From: Need a little help please on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:adr8n2dpk56qtitom6kfbq7vhit4fq94k0(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:56:48 -0000, "Niel Humphreys"
> <admin(a)sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote
>
>>> If the goods are rejected under the DSR's the seller is specifically
>>> prohibited from reclaiming any such fees from the buyer and must
>>> refund the buyer in full.
>>>
>>> ("14. - (1) On the cancellation of a contract under regulation 10,
>>> the supplier shall reimburse any sum paid by or on behalf of the
>>> consumer under or in relation to the contract to the person by whom
>>> it was made free of any charge...")
>>
>>What's this got to do with the Ebay fees Ebay will charge the seller?
>
> Nothing - I had misunderstood what you were saying - see later.
>
>>buyer doesn't pay the seller Ebay fees, the seller pays EBay the fees by
>>way
>>of commission on revenue raised. Deal cancelled = no revenue received so
>>there should be no commission payable to Ebay by the seller.
>
> I think we might be mixing up two things here. Firstly the DSR's. As
> far as the buyer is concerned the DSR's allow them to cancel without
> reason. When they do the seller must refund all the money the buyer
> has paid (including outbound postage and packing cost). The seller
> cannot deduct anything at all from the amount paid by the buyer.
>
> The sellers eBay fees are a separate matter between the seller and
> eBay. I had misread what you said here and thought you were
> involving the buyer. The seller should be able to claim the fee back
> from eBay but it does create an interesting situation if the goods
> are rejected for no reason at all and the buyer won't do anything.
>
> If the buyer doesn't communicate with eBay I'm not sure where that
> leaves the seller other than possibly out of pocket as they would
> have no choice but to refund the buyer and might have little evidence
> for eBay that the sale has subsequently failed and no reason for it
> having failed.
>
>>Are you saying that according to the DSR sellers should pay Ebay fees on
>>items where the buyer has returned them for a refund?
>
> In the example I gave above I can see a possibility of that situation
> arising. If the buyer refused to communicate with eBay all you might
> have as "evidence" is a note saying "give me my money back".
>
>>Isn't that grossly unfair to sellers?
>
> Yes.
>
> --
> Peter Parry.
> http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/


Agreed, as was pointed out to eBay during the recent 'Power Seller Outreach'
initiative and posted here sometime ago, the solution put to eBay was the
introduction of a 'Mutual Agreement' for cancellation initiated by the
buyer, to which the seller then accepts (in this instance having no legal
alternative), automatically recovering any fees. This solutions works
perfectly for all parties, except eBay who have to do some work to implement
it, and once implemented, then will potentially lose the money to which they
were not entitled, but would nethertheless have most likely retained due to
the deliberate designed in awkwardness and difficulties with the present
system.



From: Alison Hopkins on

"Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote in
message news:o5adnfgFU4MN7unYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net...

>
> Somewhere along the lines this issue has been dragged away from the
> initial core reason for the original post of the buyer placing a bid on an
> auction without reading the clearly stated auction terms and wanting a
> reason to squeeze out of his responsibilities of his auctions. OK the law
> is on his side and has given him the excuse but morally he is just another
> idiot bidder who doesn't bother reading terms and conditions and then
> refuses to comply with them.
>

Well said that man.

Ali


From: Alison Hopkins on

"The Older Gentleman" <chateau.murraySPAMKILL(a)dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
message news:1hpu4gk.1ohf386siayydN%chateau.murraySPAMKILL(a)dsl.pipex.com...
> Alison Hopkins <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you *really* trusting Usenet for expert advice? Honestly?
>
>
> <VVBG>
>

I don't know what they teach them in schools these days. <grin>

Ali


From: Niel Humphreys on
"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4tjbocF14drfhU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:o5adnfgFU4MN7unYRVnyhA(a)pipex.net...
>
>>
>> Somewhere along the lines this issue has been dragged away from the
>> initial core reason for the original post of the buyer placing a bid on
>> an auction without reading the clearly stated auction terms and wanting a
>> reason to squeeze out of his responsibilities of his auctions. OK the law
>> is on his side and has given him the excuse but morally he is just
>> another idiot bidder who doesn't bother reading terms and conditions and
>> then refuses to comply with them.
>>
>
> Well said that man.
>
> Ali


Why thank you m'dear. :)
--

Niel H
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Snowdon-Computers
http://www.ebayfaq.co.uk/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Powersellers/


From: bcc97 on

Niel Humphreys wrote:
> OK the law is on his
> side and has given him the excuse but morally he is just another idiot
> bidder who doesn't bother reading terms and conditions and then refuses to
> comply with them.

Yes, there's some responsibility on the buyer to read the terms
properly.

But I wonder what the seller's motives are in offering goods to
consumers in this manner -- i.e. so that the initial price you see (in
the results page) is VAT-exclusive, and so that the headline price on
the listing (i.e. the one next to the BIN button) is VAT-exclusive. It
could be:

a) that the seller is deeply concerned about having to pay eBay fees on
the VAT element of the transaction, or

b) that the seller knows that the misleading VAT-ex price in the
results page will drive more potential customers to the listing, and
that he will be able cynically to take advantage of those consumers who
are in more of a hurry, who are less wary or who just miss the terms
completely. Further, that he will take advantage of consumers' lack of
awareness of DSR, and that consumers won't think to cancel until it's
too late (3 months and 7 working days after delivery, unless he's
complied with the information rules of DSR).