From: Sid on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)> wrote in message
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:04:15 GMT, "Sid" <nospam(a)>
> wrote:
>>surely the DSR relates only to the nulification of any legal contract
>>between the buyer and the seller,
> Yes
>>and has nothing to do with how the ebay
>>system/user agreement works except where the ebay system conflicts with
>>DSR. the buyer is protected from any legal action by the seller under the
>>DSR - that's where the DSR stops isn't it?
> No, it dissolves the agreement to buy and by doing so invalidates any
> eBay (or other) unpaid item process which depends upon that
> agreement.
>>the ebay user agreement states that a non-paying bidder (he bid and did
>>pay, therefore he is a non paying bidder) will get a strike against his
>>account, the DSR doesn;t change that.
> The eBay user agreement says nothing of the sort :-) If it did every
> losing bidder could be treated as a NPB; they bid but did not buy!
> Moreover the buyer probably has paid (if it is a BIN sale or if the
> goods have been sent) so can't be classed as not having done so. What
> they have subsequently done is exercised their legal right to cancel.

In which case i've misunderstood this whole thread, since i thought the
buyer had not paid ??
I think you have it wrong Peter, the OP has refused (i think) to pay as he
was not aware of the VAT (which was clearly stated twice in the listing).

> eBay say "Unpaid Item
> policy is necessary to enforce the contractual obligations entered
> into between buyer and seller". Which is all well and good but if
> the contract is cancelled under the DSR's (or under the SOGA) there
> is no contractual obligation and no unpaid item to dispute.

well, your point is logically correct as far as that quote goes (please post
a link to that quote if you have it), but it is at odds with this:
"Sellers can file an Unpaid Item dispute with eBay for each of their items
that were bought but not paid for. eBay will issue a strike on the account
of the buyer who does not honour their obligation to pay (unless the buyer
and seller mutually agree not to complete the transaction). "

both quotes are outside of the scope of the DSR, and only relate to the ebay
framework, i think it is clear that a buyer cannot escape an ebay strike if
he doesn't pay.

> What is really needed is a proper procedure to deal with DSR returns.
> It must:-
> Be able to cope with no input/response from the buyer.

it does - after 10 days the fees default in favour of the seller, whether it
is a 'mutual', or a an 'unpaid item'

> Be capable instigated by the seller.

yes, a mutual can be initiated by the seller, if the buyer fails to respond,
it defaults in sellers favour.


From: bcc97 on

Peter Parry wrote:
> What is really needed is a proper procedure to deal with DSR returns.
> It must:-
> Be able to cope with no input/response from the buyer.
> Be capable instigated by the seller.
> Be able to be triggered up to 30 days from the end of the sale.

I would think that it would need to remain open for more than 30 days
from the end of the sale. DSR allow the seller 30 days to perform the
contract (deliver the goods). Then you need to add on the cooling-off
period which is at least 7 working days, but which could be as much as
3 months and 7 working days where the seller fails to comply with the
information requirements (as is currently common amongst distance

And then the parties to the contract can also agree a time of more than
30 days for performance, thereby further extending the possible
cancellation period.

From: bcc97 on

Sid wrote:

> if it were possible to win an auction, not pay, register as cancelled,
> receive no feedback, a seller could win all his competitors auctions to
> knock out his competition without any consequences, and with very little
> effort.
> Sid

Under those circumstances, the DSR wouldn't apply because the 'buyer'
is not a consumer. Proving this is another matter.

From: Don on

"Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)> wrote in
message news:qZOdnXtZmquZmunYnZ2dnUVZ8sydnZ2d(a)
> "Marcus Redd" <read(a)> wrote in message
> news:4573fa18$0$10535$9a6e19ea(a)
>> "bcc97" <bcc98(a)> wrote in message
>> news:1165226967.959104.234770(a)
>>>I thought that the OP had cancelled under Distance Selling Regs, in
>>> which case there's no longer any contract and there's nothing to remind
>>> him of.
>>> However, the seller may need a 'reminder' about the Regulations!
>> Yeah, I tried to cancel, but he claimed not to have received my original
>> email... I think this seller is a lying piece of you-know-what, and is
>> fully aware of the fact that he's a scammer.
> Yawn
> --
> Niel H

Seems it is ok for Mr. H to yawn. I recall many occasions when he has bored
us with his nonsense.


From: Alison Hopkins on

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

> No, I don't deserver the neg, fact, end of story, etc. My rights under UK
> law allow me to cancel an agreement of this sort. Please, please, please
> get your facts straight in future, you're not coming across at all well.

Rights, shmights. The DSR is designed for those who need a cooling off
period after a purchase. It was never meant for illiterates who try to welsh
on their obligations AFTER the event. You conveniently found a hook from
which to suspend your own admitted mistake.