"proof of posting" "no responsibility"

RHemmings

soolin wrote: »

They do have a very poor sell through rate but start at very high prices. As they appear to be using FLW they can afford to just keep relisting .

I'm not a sales expert, but I wonder if you and him/her are addressing different types of buyers, and hence aren't in as much competition as might initially seem the case.

soolin

RHemmings wrote: »

I'm not a sales expert, but I wonder if you and him/her are addressing different types of buyers, and hence aren't in as much competition as might initially seem the case.

I hope so, he does have some lovely items as well though.

My hope is that buying these things is expensive and every day we have to store something costs us money, as dealers we need stuff in and out again pretty quickly- so he may well have to rethink his sales. Although his user name suggests he has a shop or retail outlet, so he may well just be listing selected 'choice' items and can afford to leave them in his shop as well.

Strapped

RFW wrote: »

I've often wondered the same thing. It's amazing how many companies have in their terms and conditions items that are not enforceable or downright wrong.

I've not checked but I suspect it wouldn't take too much to find a large mail order company having something similar somewhere on their pages.

<snip>

Without thinking of the law anyone who put "will not be held responsible for items lost in the post" immediately makes me think they aren't going to bother posting it, or if they get proof of postage will just post something else. It makes them sound like an unworthy seller.

Figleaves, the mail order lingerie company, are guilty as charged. They say in their T&C that they will not refund the original P&P charge on returned items. (They did, once I complained).

I agree with your last paragraph completely. I pass over such sellers.

buggritt

soolin wrote: »

that one still has 4.7 for p and p despite charging about double the postage costs on most items. Only has one neg as well and showing 99.5% overall

What does that do to your oft quoted "they won't last long on ebay" statement?

There are loads of sellers with unreasonable, and unenforcable, terms and conditions. I don't see any need to avoid them, as refunds are so easy to get via paypal. To assume they will not even post the item is a bit far fetched.

Crowqueen

I try not to support such sellers - there is one stamp seller who had some great stuff up for sale but I wasn't prepared to bid on their auctions. Chances are things would have been fine, but in the event of an INR or SNAD I don't want to have my money tied up in Paypal as buyer and seller duke it out for ten rounds through eBay.

I'd rather cut out that process and go for a seller who makes me feel valued as a customer, rather than an inconvenience in the way of the pursuit of money.

soolin

buggritt wrote: »

What does that do to your oft quoted "they won't last long on ebay" statement?

There are loads of sellers with unreasonable, and unenforcable, terms and conditions. I don't see any need to avoid them, as refunds are so easy to get via paypal. To assume they will not even post the item is a bit far fetched.

I say they are unlikely to last long as their stars get hammered and they get restricted and then suspended. I've lost many competitors that way.

Like you though these terms don't put me off buying, and I feel for any new buyer though that believes these nonsensical statements.