Prev: Parcel2Go - HDNL Network
Next: Your item is being processed but we have not received confirmation of delivery.
From: Need a little help please on 4 Dec 2006 14:21
"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
> 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
>>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?
> Peter Parry.
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
From: Alison Hopkins on 4 Dec 2006 14:37
"Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote in
> 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.
From: Alison Hopkins on 4 Dec 2006 14:38
"The Older Gentleman" <chateau.murraySPAMKILL(a)dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
> Alison Hopkins <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> Are you *really* trusting Usenet for expert advice? Honestly?
I don't know what they teach them in schools these days. <grin>
From: Niel Humphreys on 4 Dec 2006 14:52
"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> "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.
Why thank you m'dear. :)
From: bcc97 on 4 Dec 2006 15:01
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
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
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).