Locked
Antworten können hier nur von erfahrenen Mentor*innen sowie der Person verfasst werden, die die Frage gestellt hat.
Problem with Prunner Druckerhandel – HP E87640z “Very good – refurbished” with warranty: repair or cancellation against my wishes?
Summary: geschenke-druckerei-de described a complex warranty case with a commercial eBay seller regarding a printer bought as “Refurbished.” After the purchase, several problems arose, including print quality defects and a major magenta toner leak, which led to a discussion about responsibility and possible ways to resolve it. Although the seller is offering a repair and replacement performance, there is concern that a full reversal of the transaction could happen without geschenke-druckerei-de’s consent. The seller is also demanding the return of a working part of the printer, which raises additional concerns for geschenke-druckerei-de. The participant is looking for advice on how to protect their rights and document that the handover is only for repair/replacement performance and not for reversing the purchase.
Hello everyone,
I need your assessment of a now quite extensive warranty case with the commercial eBay seller Prunner Druckerhandel.
It concerns the following item bought on eBay:
HP Color LaserJet Managed MFP E87640z · X3A86A · incl. Finisher
Item condition: “Very good – Refurbished”
Purchase price: €899.00 incl. VAT and shipping
Advertised page count: 240,300 pages
On the eBay listing page, the item was explicitly offered as Refurbished. Under “Buy safely,” it also showed:
“Refurbished – All items are fully functional and have been inspected by a verified seller.”
It was also explicitly shown:
“1 year warranty – Of course, the statutory warranty of at least 1 year also applies to refurbished items.”
Before delivery, the originally purchased device was already swapped out
After the purchase, Prunner Druckerhandel told me that the originally bought printer had a defect before shipping.
I was therefore offered another HP E87640z as a replacement. However, this one had a significantly higher page count of around 305,000 or later about 312,000 pages.
The purchase price remained at €899 including shipping. In addition, as a goodwill gesture, I was promised a used set of original HP toner with fill levels from 50% upwards.
Prunner then told me that the replacement device had arrived, had been converted to the finisher, and had been fully tested. I was sent test prints and internal printer pages.
After that, the device was delivered by freight carrier.
Shortly after putting it into operation: clear print quality defect
After startup, I noticed a reproducible print quality defect.
In particular, there was a clearly visible streak in photos and full-surface color prints.
I then printed numerous internal HP test pages and sent Prunner the results via the eBay messaging system.
We then carried out several diagnostic steps together.
Prunner finally came to the conclusion that the magenta unit was affected.
To determine whether the imaging drum or the developer unit was the cause, I was instructed by Prunner to swap the magenta and cyan imaging drums with each other.
I did that.
Afterwards, the error remained on magenta and did not move to cyan with the imaging drum.
Prunner then diagnosed the magenta developer unit as the cause of the fault.
At first, suddenly it was supposed to be only “wear and tear” and “goodwill”
Prunner then explained that the developer unit was a wear part. On a device with more than 305,000 printed pages, such a failure was possible and, in his view, not unusual.
Although the device had been sold explicitly as “Very good – Refurbished,” inspected and fully functional with a one-year warranty, he initially did not want to regard the defect as a classic warranty case.
However, he offered me a used magenta developer unit free of charge “as a goodwill gesture.”
I did not agree with classifying it as purely goodwill.
Prunner explicitly recommends self-installation
Before I installed the developer unit sent by Prunner, I explicitly asked whether the self-installation he suggested could affect my warranty rights.
In response, I received the following written confirmation from Prunner via the eBay messaging system:
“The exchange proposed by us does not result in any disadvantages for you with regard to the existing warranty rights, provided the installation is carried out properly.”
Prunner also explained that after installation no counter needed to be reset; initialization and calibration would happen automatically.
Accordingly, I replaced the magenta developer unit sent by Prunner in line with his diagnosis and proposed solution.
Then massive magenta toner escape
After the replacement, the printer permanently displayed:
“Shake the cartridge”
During the subsequent inspection, I found that in the area of the magenta toner feed magenta toner had massively escaped into the interior of the device.
This was not a minor contamination. The toner was spread over a large area in the lower interior of the device.
On closer inspection, it also became visible that the very short hose or connector of the magenta toner feed is damaged/teared and has a clearly visible hole.
The relevant connector also appears to be under considerable mechanical stress, in my observation.
I then switched the printer off, disconnected it completely from the power supply, and have not operated it since.
After that, the installation suddenly became responsible for the damage
After I sent Prunner photos, he initially took the view that the damage had probably arisen in connection with my installation.
I objected to that.
The replacement was ultimately not carried out based on any diagnosis of my own, but:
based on Prunner's diagnosis,
with the replacement part sent by Prunner,
on Prunner's explicit recommendation,
and after Prunner had confirmed to me in writing that the exchange he suggested would not cause me any disadvantages with regard to my existing warranty rights.
After I sent further and clearer detailed photos of the damaged hose, Prunner finally downplayed his earlier assessment himself.
He wrote:
“The damage can be seen in the photos, but the exact cause cannot be conclusively assessed from them.”
In my view, the actual cause of the damage has therefore not been established.
Then Prunner offered €250 in exchange for full settlement of all claims
Prunner then offered me €250 so that I could hire a technician on site myself.
The problem:
The payment was only to be made if I agreed in writing that afterward
no further repair, service, or cost claims from this purchase would remain open.
I declined that.
At that point, nobody had even determined what a complete repair, including cleaning the device contaminated with magenta toner, would cost.
So I was supposed to take on the entire further repair and cost risk myself for €250.
Second offer: complete return
Alternatively, Prunner offered to take back the complete device.
That also did not match what I wanted.
I do not want to unwind the purchase contract; I want the printer I bought as “Very good – Refurbished” to be repaired properly.
After further correspondence, Prunner finally explicitly stated that he now wanted to provide supplementary performance.
He wrote:
“We will take the device back, inspect it with us, and carry out the necessary repair work.”
I fundamentally agree with that.
That is exactly what I want: repair/remedy.
But then cancellation comes back into play again
However, immediately afterward Prunner wrote:
“If the inspection shows that the damage cannot be repaired, we will of course refund you the full purchase amount of €900.”
And that is exactly where I am becoming very cautious now.
I explicitly do not want a reversal.
I want the device returned to me repaired.
I have therefore already made it clear in writing that I am providing the device exclusively for inspection and supplementary performance by repair.
By handing it over to the freight carrier, I am neither declaring withdrawal from the purchase contract nor agreeing to a reversal.
If Prunner were actually to claim after his inspection that the device cannot be repaired, I at least want to first receive the concrete technical test result and the reasoning as to why repair is supposedly impossible.
Now even the fully functional finisher is supposed to be sent along
Meanwhile we have also discussed the return transport.
The original pallet is still available with me.
Prunner wants to send me special straps, edge protection, and film. The approximately 150 kg printer is to be placed on the pallet and secured accordingly.
For the hole in the damaged magenta toner feed hose, according to Prunner's current instructions I am supposed to put tape over the damaged area so that no further toner escapes during transport.
Now, however, Prunner additionally demands that the fully functional finisher also be sent back.
The finisher has no defect whatsoever.
When I asked why this would also have to be sent back for the repair, Prunner explained in essence:
At the moment, one cannot say whether the printer can be fully repaired. If repair is not possible and the purchase price of €899 is refunded, that purchase price was of course including the finisher.
And it is exactly this statement that is increasing my concern.
My concern
I want to make it explicitly clear that I cannot and do not want to claim that Prunner Druckerhandel has already decided to reverse the purchase against my will.
But based on the course of events so far, I now have the concrete concern that the following could happen:
I send back both the defective printer and the fully functional and quite valuable booklet finisher.
After that, the complete setup is back with the seller.
Then I may be told that the printer is supposedly not repairable or that a repair is not economically viable, and I will simply be refunded the €899 purchase price.
That would effectively reverse the entire purchase – even though I have explicitly not requested or agreed to any reversal, and instead still want supplementary performance by repair.
That is exactly why I would like the process to be documented with eBay before collection.
The entire process is documented on eBay
The entire correspondence is running through the eBay messaging system.
Among other things, it documents:
the specific offer from Prunner Druckerhandel,
HP Color LaserJet Managed MFP E87640z · X3A86A · incl. Finisher,
advertised page count 240,300 pages,
purchase price €899,
condition “Very good – Refurbished”,
note fully functional and inspected,
1 year warranty,
replacement of the originally purchased device with a device with a significantly higher page count,
the original print quality defect,
all diagnostic steps,
the drum swap requested by Prunner,
the subsequent diagnosis of the magenta developer unit,
the used developer unit sent by Prunner,
Prunner's recommendation for self-installation,
the explicit written confirmation that my warranty rights remain in force,
the subsequent massive magenta toner escape,
photos of the damaged toner feed hose,
initially the claim that the damage had probably occurred during installation,
later Prunner's statement that the exact cause could not be conclusively assessed from the photos,
the offer of €250 in exchange for full settlement of all further claims,
my rejection of that offer,
then the offer of supplementary performance by inspection and repair,
and now the demand to also send back the functional finisher, because the full purchase price might later be refunded.
My questions for you
How would you proceed now?
1. Can I insist that the handover to Prunner is expressly only for supplementary performance/repair and must not be treated as consent to a reversal?
2. Can a commercial seller simply declare the device “not repairable” after return and then refund the purchase price against my expressly stated will?
3. Under these circumstances, would you actually send the fully functional finisher along?
4. How would you document the handover to the freight carrier so that it is clear that the printer and, if applicable, the finisher were handed over for inspection and repair and not for return?
5. Is there a way on eBay to have the process documented or checked by an employee before collection, without opening a normal return case with the aim of a purchase price refund?
I am explicitly not trying to deny Prunner Druckerhandel the opportunity to provide supplementary performance.
On the contrary: I am making the printer available and want it repaired.
I just want to make sure that handing it over for repair does not later become a complete reversal of the purchase without my consent.
I would be very grateful for any assessments – especially from people who have experience with eBay Refurbished, warranty claims, or similar repair cases involving heavy commercial printer systems.
