From: Lord Edam de Fromage on
In article <1165323954.712434.320390(a)l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
bcc98(a)stork.plus.com says...
>
> Alison Hopkins wrote:
> > I think he knows far more than you do, as you have so ably demonstrated by
> > your total inability to read a listing
>
> The OP admitted that he'd not read the listing properly. But that
> doesn't excuse the seller 'setting a trap' (in the OP's words) -- i.e.
> deliberately drawing buyers in, using a VAT-exclusive price, and then
> hoping that at least some of them miss the statement about the true
> price.

if he's selling 1000 items a month, at about £100 a time, he could just
be trying to save £3,000 a month rather than attempting to trap poor
illiterate buyers. Don't know about your businesses, but for many of the
ones I'm familiar with £3,000 is the difference between a healthy profit
and going broke.
From: Peter Parry on
On 5 Dec 2006 02:47:32 -0800, "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote:

>
>Peter Parry wrote:
>> The issue is that eBay don't appear to have a mechanism for catering
>> for contracts cancelled under the DSR's (Or if they do, does someone
>> know what it is?).
>
>What about 'cancelled by mutual agreement'?

The current "mutual agreement" has to be initiated by the buyer (I
think). The DSR's require the buyer to do very little when they
cancel so to work a "cancelled under DSR's" procedure would have to
be initiated by the seller and rely upon nothing from the (ex) buyer.
I can see eBay being reluctant to do this as it could be misused by
sellers and have a tiny impact upon their fee income!
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
From: bcc97 on

Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> > > and there are problems with
> > > this related to the timescales for refunds & returns - specifically the
> > > latest time for refund being before the latest time for return of goods)
> >
> > Agreed, a good point that needs to be addressed. Perhaps you have a
> > proposal?

I'm not sure that the timescale thing is such a problem. A seller's
unlikely to be criticised for withholding a refund where a consumer
refuses or fails to restore the goods to them -- all they're doing is
exercising their right of set-off against the consumer.

It's quite something else if a seller is habitually delaying refunds
for more than 30 days, or failing to collect goods promptly on
cancellation (where the consumer is not required to return them).

From: bcc97 on

Peter Parry wrote:

> The current "mutual agreement" has to be initiated by the buyer (I
> think). The DSR's require the buyer to do very little when they
> cancel so to work a "cancelled under DSR's" procedure would have to
> be initiated by the seller and rely upon nothing from the (ex) buyer.
> I can see eBay being reluctant to do this as it could be misused by
> sellers and have a tiny impact upon their fee income!
> --

It would be impossible to compel the buyer to participate in any such
arrangement. However, if the buyer were given the option to register
their cancellation via the eBay site, and if this then automatically
prevented any feedback being given about the transaction, this would
probably be attractive.

As you've already said, the use of negative feedback and/or NPB in a
DSR cancellation situation might well be open to challenge. But a
system such as this would mean that the buyer wouldn't even have to
think about whether they might receive punitive feedback, and about
whether and how they would challenge it.

From: Need a little help please on

"Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwzdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote in
message news:B8ednSREWLaj8-jYRVnytg(a)pipex.net...
> "Need a little help please" <nospam(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:el3pm3$e7g$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> Indeed, Niel was once held with some regard by myself, however, that has
>> been diminished to some extent by his continuing usage of entirely
>> unnecessary expletives, perhaps indicative of limited intellect and
>> vocabulary,
>
> LMAO so I am now a bad trader becuase I swear?

No, and it is surprising with your BA(Hons) and an IQ of 155 that you
managed to leap to the conclusion, since it was never stated.

> Where on earth do you find anyone to deal with?

Perhaps it has escaped your BA(Hons) and an IQ of 155 intellect that on
eBay, the buyers find the seller.

> I can't remember the last time I met someone who never swears these days.

Indeed, swearing in moderation for effect may pass as acceptable, however, I
cannot remember the last time I met anyone who swears with your frequency,
or indeed, another poster to this group who makes use of such language as
habitually as you do.

> I am merely making better use of the English language than you obivously
> do.

You must be right, after all, you claim to have a BA(Hons) and an IQ of 155.
The entire Usenet salutes you.

> As for intellect I hold a BA(Hons) and an IQ of 155 (tested by Mensa) so I
> guess that's pretty secure.

Perhaps compulsory retests should be introduced.

> By the same token are you saying that people who suffer from Tourettes are
> of below average intelligence?

Are you saying you have Tourettes, as this would explain your outbusts.
Perhaps that was your meaning when you confirmed, in your special way, of
having 'an automated bot' to insert expletives within your posts.

>
> --
>
> Niel H.
> (sig snipped for Ali) ;o)
>