From: Mike Scott on
Sid wrote:
>> 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).

Peter was, I think generalizing. Whether or not the buyer has actually
paid, the buyer's rights are the same. And as has been pointed out, it's
to the /seller's/ benefit for any cancellation to occur before payment,
as there's less to do to restore the status quo.

>> 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). "

Not at odds in the least: "...of the buyer who does not honour /their
obligation/ to pay...". If the contract is cancelled under the DSRs
there is no obligation to pay, and therefore ebay should not enter such
a strike under this clause.

And indeed, legally the seller /must/ agree not to complete the transaction.

Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t-
From: Alison Hopkins on

"Marcus Redd" <read(a)> wrote in message
> Erm... illiterate means "unable to read". How many times do I need to
> repeat that I admit that I failed to read his T&Cs properly? Or do you
> just not want to remember that?

You made a mistake. Fine. Live with the consequences. Why should the seller
be out of pocket due to your incompetence?

> Your continued insults are really making you look less and less
> reasonable.
> And how on earth can you defend illegal activities because the guy might
> not make as much money??? That's utterly incredible to me.

You found the "illegality" after you had bid knowing that you had not read
the listing. You are now trying to blame the seller for your own mistake,
rather than taking responsibility. That sort of attitude - regardless of
your supposed back door get out of jail card - makes me very angry indeed.


From: Marcus Redd on
"Need a little help please" <nospam(a)> wrote in message
> "Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)> wrote in
> message news:B8ednSREWLaj8-jYRVnytg(a)
>> "Need a little help please" <nospam(a)> wrote in message
>> news:el3pm3$e7g$1(a)
>>> 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.

ROFL!!!!!!!! "BA(Hons) and an IQ of 155 (tested by Mensa)" eh? Wow... that
must mean that he was mug enough to take the Mensa test, the results of
which are most likely "Oooh, you're really bright, you MUST join our
organisation and pay us a regular membership fee..." Fleeced, Neil, fleeced.

From: Alison Hopkins on

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

> Oh, a swear word. Pop goes your intellect. Into the kf you go with the
> other trolls.

Christ on a crutch, if you plonk everyone who swears, then your bozo bin
must be brimming.


From: Alison Hopkins on

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

> Hahahahaha! Nice one chum, flushed Ali down the toilet she, Neil and Lord
> Cheezy might easily have modelled their mouths upon.

So, it's OK to rip people off, knowingly, and try to defraud them, but not
to swear? Strange morality you have there, old son.