Said i dont accept returns, but they are returning it..

cyril82

Jomo wrote: »

Yes my case was different and I do agree if a seller was trying to raise funds etc. then it's a damn cheek if someone wants to get a refund after time, but if you state a maximum of 7 days in which the buyer can do so then this may solve this issue. But if you are selling 'new' with tags etc. then surely this isn't just a clear out?

Anyway, I think there has to be a happy medium to keep both sides protected and people selling should use the correct wording in their listings to protect themselves as much as possible.

:j

I think Jomo, that when we look at your case and the op's case what we end up with is a scenario where, every case is different and who decides?

This is why i think ebay should stay out of adjudication. They have no real legal power to decide who has legal claim over funds so why confuse and contradict the law?

Ebay, via their company paypal are just a payment processor, if you went into a shop and used your card to buy goods, the card processor would not get involved in disputes except to investigate cases of fraud. I think ebay and paypal would be better off sticking to this policy too.

I know it would not benefit buyers, but it seems to me that it is sellers who are ultimately paying for the protection of buyers on ebay and not ebay themselves, and that is not right as far as i am concerned, especially when it involves the removal of a sellers legal rights in order to enhance the rights of buyers, beyond what rights the law says they have.

In my view that is akin to ebay just re-writing the law.

cyberbob

cyril82 wrote: »

Cyberbob, What do you think about if a seller lists something by auction, regardless of feedback, and it is as described, should ebay be able to remove the sellers legal right not to refund?

Does ebay feedback matter where the law is concerned?

I find it difficult to comment on this as I do not know the ins and outs of comercial law. On the face of it it looks like ebay are not following it but I'm sure ebay with all there corporate Solicitors have looked into it. If they weren't i would have thought it would have been challenged by now. So I cannot comment on the legality of it. All I can say is thats what happens if you sell on ebay.

As a byline there are so many private sellers on ebay who are really running business so should be registerd and following distance selling regulations. Maybe it makes more sense for all sellers to follow the same rules.

As I said I can't comment on the law

The problem as i see it is ebay can either act like a newspaper classified section and have no control and leave sellers and buyers to there own problems. Or they can run how they do with terms and conditions to attempt to safeguard both parties. Personally if ebay was just a glorified version of Gumtree it would not have such a huge base of people willing to buy and sell. Ebay is popular because of what it is and how it works. Yes there are problems with it as there are with most organisations.

The biggest problem as I see it is sellers who do not understand the terms and conditions that they are signing up to so when something happens that they do not agree with they start throwing all there toys out of the pram.

On the T&C front ebay could make them easier to understand and explain a few of them a little better. They do seem to hide stuff.

There was recently a discussion on the ebay board about DSRs and it showed that a lot of buyers did not realise that if a sellers DSRs go down to 4.3 that there account is restricted. They thought if they gave average ratings of 3 that was normal. I'm a fan of DSRs but feel there needs to be more explanation to buyers about the level of the ratings

Lynsey

I think the problem here, or one of them is if Paypal take unauthorised money from an account. I can't really see how they can do this once the payment has been transferred to the sellers bank account.

Lynsey

cyberbob

Lynsey wrote: »

I think the problem here, or one of them is if Paypal take unauthorised money from an account. I can't really see how they can do this once the payment has been transferred to the sellers bank account.

Lynsey

Technically though its not unauthorised as its part of the user agreement you agree to when you sign up

cyril82

Personally i think ebay should honour the law, people or businesses that sell auctions do not have to accept returns. If they want to make their site safe by guaranteeing buyers refunds, then ebay/paypal should fund refunds where the seller is legally exempt.

I understand why ebay force these refunds, and i see the benefits of it to buyers, including myself when i buy on the site but in reality what ebay are saying is not that "we as a company promise you a refund if you use our site" what they are actually saying is "we promise to enforce refunds upon the seller, regardless of his legal rights because we certainly are not going to use our own money to protect you when you use our site"

It's much in keeping with their greedy attitude to selling fees, where, even in instances like the ones we are discussing where sellers are forced to refund despite having no legal obligation to do so, ebay still do not refund the selling fees for the transaction.

Amazon have a similar policy on refunds, but the main difference is they don't allow auctions on their site so all sales on there are subject to distance selling regs, pretty much, but they do refund selling fees if you refund a buyer. Why don't ebay?

cyril82

cyberbob wrote: »

Technically though its not unauthorised as its part of the user agreement you agree to when you sign up

This is true, but flimsy justification as paypal have no legal right to adjudicate and decide who has legal claim to funds and if challenged, i believe this term would be over ruled in court as, the seller does have legal claim to the funds and paypal do not. That is a brief explanation, but is based on some advice i got from a solicitor during an account freeze that paypal were refusing to remove for 6 months, i won't post the legal explanation he gave, (or what of it i understand) because i don't want to bore people, unless anyone is genuinely interested of course.

Lynsey

BTW - did you receive the return lil-miss-sunshine?? If so was it "signed for"??

Lynsey

Lynsey

cyril82 wrote: »

i won't post the legal explanation he gave, (or what of it i understand) because i don't want to bore people, unless anyone is genuinely interested of course.

Call me a bore if you want, but I genuinely would like the legal explanation - the simple version if possible. :rotfl:

Lynsey

TurkishDelight

cyril82 wrote: »

It's much in keeping with their greedy attitude to selling fees, where, even in instances like the ones we are discussing where sellers are forced to refund despite having no legal obligation to do so, ebay still do not refund the selling fees for the transaction.

Amazon have a similar policy on refunds, but the main difference is they don't allow auctions on their site so all sales on there are subject to distance selling regs, pretty much, but they do refund selling fees if you refund a buyer. Why don't ebay?

I think you have a point, however ebay have still provided their service regardless of the outcome (eg. web hosting, invoicing services etc.). It is also a detterant for sellers aginst sending substandard goods. Ebay have, by the way, started to refund buyers out of their own pockets if they find that neither party is at fault.

prowla

Not accepting returns is about whether a buyer can return the item if they don't like it.
If the item is mis-described or faulty then a no returns policy is irrelevant.

(I obviously don't know the facts in your particular case, and am not suggesting anything.)