(08 August, 2025 - 02:27 PM)Ping Wrote: Show MoreThis matter is not one of “warranty terms” or “method updates.”
It is a straightforward case of misrepresentation, evidenced by the seller’s own sales history and supported by documentary proof provided in this dispute.
The facts are clear, internally consistent, and corroborated by the seller’s prior thread modifications.
EXHIBIT A — Irrelevance of ToS/Warranty
- Warranty provisions or ToS clauses cannot be invoked where the product delivered is materially different from the one advertised. Such clauses are irrelevant when the underlying transaction deviates in substance from the offer made.
- Any material change in the delivery method must be disclosed in the sales thread. A failure to do so prevents retroactive enforcement of new conditions upon prior purchasers.
- The claim that “the price increased” is demonstrably false. The buyer paid $39.99 — the highest historical price recorded in the thread’s edit history. No corresponding thread update exists to support the seller’s assertion.
EXHIBIT B — Advertised vs Delivered
- Advertised Product
- "Key for a personal account" — explicitly indicating activation on the buyer’s own Adobe account.
- Delivered Product
- Pre-made account with an instruction not to change the password — Screenshot.
- Subsequently altered (email changed, recovery removed), locking the buyer out — Screenshot.
- Nature of Misrepresentation
- Advertised — permanent activation on buyer’s own account.
- Delivered — temporary access to a seller-controlled account.
EXHIBIT C — Seller Statements vs Evidence
- Claim: “Buyer deleted chat” / “I don’t know him.” — Screenshot
- Fact — Proof of delivery exists — Screenshot.
- Fact — Seller later argued over the deal, contradicting their initial denial.
- Claim: “Price is higher now.”
- Fact — False. Historical sales data shows the buyer paid the maximum listed price.
- Thread history:
- Feb 2, 2023 — $39.90 — Lifetime, own account.
- Apr 8, 2023 — $14.99 — One-month subscription.
- Jun 4, 2023 — $6.99 — Lifetime still claimed.
- May 3, 2024 — $39.99 — Lifetime + “1 month” contradiction.
- Nov 25, 2024 — $39.99 — Lifetime and monthly claims both present.
EXHIBIT D — Thread Edit History
The seller’s post history shows repeated alteration between “lifetime on your own account” and “1 month pre-made account” without disclosure, all while retaining premium pricing.
FINAL VERDICT
The buyer purchased one product type and was delivered another.
Issue a full refund to the buyer.
Thank you for your detailed verdict outlining Exhibits A through D. I’ve reviewed it carefully — and I must formally appeal it, as it contains
factual inaccuracies, misinterpretations, and a clear failure to acknowledge evidence I’ve already submitted.
Below is my point-by-point response to each exhibit — with context, timeline, and facts that were not properly considered.
EXHIBIT A — Irrelevance of ToS/WarrantyYou state that ToS and warranty clauses cannot override misrepresentation — and I agree.
But this
is not a case of misrepresentation. It is a case of
a service that evolved — and a buyer who refused to accept that evolution.
You claim:
Quote:"The claim that 'the price increased' is demonstrably false."
This is
incorrect — and contradicted by my own message history.
I did not update the public thread — and I
was not obligated to for this buyer, because
he did not make a new purchase.
He paid
$39.99 a year ago for a one-year service.
That transaction ended.
However, when he
messaged me recently, I responded with my
standard message for new inquiries — which includes the
current method and current price.
This is what I send to
every buyer who reaches out — regardless of intent.
At that point,
I didn’t even know he wanted a replacement — I assumed he wanted to buy again.
Only after I sent the updated details did he say he wanted a free fix.
This proves:
- I did not hide the fact that the method changed.
- I immediately informed him that the old service was gone and a new one existed.
- I was transparent about the new price and new conditions.
You cannot hold me responsible for not updating a thread for a buyer who
isn’t buying again — especially when I
personally delivered the updated information in real time.
Worse: I sent you this explanation and proof days ago.
You never acknowledged it.
You never replied.
You only supported the buyer.
If evidence is requested, it must be
reviewed — not ignored.
EXHIBIT B — Advertised vs DeliveredYou claim I advertised a “key for personal account” but delivered a “seller-controlled account.”
Let’s clarify:
- I never delivered a locked, controlled account meant to scam him.
- I delivered a working account — which he used for 12 months.
- When access was lost (due to Adobe security), I replaced it — as promised.
The instruction
not to change the password or recovery was technical — not malicious.
Changing it often broke the method.
This is common knowledge.
And yes, the email was later changed — but that can happen due to platform security, or was done by the buyer himself.
But here’s what you’re missing:
I explained the true nature of the service in private messages before payment.
He knew it was a pre-made account.
He accepted the risks.
And he used it for a full year.
The public thread is a summary — not the full contract.
EXHIBIT C — Seller Statements vs EvidenceYou accuse me of contradicting myself — but your interpretation is flawed.
- Regarding the claim that I said “I don’t know him” in a negative vouch or response — this statement was made because the buyer never provided his forum username when he initially messaged me on Telegram. I had no way to identify him as a member of the community at that time.Only after I saw a report opened on the forum did I check Telegram, connect the conversation, and realize who he was. I responded within minutes of making that connection.
Therefore, the accusation that I denied knowing him in bad faith is not valid — it was a simple matter of missing identification by his side, not deception.
Furthermore, this was not the first time he has opened an unreasonable report.
His first report was filed simply because I did not reply immediately — I was sleeping, and responded approximately five hours later the next morning. That alone triggered a formal dispute, despite the fact that I resolved the issue promptly once awake.
This pattern shows that he escalates prematurely, without patience or regard for reasonable response times, and uses reports as a tool for pressure — not genuine resolution.
That previous report, like this one, lacked merit — and yet here we are again.
- I never denied delivering the product.
I fixed his access every time during the service period.
As for pricing:
Yes, $39.99 was the price — but it was for a
limited-time offering under the old method.
Pricing fluctuates based on risk, availability, and technical effort.
That is normal.
You provided a thread edit history — but those edits show
adaptation, not deception.
When the method died, I stopped offering it.
When a new one emerged, I started bumping the thread. I'm sure you can just check it too.
This is how every seller operates.
EXHIBIT D — Thread Edit HistoryYou claim I “repeatedly altered” the thread without disclosure — but that’s not true.
Every edit reflected a
real change in the service:
- From lifetime to time-limited.
- From old method to new.
- From lower to higher price — and back.
And again:
I informed the buyer of the new method and new price before he opened the report.
If you’re saying sellers can never update their offers, then you’re demanding we sell dead methods forever — which is impossible.
Critical Procedural Issue: My Evidence Was IgnoredThe most troubling part of this case apart the verdict — it’s that
you never engaged with my side.
- I sent you screenshot proving I informed the buyer about the new method and new price.
- I explained everything, that he deleted the chat — not me.
- I explained the timeline, the TOS, and the community norms.
And you never replied.
You never acknowledged receipt.
You only supported the buyer.
That is not fair.
That is not neutral moderation.
That is
bias.
If this platform allows buyers to wait a year, stay silent, then demand a full refund — while ignoring seller evidence — then
no honest seller is safe.
My Appeal:
I’ve been a trusted seller for over two years.
This is my second dispute with this guy for the same product.
I’ve cooperated fully and provided proof.
And still, I’m being told to refund a buyer who:
- Used the service for 12 months.
- Never contacted me during that time.
- Only returned after everything expired.
That is not justice.
That is
rewarding scam behavior.
I respectfully request that:
- This case be reviewed by a second moderator, or
- You reconsider based on the facts I’ve now presented in public.
- I’ll be honest: this process has taken a significant toll on me.I’ve spent days carefully responding, providing context, refuting claims, and submitting evidence — only to see my messages ignored, my explanations dismissed, and every decision favor the buyer, regardless of facts.
It’s exhausting.
It affects my peace of mind.
And it feels like no matter how clearly I explain things, nothing I say is being read or considered.
To put an end to this — not because I believe I’m in the wrong, but because I want to move forward — I am willing to offer the buyer a 5-year Canva Pro activation, equivalent to the full refund amount he is demanding, as a gesture to finally close this case.
This is not an admission of fault.
This is an act of goodwill to end a situation that has turned into a circus, where:
A buyer opens a report after a full year of silence.
Receives full support from moderation.
While the seller — who delivered a full year of service and followed all norms — is ignored.
I’ve explained in detail why this verdict is unjust.
I’ve refuted every exhibit.
I’ve shown inconsistencies, ignored evidence, and procedural bias.
And still, the support for the buyer continues — not based on fairness, but on selective interpretation.
- If this is how disputes are handled, then I have no choice but to accept that logic — even if it’s flawed.
So, to close this case and avoid further stress, I am making this offer:
✅ 5-year Canva Pro activation — full value of his requested refund.
Let this be the end.
He will have effectively won — not through fairness, but through persistence and pressure.
I remain available to coordinate the delivery, should you approve this resolution.
Fairness must apply to sellers too.
Thank you for your time — and I hope this message is finally heard.
![[Image: Beautiful-ai-Manipulation-s-Income-1-1.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/TstwjFY/Beautiful-ai-Manipulation-s-Income-1-1.jpg)
