Photographs

[alisuze]

I have bought an item based on the photographs I saw. I didn't read the description - the item was new. What I received is a fraction in size of the item in the photograph. I don't think misleading photgraphs should be allowed. The seller insists I have to pay the cost of return postage as I didn't read the description. I would agree if the item was used but for a new item the photographs should be a true representation of the goods on offer - surely that is the law?

What does everyone else think?

[pixiesen2012]

what do I think?

I think you should have read the description,

the photos form PART of the description, you have to READ the full description to find out everything you need to know about the item

photographs cannot show the size of an item (unless there is something else included in the photo to show the scale)

[alisuze]

The item was held in an adult's hand.

[pixiesen2012]

and one of the other pictures had the size so you didn't have to read the description, the information was in the pictures,

but ebay will side with you if you open a not as described case in the resolution centre