Seller appears on doorstep...

Flyonthewall

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Just as the OP could have a short temper, been having a bad day or be a complete idiot.

I hear stories all the time, some plausible, some not. I personally do not believe the OP's story is plausible. Apparently all she did was point to a no cold callers sign and the male went off on when. Nope, sorry - dont buy it. Theres more to the story which the OP for whatever reason hasn't divulged.

They did not point to the sign. If you're going to decide what to believe at least read the posts correctly!

powerful_Rogue

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Saying no implies they're not invited and most people would use common sense and not call around when it's clear they're not wanted. It shouldn't have to go to what the law says.

Do you know because you often call uninvited to places? It's sounding that way...

Important bit above! If your going to start talking about revoking implied rights of access etc, then to do it correctly then you have to do what the law says.

Anyway, depends what the OP wrote. "No, can you post it as I will be out tomorrow" isnt revoking an implied right of access.

powerful_Rogue

Flyonthewall wrote: »

They did not point to the sign. If you're going to decide what to believe at least read the posts correctly!

Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

Arlandria606 wrote: »

No, I wouldn't be fine with that. That's why I display a "No Cold Callers" sign. That's me saying "no" before they ring the bell. If they ring the bell, I point out the sign. Very similar so far to what's happened with this guy. If they then start telling me that they've gone out of their way to be here, that they're going to report me to someone for not being okay with it, making agitated hand gestures, raising their voice - is that behaviour acceptable? Would you be so unable to understand my disappointment at that situation? Would you laugh at me if I was asking for suggestions on how to follow that up?

Flyonthewall

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Important bit above! If your going to start talking about revoking implied rights of access etc, then to do it correctly then you have to do what the law says.

Anyway, depends what the OP wrote. "No, can you post it as I will be out tomorrow" isnt revoking an implied right of access.

Yeah I'm not going into the law. No point in making an issue out of the law and rights of access, it's not relevant to the thread.

I wasn't talking about revoking rights of access anyhow, all I said was saying no implied they didn't want them to come around.

Flyonthewall

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

For other people they point to a sign, yes. But that's not what happened with that guy. The sign says no to other people. The message through ebay says no to him. Hence making it similar as both people are being told no.

powerful_Rogue

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Yeah I'm not going into the law. No point in making an issue out of the law and rights of access, it's not relevant to the thread.

I wasn't talking about revoking rights of access anyhow, all I said was saying no implied they didn't want them to come around.

Depends how it was said though.

"No, Please can you pop it in the post as I will be out tomorrow"

Or

"Sorry, Im not keen on people I dont know coming round. Could you post it to me instead".

First option, The seller might think - "Well, were going to be passing, lets see if their in o the off chance"

Second one makes it very clear.

powerful_Rogue

Flyonthewall wrote: »

For other people they point to a sign, yes. But that's not what happened with that guy. The sign says no to other people. The message through ebay says no to him. Hence making it similar as both people are being told no.

Not at all, as I wouldn't class the male a cold caller. Also depends on the wording of the message as ive posted above.

Flyonthewall

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Depends how it was said though.

"No, Please can you pop it in the post as I will be out tomorrow"

Or

"Sorry, Im not keen on people I dont know coming round. Could you post it to me instead".

First option, The seller might think - "Well, were going to be passing, lets see if their in o the off chance"

Second one makes it very clear.

How they said it is somewhere in this thread. I, however, can not be bothered to find it and quote it....again.

Flyonthewall

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Not at all, as I wouldn't class the male a cold caller. Also depends on the wording of the message as ive posted above.

No one said they were a cold caller. That's why he wasn't shown the sign, he just got a suprised comment that the OP wasn't expecting them.

anotheruser

I'm sure it's been mentioned many times but the OP could have accepted goods, then opened a case against seller saying they haven't received it.
Buyer would have been forced to refund in full.

Maybe I should try this scam and that's okay with everyone (who said turning up to the door when asked not to is okay)?

At any rate, it doesn't matter how the OP worded their instruction.
The sale agreed a price for it to be posted, they told the seller they wanted it posting, why the seller thought this meant it was okay to drop it round I don't know.