Charged fees for something ebay perceives as being sold off ebay

RHemmings

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Is this where we pretend ebay law is actual law?

I'd like to know the answer to this. It seems strange to me that ebay could claim money off people based on a belief that the seller has sold off-ebay.

Having said that, there will be a contract between ebay and the seller. And if it came to a civil case judged on the balance of probabilities, then I'd think that the seller's message mentioning circumventing paypal and ebay fees would be fairly damning evidence.

My guess, and it's only a wild guess, is that ebay have issued the invoice based on the terms of the contract, but that to enforce that invoice, they'd have to go to court, arguing breach of contract.

d123

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Is this where we pretend ebay law is actual law?

No, as RHemmings says, we (don’t have to) pretend eBay and the OP have a contract under English civil law.

There is a contract between the OP and eBay, breach of that contract will be for a civil court to decide if either party feels the other party has breached that contract.

eBay has invoiced for services rendered, the OP attempted to circumvent the agreed contract and eBay is demanding its fees as per the contract. Should they get them? that’s up to a civil court to decide if the OP wants to fight it.

Brooker_Dave

d123 wrote: »

No, as RHemmings says, we (don’t have to) pretend eBay and the OP have a contract under English civil law.

There is a contract between the OP and eBay, breach of that contract will be for a civil court to decide if either party feels the other party has breached that contract.

That only works if Ebay's T&Cs are considered fair, not one sided and predatory.

And obviously if OP has had a chance to read them, not just tick some box or continue to use the service.

Brooker_Dave

RHemmings wrote: »

Having said that, there will be a contract between ebay and the seller. And if it came to a civil case judged on the balance of probabilities, then I'd think that the seller's message mentioning circumventing paypal and ebay fees would be fairly damning evidence.

The payment by BACS thing was just to avoid the paypal fees, which is fair enough.

Seems odd that people would support large corps invoicing people for lost revenue they would have got if that person had used them, but didn't.

RHemmings

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

That only works if Ebay's T&Cs are considered fair, not one sided and predatory.

And obviously if OP has had a chance to read them, not just tick some box or continue to use the service.

If the court decided that eBay provided a service, but that the seller didn't fulfil their side of the contract in paying fees, then it sounds reasonable to me that the seller would be obliged to pay. That doesn't sound one sided or predatory to me, but fairly normal business practice.

However, it would be up to a judge to decide.

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

The payment by BACS thing was just to avoid the paypal fees, which is fair enough.

Seems odd that people would support large corps invoicing people for lost revenue they would have got if that person had used them, but didn't.

The message that the seller sent (quoted further upthread) was that the seller mentioned avoiding both paypal and ebay fees. The and ebay is the important bit.

d123

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

The payment by BACS thing was just to avoid the paypal fees, which is fair enough.

Seems odd that people would support large corps invoicing people for lost revenue they would have got if that person had used them, but didn't.

I don’t think anyone is just supporting eBay for the hell of it, the OP came for advice and just saying “boo, bad eBay, what a bunch of *****” doesn’t help.

Sometimes the correct answer isn’t tea and sympathy...

Dox

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

That only works if Ebay's T&Cs are considered fair, not one sided and predatory.

And obviously if OP has had a chance to read them, not just tick some box or continue to use the service.

Everyone has a chance to read them - it's just a case of whether or not they bother...

Brooker_Dave

Dox wrote: »

Everyone has a chance to read them - it's just a case of whether or not they bother...

But are they fair and reasonable, and of a form an ordinary person could understand and absorb?

d123

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

But are they fair and reasonable, and of a form an ordinary person could understand and absorb?

And again, that would be for a court to decide, not for an arbitrary person on the net who hates eBay to shout about...

forgotmyname

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

But are they fair and reasonable, and of a form an ordinary person could understand and absorb?

They are biased in ebays favour, but what company wouldn't do that in their terms and conditions?

Similar to companies that have penalties if orders are late or jobs not complete.

If your selling a product, i could say im willing to buy from you approx 1000 items a week, but i may order 5000 at any time and they MUST be delivered within 48 hours of ordering. It would be upto you to accept my order/terms or not. Just the same as you saying yes but i must order a minimum of 1000 a week for 52 weeks.

Ebays stance = her are our terms if you dont like them then dont use us.