From: bcc97 on

Alison Hopkins wrote:

> > 1. Ignorant of two laws crucial to selling on ebay.
> >
>
> But they seem to have a far better grasp of morality than you.
>

No immorality in the OP cancelling the contract if he feels that he's
been misled (whether or not he read the description in full). In fact,
by cancelling and stating his reasons for cancellation (which he
doesn't have to do), he's providing the seller with a useful service.
That is, if the seller starts getting cancellations because he's
stating the true price separately from the Buy it Now price, he should
accept that as useful feedback which indicates a possible problem with
the manner in which he is advertising. Any reputable distance selling
business will monitor cancellations and take action to minimise them
(for example by rectifying misleading advertising).

From: Sid on

"Mike Scott" <usenet.11(a)spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> wrote in message
news:u3gdh.55$Dr3.32(a)newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> 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.
the very first line above, pete says "the buyer probably has paid", although
i do accept what he says is useful in the generalised case, and forgive me
if i msunderstood.

>>
>>> 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.


you use the word 'should', is that in the legal sense, moral sense, or
actual sense?
i doubt legally ebay is forced to do anything regarding strikes, they own
the system and users agree to their terms.
morally, i'd disagree in the case where the buyer has not paid because he
disagrees with the terms clearly laid out, that is the buyers responsibility
as laid out in the ebay agreement, so neg and strike.
in the actual sense, ebay will strike the buyers account if he cannot show
proof of payment.

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

well, the seller has to accept the buyers wish to cancel the transaction
(under the DSR), the seller can't legally enforce payment, or refuse a
refund.
but that is not the same thing in my mind as 'mutually agreeing not to
complete' under the unpaid item process - that is an ebay issue, not a legal
issue. in the unpaid item process there is a option specifying 'buyer
refuses to pay', i think that option is more appropriate for the OP's
specific case.

as a seperate issue - if a buyer buys a pair of trousers and they don't fit
even though the seller has specified the correct measurements,
is the buyer entitled to return the item with a full refund (including
shipping price as stated in the listing),
or should the seller refund excluding his shipping price,
and should the seller also cover the cost of return postage?
as i understand it the buyer would be responsible for return postage and the
sellers shipping fees. so there is a difference between cancelling before
payment/shipping and after shipping/receiving the goods.
Sid.


From: Need a little help please on

"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4tlcc4F14mh2iU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "Need a little help please" <nospam(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:el3tmc$go9$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net...
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You really don't get out much, do you.
>
> Ali
>

Wrong, again.


From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:45:11 GMT, "Sid" <nospam(a)nospam.co.nospam>
wrote:

>
>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> 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).

Quite possibly, it's meandered about a bit. However it doesn't make
any difference whether they have actually paid or not.

>> 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),

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/unpaid-item.html Open up the
section "Why does eBay have this policy")

> 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.

It is entirely consistent. The DSR's unravel the contract so the
goods were not bought.

>eBay will issue a strike on the account
>of the buyer who does not honour their obligation to pay

There is no longer any obligation to buy.

>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.

Yes he can, as the eBay policy is subservient to law and the law in
this case explicitly says there can be no opt out.

>> 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.

You would need something that was a bit more neutral. The present
system requires the buyer to respond and penalises them if they
don't. There can be no penalty upon the buyer for simply exercising
their option under the DSR's.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
From: Niel Humphreys on
"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4tli83F14bam1U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> I initially had some sympathy with him, but his displayed behaviour has
> made me wish for a flying wedge of NPBs and negs to be visited upon him.
>
> Ali


Jihad!
--

Niel H