Amazon seller small claims court

Sandtree

Arnisdale said:

Sandtree said:

jennystarpepper said:

Apologies, I have a medical condition which makes tasks like this a bit difficult at times. 

I appreciate your situation but its also been a long week for me so perhaps my brain isnt functioning right....

In the first post I thought they were claiming for the cost of goods alone because you'd had a refund but refused to return the item

In the second post it sounds like they are claiming deformation and the financial loss being that amazon has stopped them selling

Which of the two is it? What values are they claiming?

Deformation is not my area of expertise at all but my understanding was it has to go to the High Court and cannot be heard in the County Court. 

It certainly isn't...is defamation?

Spelling isn’t my strong point either.

Manxman_in_exile said:

Is it just being assumed that the claimant is suing the OP for defamation as well as the cost of some goods?

If the claimant is suing for the value of lost sales because Amazon struck them off (or whatever the appropriate term is) because of the OP's negative comment about the claimant, is that necessarily defamation?  They may not be suing for any loss of reputation, but for lost income.  I would argue that is different.  (Isn't there a specific tort about that?)

Might be helpful if the OP could post up a redacted copy of the particulars of claim to see what the other side is actually claiming for and what the basis of that claim is

What other grounds are there than libel?There was no contractual agreement not to leave a negative review even if honest. The OP didn’t directly instruct Amazon to stop the sale.If the OP left a honest review they cannot be held responsible for others actions. The only way a claim works is under libel,that the OP comments were false 

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree said:

Arnisdale said:

Sandtree said:

jennystarpepper said:

Apologies, I have a medical condition which makes tasks like this a bit difficult at times. 

I appreciate your situation but its also been a long week for me so perhaps my brain isnt functioning right....

In the first post I thought they were claiming for the cost of goods alone because you'd had a refund but refused to return the item

In the second post it sounds like they are claiming deformation and the financial loss being that amazon has stopped them selling

Which of the two is it? What values are they claiming?

Deformation is not my area of expertise at all but my understanding was it has to go to the High Court and cannot be heard in the County Court. 

It certainly isn't...is defamation?

Spelling isn’t my strong point either.

Manxman_in_exile said:

Is it just being assumed that the claimant is suing the OP for defamation as well as the cost of some goods?

If the claimant is suing for the value of lost sales because Amazon struck them off (or whatever the appropriate term is) because of the OP's negative comment about the claimant, is that necessarily defamation?  They may not be suing for any loss of reputation, but for lost income.  I would argue that is different.  (Isn't there a specific tort about that?)

Might be helpful if the OP could post up a redacted copy of the particulars of claim to see what the other side is actually claiming for and what the basis of that claim is

What other grounds are there than libel?There was no contractual agreement not to leave a negative review even if honest. The OP didn’t directly instruct Amazon to stop the sale.If the OP left a honest review they cannot be held responsible for others actions. The only way a claim works is under libel,that the OP comments were false 

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.  Defamation (or "deformation") is about causing damage to a person's reputation.  I think you were one of the posters to assume (as you do above) that part of the claim "must" be about defamation.  What I'm suggesting is that the claimant may not be basing whichever part of their claim on damage to their reputation, but on the basis that the OP's review has in some other way interfered with their business and caused a loss of income.

No contractual agreement would be required as it would be a tort.  (In fact I was questioning in my previous post that there might be specific tort that applies here - but I haven't had to use my law degree in the past 40 years so I may be wrong - or just making it up - I don't know).

I'm not passing any opinion on whether the claimant may or may not have a sound case.  Without knowing what the claimant is actually claiming it's impossible to say.  I'm merely suggesting that without knowing for sure it may be premature to tell the OP that the claimant has no cause for action against her because they can't successfully sue her for defamation in small claims.

davidmcn

Well, if the claim is merely based on the OP leaving a factually correct bad review, I can't see it succeeding, otherwise large chunks of the Internet wouldn't exist. 

Jenni_D

Manxman_in_exile said:

Might be helpful if the OP could post up a redacted copy of the particulars of claim to see what the other side is actually claiming for and what the basis of that claim is

I did ask that previously, but OP must have missed it.

Jenni_D said:

PS - I asked about item price / claim value to get an understanding of the reasonableness of the claim. Can you share the particulars of claim as they appear on the claim form? (Redact any details that may identify you).
PPS - if you're hoping for help and guidance please answer all questions asked - don't cherry-pick which ones you answer.

unholyangel

I can't see Amazon suspending a seller account because of 1 bad review. 

Either the seller has history or they were suspended for breaching the terms and conditions they agreed with Amazon. 

I'd speak to Amazon and see if, under the circumstances, they can confirm either that they wouldn't suspend someone based on 1 review or that your review was not the cause of their suspension. Either would help. In addition or as an alternative, ask Amazon for an address they can be served at so you can name them as a defendant. 

The reason I'm suggesting bringing in Amazon is that the power and decision to suspend the seller was wholly theirs. If the seller breached Amazon's terms then that is a risk wholly within the seller's control. 

Did the seller comply with pre-action protocol? By that I mean did they send you a letter (not email) with the details of their claim with a warning they'd take legal action if not resolved? 

jennystarpepper

This is how the form reads
Bought item x date 
Delivered on X date and on the dame date opened a return request for poor performance or quality and that I should pay for return and that i objected to this.    I objected to payment and them claimed an electrical fault and glass coming off when washing.
i was asked for evidence in view of the charge but refused to supply further evidence.  
On x date i decided to leave defamatory comments on public view.  As a direct result of the vicious comment the platform removed the item for sale on x date.  The claimant explained to me what the unnecessary comments had caused an asked for removal and warned me of the consequences. 
The defendant, I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.

This is how the form reads. 
Other info 
Date given for delivery and opening a return on the same date is incorrect as I was not in the UK).
I have not refused proof / evidence I sent , x2 emailed picture to Amazon as they instructed.
The date my review was written and Amazon removing it happened within a 24 hr period. 

jennystarpepper

I contacted Amazon re the sellers claim, I asked  do sellers get X strikes before they take action?  I wanted to know as the seller has a past history of bad reviews and being abusive and doubt I would have been named by Amazon.

They said

'Amazon doesn't close accounts unless the seller has made an extremely enormous fault , like customer abuse , or reported by Amazon agents for fraudulent activity.'

George_Michael

jennystarpepper said:

This is how the form reads
Bought item x date 
Delivered on X date and on the dame date opened a return request for poor performance or quality and that I should pay for return and that i objected to this.    I objected to payment and them claimed an electrical fault and glass coming off when washing.

Why did you ask for a return for "poor performance or quality" and then at a later time claim that there was an electrical fault?
Surely if such a fault existed you would have mentioned this when first requesting a return.

jennystarpepper

George_Michael said:

jennystarpepper said:

This is how the form reads
Bought item x date 
Delivered on X date and on the dame date opened a return request for poor performance or quality and that I should pay for return and that i objected to this.    I objected to payment and them claimed an electrical fault and glass coming off when washing.

Why did you ask for a return for "poor performance or quality" and then at a later time claim that there was an electrical fault?
Surely if such a fault existed you would have mentioned this when first requesting a return.

 As stated it is how the document reads, it was not written by me. 

Manxman_in_exile

Well if what you've posted is a verbatim transcript of the claim, I'm not sure I (or a judge) would be able to understand the basis of their claim.  The person who drafted it sounds bonkers.