WARNING!! EVBASE ISSUE

[Ivman]

Why can't this be about coming to a reasonable agreement between the buyer and seller? Why does somebody have to try to screw the other person in order to get some advantage? They made a mistake, so why penalize them or try to screw them over because of it?

Because this isn't one person selling to another. This is a company advertising a product. They are the responsible party. In a perfect civil society we wouldn't need laws to protect us but unfortunately, even if intentions are good, laws are there to push merchant transparency and accountability.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

I would rather return it. They offered a solution, then reneged on the refund. I think that's the bigger issue. It's a character flaw. I feel like that message is getting lost in this thread.

I agree, they should honor an offer they make. I think this reflects more on poor processes and poor management than any intent to deceive you. The person making the offer was obviously not authorized to make that offer. Yet another mistake on their part.

Returning it sounds like it might be the best option for you.

 

[godfodder0901]

Why can't this be about coming to a reasonable agreement between the buyer and seller? Why does somebody have to try to screw the other person in order to get some advantage? They made a mistake, so why penalize them or try to screw them over because of it?

The right thing to do is come to a reasonable agreement since it is obvious the panels cost more than just the running boards alone. Once the mistake is realized, the buyer and seller should take reasonable actions to make it right. That is how an honest relationship works in a civil society.

OP tried to come to a reasonable agreement, but EVBASE went back on their agreement.

 

[mkhuffman]

Because this isn't one person selling to another. This is a company advertising a product. They are the responsible party. In a perfect civil society we wouldn't need laws to protect us but unfortunately, even if intentions are good, laws are there to push merchant transparency and accountability.

We don't need laws for this. It is a simple issue to resolve. Pay the difference or return the product. Easy.

 

[BlackOpal]

Just wanna add some 2 cents here if anybody noticed the same thing I did.


If you go to EVBase and search for rock sliders, there are several different options. Some options do and don't have panels but they all LOOK like and are the same products. I was confused at first but it is definitely a website error on their part.

Why can't this be about coming to a reasonable agreement between the buyer and seller? Why does somebody have to try to screw the other person in order to get some advantage? They made a mistake, so why penalize them or try to screw them over because of it?

The right thing to do is come to a reasonable agreement since it is obvious the panels cost more than just the running boards alone. Once the mistake is realized, the buyer and seller should take reasonable actions to make it right. That is how an honest relationship works in a civil society.

I agree. That's what we did. Unfortunately, they reneged on our agreement. I just spent $107K on this car, I don't care about a few hundred dollars . I am not taking advantage of them. However, change starts with me letting others know. The ball is in their court.

 

[BlackOpal]

We don't need laws for this. It is a simple issue to resolve. Pay the difference or return the product. Easy.

That's what I did. I wanted to return it, but they offered a partial refund for me to keep it. Then they reneged on our agreement.

 

[Ivman]

We don't need laws for this. It is a simple issue to resolve. Pay the difference or return the product. Easy.

I was speaking in principal, despite the fact that it should be easy to resolve, it's not being resolved.

 

[mkhuffman]

Not an e


I agree. That's what we did. Unfortunately, they reneged on our agreement. I just spent $107K on this car, I don't care about a few hundred dollars . I am not taking advantage of them. However, change starts with me letting others know. The ball is in their court.

What do you want them to do?

I would forget about what they offered in the past and look at with a fresh perspective. Do you think the package is worth $788? If not, return it. If so, pay the difference. I think the seller should not charge you more, but paying what they are offering the package for is fair, IMO.

It is hard to forget about what happened, and to forgive. So if you can't, then I would return it.

 

[Ivman]

What do you want them to do?

I would forget about what they offered in the past and look at with a fresh perspective. Do you think the package is worth $788? If not, return it. If so, pay the difference. I think the seller should not charge you more, but paying what they are offering the package for is fair, IMO.

It is hard to forget about what happened, and to forgive. So if you can't, then I would return it.

You are missing the point. The responsibility is on them to make it right, not on the consumer to pay the difference.

The literal only solution is for them to mail the parts missing from the invoice. Anything else is not a resolution.

YOUR solution is not a solution, even if you'd be happy with that outcome.

 

[BlackOpal]

I'm not being a drama queen dude. Don't marginalize my issue. The issue is them reneging on our agreed solution.

 

[BlackOpal]

What do you want them to do?

I would forget about what they offered in the past and look at with a fresh perspective. Do you think the package is worth $788? If not, return it. If so, pay the difference. I think the seller should not charge you more, but paying what they are offering the package for is fair, IMO.

It is hard to forget about what happened, and to forgive. So if you can't, then I would return it.

I don't think you grasp the entirety of the situation. I have express my intent to return it. They don't want it back. They offered a partial refund then change their mind. They don't want to refund. Do a quick search on this forum. It's not an isolated incident. That's their MO.

 

[mkhuffman]

You are missing the point. The responsibility is on them to make it right, not on the consumer to pay the difference.

The literal only solution is for them to mail the parts missing from the invoice. Anything else is not a resolution.

YOUR solution is not a solution, even if you'd be happy with that outcome.

Why is all the responsibility on them to make it right? They made a mistake, so now they they need to be punished for it? When you make a mistake, do you want the person you made the mistake with to be understanding, or do you just want to be punished?

Sorry. I don't think like that. I expect human beings to make mistakes, just like I do, so I am willing to forgive them when they do.

 

[mkhuffman]

I don't think you grasp the entirety of the situation. I have express my intent to return it. They don't want it back. They offered a partial refund then change their mind. They don't want to refund. Do a quick search on this forum. It's not an isolated incident. That's their MO.

I agree if they refuse to take it back that is a problem. They need to reconsider that policy. I would try to get a call with the "superiors" who apparently are the ones making all the decisions.

 

[MidnightRivian]

Thanks for sharing your experience.

What running boards or rock sliders do you plan to go with after you return these or would you rather keep them and have them agree on the original refund of $210 and skip the rock armor?

I am interested to know if you like these running boards with armor protection and that is why you went with them or maybe style or maybe price.

I like the rock armor panels / feature and saw it also on the EVSportline version as well.

It's a good idea that running board / rock slider manufacturers are taking into consideration the OEM panels or offering a solution that will also add function when going off-road.

Sponsored