheat wrote: »

Sell on a phone that the OP is complaining about because it's unusable? That makes little sense.

People buy things for their parts too.

P. Breathnach

nhunter100 wrote: »

As per your thread title, private sale no rights. 'Buyer beware'. There is a Latin phrase but why bother.

I wish people would not persist with this canard. You do have rights in a private sale. It's simply that the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act does not apply. The law of contract does.

bren2002

Iris Limited Whole-wheat wrote: »

Sell on a phone that the OP is complaining about because it's unusable? That makes little sense.

Pretty sure that the network block is country specific too, so a phone blocked here would work abroad. (worth doubling checking this though)

guil

bren2002 wrote: »

Pretty sure that the network block is country specific too, so a phone blocked here would work abroad. (worth doubling checking this though)

Yes that's true as long as it's unlocked. Quiet often it will only be blacklisted on one network as well so could be blacklisted on metoer but work on three, Vodafone etc.

coylemj

guil wrote: »

Yes that's true as long as it's unlocked. Quiet often it will only be blacklisted on one network as well so could be blacklisted on metoer but work on three, Vodafone etc.

A locked phone is not 'blacklisted' anywhere, the phone itself will not work except with a sim from the locked network provider.

Put another way, if a phone is locked to Vodafone and you put a retired O2 or 3 sim into it, it will reject the sim without even attempting to talk to any network.

Each sim has a code showing the country (353) and the network code within that country - a Vodafone sim has '35301 and an O2 sim shows '35302' so if a phone is locked to Vodafone, it means that it will reject any sim that doesn't have the Vodafone (35301) code.

guil

coylemj wrote: »

A locked phone is not 'blacklisted' anywhere, the phone itself will not work except with a sim from the locked network provider.

Put another way, if a phone is locked to Vodafone and you put a retired O2 or 3 sim into it, it will reject the sim without even attempting to talk to any network.

Each sim has a code showing the country (353) and the network code within that country - a Vodafone sim has '35301 and an O2 sim shows '35302' so if a phone is locked to Vodafone, it means that it will reject any sim that doesn't have the Vodafone (35301) code.

Where did I say any different? The op said the phone was unlocked when he got home only to find it was blacklisted. I was simply saying any phone that is blacklisted is usually only in the country it was primarily used in.

Also why the need to quote the MNC's?

mickzer

guil wrote: »

Where did I say any different? The op said the phone was unlocked when he got home only to find it was blacklisted. I was simply saying any phone that is blacklisted is usually only in the country it was primarily used in.

Also why the need to quote the MNC's?

But the OP said it couldn't be unlocked:

When I got the unlock code at home later, it turned out the phone was blacklisted. He had fraudulently sold me a phone which cant be unlocked and cant be used. He had lied to me.

jimmycrackcorm

mickzer wrote:

When I got the unlock code at home later, it turned out the phone was blacklisted. He had fraudulently sold me a phone which cant be unlocked and cant be used. He had lied to me.

You knowingly bought a locked phone. Tempted by a seemingly good deal, you're now paying the price. Caveat Emptor ...

mickzer

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You knowingly bought a locked phone. Tempted by a seemingly good deal, you're now paying the price. Caveat Emptor ...

No, I didn't...:D:D:D

newacc2015

AFAIK blacklisting covers a huge amount of countries, but not all. That phone will likely work in China or Brazil. Maybe sell it to a Brazilian or Chinese person for use in their own country?

I would would leave a review for this guy. If he was 200 positive reviews, one seriously bad one about selling a blacklisted phone could damage his potential sales. It might be enough to get him to act more rational.

coylemj

OP said the phone couldn't be unlocked and that it was blacklisted, they are completely separate issues. A locked phone will refuse to work unless you use a sim from the network which has the lock on the phone. If a phone is blacklisted, it literally means that the IMEI is on a black list so none of the local networks will talk to it, even with a valid sim. Reason the Gardai don't know about it is probably because it was stolen in NI or GB. Putting a phone on a blacklist usually means it has been stolen which is why a lot of phones which have been stolen end up in far flung countries like Algeria, or they are sold to people looking for a bargain.

masculinist

coylemj wrote: »

OP said the phone couldn't be unlocked and that it was blacklisted, they are completely separate issues. A locked phone will refuse to work unless you use a sim from the network which has the lock on the phone. If a phone is blacklisted, it literally means that the IMEI is on a black list so none of the local networks will talk to it, even with a valid sim. Reason the Gardai don't know about it is probably because it was stolen in NI or GB. Putting a phone on a blacklist usually means it has been stolen which is why a lot of phones which have been stolen end up in far flung countries like Algeria, or they are sold to people looking for a bargain.

I sent a pm to Vodafone forum moderators with the IMEI to ask if they have any advice. According to the degenerate who sold me this phone, it was a Vodafone contract he didnt honor [now to the pedants who are focused on irrelevent information instead of on helping me, I will tell you this piece of salient information only came out when I returned to his house and of course you can never ever trust a liar]. I went to the Gardai immediately with the phone to tell them I wanted no hand act or part in receiving stolen goods and wanted it to go back to its owner - if it was stolen. They said it wasnt on any list and did not ask for or want possession of it even though I offered. I cant do any more than I have done. I have possession of this phone and nobody else seems to have any claim over it. I think someone said that an IMEI identifies its country. If so then it has similar digits to my original Irish phones IMEI.
However Garda did say it was a civil matter. I didnt mention the stabbing threat, but I did say how violent and abusive the person became. Perhaps I simply had a lot on my mind and had reined in thoughts of that in order to stay calm. However the Gardai did know him by the same name and number I knew him and at that address. So its quite clear who he is.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I wish people would not persist with this canard. You do have rights in a private sale. It's simply that the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act does not apply. The law of contract does.

+1. As the seller and I sat at his kitchen table, he offered me a drink and told me how he had been "ripped off in the past by being sold a blacklisted phone and hence would never do that to anyone else ever as its a terrible terrible thing". And all this phone needed was to be unlocked and if theres any problems at all he warranties that I can bring it back. Thats 100% clear. Unfortunately I'm not used to dealing with degenerates and liars especially ones who aren't embarrassed to do this from their own home.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Unless the phone was worth a serious amount of money surely you're better off just moving on and learning from the experience? You got half your money back and you still have the phone, you can sell it on Ebay or similar and get most of the money back that way. At the end of the day it was a private sale.

Also, you say you called to his house, he threatened violence and to stab you - but you hung around until he went on to hand over half the money? Truth can be stranger than fiction but it all sounds a bit odd.

Well . Not everyone is a millennial weakling. I couldnt leave that person without my money and still have no phone. Thats ridiculous especially if like many people are saying, the Gardai cant help. If I hadnt approached his house immediately and been assertive yet polite yet also loud and if I had flinched when he changed personality Jekyl and Hyde style then I am sure I wouldnt have got a bean from him. I called his bluff. He didnt seem to expect me. Of course I was civilized but I wanted his neighbours to hear what he did. One way or another, I have a feeling he might have done this before and probably the sucker unlike me felt too embarrassed or scared to return which I can well understand. It was a highly unusual night and yes truth is definitely stranger than fiction.
One thing is definite. If I dont get repaid , I will consider putting this guy on YouTube and writing a letter to all of his neighbours.
In the meantime I will contact adverts and print out screenshots of the advert as advised by Spocker earlier in the thread.

guil

Vodafone won't answer anything specific because you're not the account holder. Sheena has stated before that Vodafone don't blacklist phones that were got on a contract not honoured.

coylemj

OP, have you tried a Vodafone sim in that phone? If it works then it's a contractual matter as the phone is still locked to Vodafone. If it doesn't then it is blacklisted which means it was probably stolen.

ED E

guil wrote: »

Sheena has stated before that Vodafone don't blacklist phones that were got on a contract not honoured.

I'm skeptical that its true. And even if it is, Insurance companies will for sure.

masculinist

coylemj wrote: »

OP, have you tried a Vodafone sim in that phone? If it works then it's a contractual matter as the phone is still locked to Vodafone. If it doesn't then it is blacklisted which means it was probably stolen.

It already had a vodafone sim in it . No sim worked. The Gardai told me its blacklisted but not reported stolen. They would not take it off me. It was for sale for a long time too. More than enough time for a hypothetical third party owner to report it stolen.

gctest50

masculinist wrote: »

It already had a vodafone sim in it . No sim worked. The Gardai told me its blacklisted but not reported stolen. They would not take it off me. It was for sale for a long time too. More than enough time for a hypothetical third party owner to report it stolen.

All he has to do is say he had 2 or 3 phones for sale and you opted for the blacklisted/locked one .....then when you failed to unblock it you came back shouting the place down

masculinist wrote: »

One thing is definite. If I dont get repaid , I will consider putting this guy on YouTube and writing a letter to all of his neighbours.
.

Send letters to his neighbours ? You'll end up in court

You've no proof of anything

masculinist wrote: »

An adverts.ie seller with 200 positive rep and no negatives

lawred2

What would be in the letter to his neighbors?

Winterlong

OP, it looks like the legal route is not an option for you here. But sending letters to his neighbours and putting some video on youtube will not achieve anything. Trying to embarrass someone like that will not work.

It sucks getting ripped off but apart from leaving a bad review and reporting him to adverts there is not much else you can do. Best advice really is to move on.

guil

ED E wrote: »

I'm skeptical that its true. And even if it is, Insurance companies will for sure.

I know for a fact it's true. I had a contract for 2 phones with Vodafone about 1.5 years ago that I couldn't pay. Neither phone was blacklisted and both were used until September gone.

masculinist

gctest50 wrote: »

All he has to do is say he had 2 or 3 phones for sale and you opted for the blacklisted/locked one .....then when you failed to unblock it you came back shouting the place down

Nope. Why would I shout the place down. I merely arrived bringing my masculinist energy. Not everyone is a limp wristed millennial thankfully. Theres a clear record of which phone I agreed to buy and that phone was the only one for sale in his profile . And it was taken off when it was sold to me. And the phone is advertised as only needing ''unlocking costing ten euro'' . The degenerate even writes a spiel in the ad about how ''he was a victim of someone selling him a blacklisted phone and hed never do that to anyone ever'' . A total con man. Only a stupid one doing business from his home.

gctest50 wrote: »

Send letters to his neighbours ? You'll end up in court

My second time in court. The first time I won my case. This con man is well known in the courts as a petty criminal by the way.

gctest50 wrote: »

You've no proof of anything

I have tons of proof.

Peregrinus

masculinist wrote: »

I have tons of proof.

If you're alleging fraud, what you need is proof that, at the time he said things to you that were untrue, he knew they were untrue. "I'm sure he knew!" and "he must have known!" and the like are not proof. Fraud requires active and intentional dishonesty, and the required standard of proof is high. Ignorance, carelessness, indifference to the truth - these things are not fraud. Nothing you have said in the thread so far suggests you have proof of fraud.

So, drop the fraud angle. Unless you have evidence that you have not mentioned here, you are not going to succeed in any claim which depends on an allegation of fraud.

A better angle to pursue might be to challenge the view that he is not dealing in the course of business, and so doesn't have the obligations that a business owes to a consumer and can't be pursued through the small claims procedure. If he has 200+ positive reps on adverts.ie, he's obviously selling on quite a scale. Might be worth raising this over on the legal issues board. (Note that they'll squash you from a great height if you ask for legal advice on your own situation, but if you raise the general question of how much dealing someone has to be doing to be viewed as dealing "in the course of business" for the purposes of the small claims procedure, that might help.)

masculinist

masculinist wrote: »

Went to sellers house 3 hours after sale and stood my ground, his personality changed jekyl and hyde style and he threatened violence but I wasn't having any of it. I kept the conversation rational.
Then he claims he spent some of the money on a ''takeaway'' and to pay off debts he had etc. He ended up giving me half back saying he didnt have any more. I said he will be seeing a lot of me at his door if he doesnt pay up.

Whatever about consumer rights or Gardai or all that nonsense, fair play to you for standing your ground masculinist!

99% of people would simply have accepted it and moaned on here without ever intending to do anything. Hat's as high in the air as it can go for you. You're dead right to challenge him on it.

Reading that has actually cheered me up this morning.


Hope it works out for you.

masculinist

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're alleging fraud, what you need is proof that, at the time he said things to you that were untrue, he knew they were untrue. "I'm sure he knew!" and "he must have known!" and the like are not proof. Fraud requires active and intentional dishonesty, and the required standard of proof is high. Ignorance, carelessness, indifference to the truth - these things are not fraud. Nothing you have said in the thread so far suggests you have proof of fraud.

So, drop the fraud angle. Unless you have evidence that you have not mentioned here, you are not going to succeed in any claim which depends on an allegation of fraud.

A better angle to pursue might be to challenge the view that he is not dealing in the course of business, and so doesn't have the obligations that a business owes to a consumer and can't be pursued through the small claims procedure. If he has 200+ positive reps on adverts.ie, he's obviously selling on quite a scale. Might be worth raising this over on the legal issues board. (Note that they'll squash you from a great height if you ask for legal advice on your own situation, but if you raise the general question of how much dealing someone has to be doing to be viewed as dealing "in the course of business" for the purposes of the small claims procedure, that might help.)

The advert itself states the phone only needs unlocking. The phone is in my possession and is blacklisted. If the phone and its IMEI is registered at his name and address. Is this not physical proof of some sort of scam or fraud whatever language you want to use about it ? is this not a Physical record ? Unlike what he said to me which is true even if unfortunately i cant prove as i didnt record it.

Peregrinus

masculinist wrote: »

The advert itself states the phone only needs unlocking. The phone is in my possession and is blacklisted. If the phone and its IMEI is registered at his name and address. Is this not physical proof of some sort of scam or fraud whatever language you want to use about it ? is this not a Physical record ? Unlike what he said to me which is true even if unfortunately i cant prove as i didnt record it.

What you're missing is proof that , at the time he told you the phone could be unlocked, he knew that it was blacklisted and could not be unlocked. At the moment what you have loooks to me like proof that it was in fact blacklisted, but that's not the same thing. Even if you argue that he must have known the circumstances that led to the blacklisting, and if that argument is accepted, you still aren't there, since you can't prove that he understood that those circumstances would in fact lead to blacklisting.

What you need is proof of a communication from the phone company to him, dated from before the sale to you, saying "we're blacklisting your phone".

masculinist

Peregrinus wrote: »

What you're missing is proof that , at the time he told you the phone could be unlocked, he knew that it was blacklisted and could not be unlocked. At the moment what you have loooks to me like proof that it was in fact blacklisted, but that's not the same thing. Even if you argue that he must have known the circumstances that led to the blacklisting, and if that argument is accepted, you still aren't there, since you can't prove that he understood that those circumstances would in fact lead to blacklisting.

What you need is proof of a communication from the phone company to him, dated from before the sale to you, saying "we're blacklisting your phone".

Thanks for that. He did admit to me in person that he knew it was blacklisted - when I had returned and tried to brain hack him to get my money back. It was honestly a disgusting experience having to speak with him at all. He came across as a sociopathic character. If the phone was originally his then I'd expect the company did send him such a letter. I'm sure some sort of freedom of information request from Gardai could establish that.

Peregrinus

masculinist wrote: »

Thanks for that. He did admit to me in person that he knew it was blacklisted - when I had returned and tried to brain hack him to get my money back. It was honestly a disgusting experience having to speak with him at all. He came across as a sociopathic character. If the phone was originally his then I'd expect the company did send him such a letter. I'm sure some sort of freedom of information request from Gardai could establish that.

Freedom of information requests don't come from the Gardai; they come from citizens. And they don't go to private companies, but to government and public agencies. The FoI regime was not designed to be of any help to you in this situation, and it won't be.

Focus on what's possible here. What you have is a breach of contract. That doesn't depend on dishonesty and you don't have to prove dishonesty, so stop thinking about dishonesty. I think exploring the possiblity of a small claims procedure based on the volume and frequency of his dealings is a much more promising avenue.

masculinist

Peregrinus wrote: »

Freedom of information requests don't come from the Gardai; they come from citizens. And they don't go to private companies, but to government and public agencies. The FoI regime was not designed to be of any help to you in this situation, and it won't be.

Focus on what's possible here. What you have is a breach of contract. That doesn't depend on dishonesty and you don't have to prove dishonesty, so stop thinking about dishonesty. I think exploring the possiblity of a small claims procedure based on the volume and frequency of his dealings is a much more promising avenue.

Thanks again. Thats logical. He has a fair amount of dealings but not mainly phones. Its bric a brac mainly . Unless he kept selling the same model of phone to people again and again by republishing the advert.

Payton

I know someone who bought a phone from adverts recently, it was on the meteor network..on inspection it worked and was able to ring out on it. Fast forward 2 weeks and it was blacklisted!! The buyer contacted meteor and explained they had purchased it from adverts, he provided the imei number with his own details and they un blacklisted it, and it's working perfectly now.
Failing that sell it on for parts to cover the 50% your have outstanding.
Your lucky you got 50% of your money back...learn from it and move on. It's a big bad world out there and some dellboys operating.

masculinist

Payton wrote: »

I know someone who bought a phone from adverts recently, it was on the meteor network..on inspection it worked and was able to ring out on it. Fast forward 2 weeks and it was blacklisted!! The buyer contacted meteor and explained they had purchased it from adverts, he provided the imei number with his own details and they un blacklisted it, and it's working perfectly now.
Failing that sell it on for parts to cover the 50% your have outstanding.
Your lucky you got 50% of your money back...learn from it and move on. It's a big bad world out there and some dellboys operating.

Indeed. I thought it wasnt risky because I was inside this persons home. Very naive of me I suppose as I treat guests well and would be shocked at any idea otherwise. I'd have never bought a phone off him in a Spar shop or in an alley etc. The last phone I bought off adverts I collected at the sellers place of work [ no offence to the unemployed who have been overwhelmingly forced into that situation since the recession. I have been in those shoes myself but at least if they work they might have a greater chance of being honest and have a reputation to lose with their employer etc] and it served me well until it broke.
Thankfully it was a cheap lesson. And I was quoted 60 euro to switch motherboards and thus end up with basically a new better condition phone in the end. And I could sell the extra charger for a tenner if I want. As well as sell the remaining parts on ebay. The personal consequences are my time, the stress and hassle. What haunts me is the need to bring this person to justice. So I will report him fully to adverts and explore all legal methods to minimize future victims. I could imagine some teenager with his life savings calling to this persons house in the future and then ending up with nothing and being totally intimidated.

Henry Ford III

Why would anyone buy a phone that they couldn't see working? That'd be like buying a car without going for a test drive or even starting the engine.

masculinist

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Why would anyone buy a phone that they couldn't see working? That'd be like buying a car without going for a test drive or even starting the engine.

Thanks for that positive contribution to the thread . I'll refrain from repeating what I've already written .

The Muppet

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Why would anyone buy a phone that they couldn't see working? That'd be like buying a car without going for a test drive or even starting the engine.

Someone handy might buy a car without starting the engine if the price was right and they though they could get it going and end up with a cheap car, Of course there are risks involved.

coylemj

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Why would anyone buy a phone that they couldn't see working? That'd be like buying a car without going for a test drive or even starting the engine.

+1 or buying a car with an expired NCT on the basis of a 'guarantee' from the dealer that it will 'sail through' the test. And we all know what happens next.....