From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:43:54 GMT, "Sid" <nospam(a)>

>"Mike Scott" <usenet.11(a)> wrote

>> 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'd use it here in all three, see below.

>i doubt legally ebay is forced to do anything regarding strikes, they own
>the system and users agree to their terms.

Those terms refer to non payment, once the buyer has withdrawn under
the DSR's there isn't a payment to make. You can't file for non
payment of a non debt. Under eBays rules the seller would be in the
wrong for making such a claim (and you don't get three goes at that

>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.

There isn't any payment to make.

>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.

It isn't, because having cancelled he has no obligation to pay. The
cancellation rescinds the eBay contract to buy so the "buyer" cannot
be a non payer.

>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),

Assuming the DSR's apply then yes.

>or should the seller refund excluding his shipping price,

No, the DSR's specifically say that all the costs including outbound
shipping and packing charges must be refunded.

>and should the seller also cover the cost of return postage?

Possibly. If the seller has provided all the information required by
the DSR's in the correct way and has included in their sale a
requirement for the buyer to return the goods at their expense then
the buyer must pay return costs. If the buyer fails to return the
goods but makes them available for collection the seller can recover
the direct cost of collection.

If the seller didn't tell the buyer of their DSR rights or didn't
include the requirement to pay return costs then the seller has to
arrange collection themselves at their own cost.

>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.

Yes - but it favours the seller to cancel before shipping.

(There is a way around this which is to make the shipping
arrangements a quite separate service, invoiced entirely separately,
and often provided by a separate company (albeit at the same premises
with the same people). However it involves considerable complication
and about the only people who do it are those who sell products with
very high shipping costs - like grand pianos for whom a DSR return
would cost hundreds of pounds.)
Peter Parry.
From: Alison Hopkins on

"Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)> wrote in
message news:n5SdncuhUcjlNOjYnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d(a)
> "Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)> wrote in message
> news:4tli83F14bam1U1(a)
>> 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!

You daft sod.


From: Lord Edam de Fromage on
In article <45758d17$0$6585$9a6e19ea(a)>,
read(a) says...

> 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?

If you can't read properly you are illiterate.

> And how on earth can you defend illegal activities because the guy might not
> make as much money??? That's utterly incredible to me.

What he did in your specific auction was contrary to price marking
orders, but was clearly an honest mistake and would be seen as such if
you wanted push this beyond an anonymous internet forum.

What he does overall is not technically illegal. He clearly states the
VAT-inclusive BIN price in all his other auctions, as required by law.
We can argue layman opinions as to whether his other auctions are legal
or not, but it's only layman opinion and hardly definitive proof of

> It's really disturbing how many uninformed loud-mouths there are in this
> group, pretending to be the last word on the law according unto ebay and yet
> revealing their ignorance in my threads.

I only provide advice. Anyone acting on my advice does so at their own
risk. I've never claimed to be expert or "the last word on the law".
Infact, I've been very careful not to portray my advice as the only
From: Marcus Redd on
"Ian Cox" <ian-coxtit(a)> wrote in message
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:14 -0000, Marcus Redd wrote:
>> 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.
> He didn't say he'd joined, did he?

You're right, of course. I'm an idiot. Shoot me.

From: nick on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)> wrote in message

> Those terms refer to non payment, once the buyer has withdrawn under
> the DSR's there isn't a payment to make. You can't file for non
> payment of a non debt.

It's a non paying bidder strike.

If people bid and then don't pay they get a strike.

What's wrong with that?