Charged fees for something ebay perceives as being sold off ebay

Brooker_Dave

d123 wrote: »

It isn’t theft, it is a company sending an invoice for services it considers it has given and that the OP has attempted to circumvent agreed fees.

Did the seller agree to give ebay seller commission even if ebay had no role in the sale of the piano?

Consumers justifying predatory practices just gives large powerful companies more reason to try to steal...

theonlywayisup

Pierre_De_Grenoble wrote: »

I was taught as a child that If I take something that does not belong to me, it does not matter how much I try to justify it, that I am stealing.

I don't believe that there is a "correct channel" for theft.

Theft has a definition "to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it".

Ebay's actions do not constitute theft. There may be other legislative avenues worth pursuing but theft isn't one of them.

d123

theonlywayisup wrote: »

Theft has a definition "to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it".

Ebay's actions do not constitute theft. There may be other legislative avenues worth pursuing but theft isn't one of them.

Exactly, it isn’t theft, no matter how angry some people are about it.

d123

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Did the seller agree to give ebay seller commission even if ebay had no role in the sale of the piano?

Consumers justifying predatory practices just gives large powerful companies more reason to try to steal...

Can the seller prove that eBay had no role in the sale?

They communicated with a buyer via eBay after listing the item on eBay and there is proof that the seller attempted to get the buyer to pay outside of eBay to circumvent eBay and Paypal fees.

It’s not as cut and dried as you want to make it.

Pierre_De_Grenoble

d123 wrote: »

Can the seller prove that eBay had no role in the sale?

If the OP is correct. she can prove that the buyer was a different person (to the eBay contact) who saw the ad on Gumtree and bought the item via Gumtree.

It's as cut and dried as that.

d123

Pierre_De_Grenoble wrote: »

If the OP is correct. she can prove that the buyer was a different person (to the eBay contact) who saw the ad on Gumtree and bought the item via Gumtree.

It's as cut and dried as that.

Ive sold hundreds of items through eBay and many through Gumtree, I couldn’t prove who I sold those Gumtree items to, at leat not to the degree required in court. In fact for many of them I probably couldn’t even prove who the buyers were or that they weren’t people who had seen the item on eBay.

Gumtree buyers tend to arrive, pay cash and leave with the item.

So how is the OP going to have this “cut and dried” proof for a court?

Carrot007

Despite all the pointless banter since OP last posted (threads should be closed to posts after 48 hours with no OP input).

So we can ssume that OP seolf to the same person as on ebay or they may have bothered saying (they were last on yesterday and last posted ages ago).

theonlywayisup

Carrot007 wrote: »

Despite all the pointless banter since OP last posted (threads should be closed to posts after 48 hours with no OP input).

So we can ssume that OP seolf to the same person as on ebay or they may have bothered saying (they were last on yesterday and last posted ages ago).

Wouldn't it be a perfect world if all posts had an update, even more perfect if that was within 48 hours.

Brooker_Dave

d123 wrote: »

Can the seller prove that eBay had no role in the sale?

They have no reason to.

Brooker_Dave

d123 wrote: »

They communicated with a buyer via eBay after listing the item on eBay and there is proof that the seller attempted to get the buyer to pay outside of eBay to circumvent eBay and Paypal fees.

Is this where we pretend ebay law is actual law?