From: Niel Humphreys on

"Marcus Redd" <read(a)it.com> wrote in message
news:457489a6$0$5464$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:1165262497.842699.312720(a)j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> 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.
>
> He's so desperate to insult me now that my posts have revealed that he's
> so unaware of what must be rather important laws relating to ebay.

Actually I am and have posted as much. Unfortunately as you have killfiled
me you missed them so you are now looking rather silly.

Can someone who is not on this guy's kill filter do a blank reply to this
post so he gets to see it please? Ta.
--

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


From: nick on

"Marcus Redd" <read(a)it.com> wrote in message

>> Yes, there's some responsibility on the buyer to read the terms
>> properly.
>
> He's so desperate to insult me now that my posts have revealed that he's
> so unaware of what must be rather important laws relating to ebay. Surely
> though, his being an ignorant seller is a little more worrying than a
> self-confessed idiot-buyer like me? I mean, he claims to be running a
> business there...

You came here looking for advice and help, and are now just hurling petty
abuse?


From: Marcus Redd on
"Toby" <leinstersq(a)wcc.org> wrote in message
news:45747766$0$3465$a8266bb1(a)reader.corenews.com...
>> "Marcus Redd" <read(a)it.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> p.s. if you haven't already, check out his neutral and negative
>>> feedbacks
>
> And there is a large number of those.

Yeah, and it's a shame I couldn't get the toohaus thing working else I'd
have noticed people's complaints about his scummy VAT trickery and avoided
him... is that why he has the asterisks around his name, maybe?


From: "mucus" ibidand on

"Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote in
message

>> He's so desperate to insult me now that my posts have revealed that he's
>> so unaware of what must be rather important laws relating to ebay.
>
> Actually I am and have posted as much. Unfortunately as you have killfiled
> me you missed them so you are now looking rather silly.
>
> Can someone who is not on this guy's kill filter do a blank reply to this
> post so he gets to see it please? Ta.


From: bcc97 on

Niel Humphreys wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
>
> Seeing that it has already been established in one of the other threads on
> this subject that all the seller's other auctions do quote a VAT inclusive
> price in the text (I have not checked personally but no-one has refuted
> this) I would think it's a fairly safe bet this this particular auction is a
> genuine oversight and the seller had the unfortunate co-incidence that the
> person who clicked BIN did so without ... well you know, I am not respeating
> myself again. As such I would think any reasonable person would look to your
> point (a) as opposed to your point (b) above.
> --

Both my points are equally applicable. Although, according to the
information on this thread and others, it was just the one item where
the seller missed the VAT-inclusive price, this isn't really relevant.

The point I was making was that the price in the search results page,
and the headline price, are both VAT-exclusive. This applies whether
or not the VAT inclusive price is given, and the motivation could be
the same in either case.

In fact, if the seller is normally quoting the VAT-inclusive price in
the item description, perhaps he does know that VAT-inclusive prices
are required (although he hasn't considered its application to the
search results page), and perhaps he's trying to skirt as close to a
misleading price as he can without actually breaking the law (or at
least without being challenged for breaking the law). Entirely
consistent with scenario (b) above as well as scenario (a).

If it's (b), then it's clearly working to some degree (as the OP got
caught out). If it's (a), it's probably not doing his business a great
deal of good (but then is he really going to rely on repeat business or
word of mouth?).