From: Sid on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:tehbn29phus38ts61v85g13eh32fhoe0ji(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 18:17:32 -0000, "nick"
> <pizzalovingcriminal(a)allstar.gg> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> 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 Those terms refer to non payment, once the buyer has withdrawn under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.
>
> It is actually an unpaid item, not a non paying bidder now. The
> difference may appear trivial but it more correctly describes what it
> is trying to achieve.
>
>>If people bid and then don't pay they get a strike.
>
>>What's wrong with that?
>
> Nothing, so long as they have an obligation to pay. However, once
> the contract is cancelled using the DSR's they no longer have any
> contract or obligation to pay so there is no unpaid item and they
> cannot be non payers by eBays rules - simple.

but aren't you just using semantics to fit your position?
is there anything specific in the DSR that could nulify an ebay strike in a
legal sense? you've mentioned the buyer should not be penalised and there
shall be no get out clause, but surely the spirit of that is the buyer shall
not be at a financially loss.
it would be very easy for ebay to use different wording in the unpaid item
process to break your logic.
we all know what the spirit of the unpaid item process is - if the buyer
backs out of the transaction they get a strike and if they do it too often
their ebay account gets shut down to protect sellers and ebay from
frivoulous bidders, particularly problematic with auction style listings.
Sid


From: bcc97 on

Peter Parry wrote:
> (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.)

But the shipping is still arranged and paid for 'in relation to' the
contract for sale of goods, and is therefore refundable. A sham like
this is unlikely to get around the DSR. It's not like you'd go to the
piano company to buy shipping alone (without buying a piano).

Whereas if the piano company says to the customer that they can collect
the goods using a courier of their choice, then they probably would get
around it.

From: bcc97 on

Sid wrote:
> we all know what the spirit of the unpaid item process is - if the buyer
> backs out of the transaction they get a strike and if they do it too often
> their ebay account gets shut down to protect sellers and ebay from
> frivoulous bidders, particularly problematic with auction style listings.
> Sid

Exactly. The spirit (and letter) of the process is to penalise the
buyer unlawfully for exercising their legal rights under the DSR.

Any contract term which seeks to do this would be illegal under the
unfair terms regulations. In addition, if that term appears in the
contract which is covered by DSR (i.e. the contract between buyer and
seller), then the term is void under Reg 25 DSR.

So I'd agree with Peter on this point.

If a seller finds the law problematic, perhaps they're in the wrong
business. The law is there for good reasons (even if it also has some
unintended or on occasion undesirable consequences -- not that I'm
saying this is the case here).

In relation to auction-style, it is by no means certain that DSR apply,
and it would certainly be open to the seller to argue this. There is
no such doubt in the case of BIN.

From: nick on

"bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote in message

>> we all know what the spirit of the unpaid item process is - if the buyer
>> backs out of the transaction they get a strike and if they do it too
>> often
>> their ebay account gets shut down to protect sellers and ebay from
>> frivoulous bidders, particularly problematic with auction style listings.
>> Sid
>
> Exactly. The spirit (and letter) of the process is to penalise the
> buyer unlawfully for exercising their legal rights under the DSR.
>
> Any contract term which seeks to do this would be illegal under the
> unfair terms regulations.

What planet are you on??


From: Peter Parry on
On 5 Dec 2006 13:32:51 -0800, "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote:

>Peter Parry wrote:
>> (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.)
>
>But the shipping is still arranged and paid for 'in relation to' the
>contract for sale of goods, and is therefore refundable.

No more than it would be if the buyer collected the goods at their
own expense.

>A sham like
>this is unlikely to get around the DSR. It's not like you'd go to the
>piano company to buy shipping alone (without buying a piano).

That's why it is usually a separate company set up to do nothing
other than ship pianos or whatever.

>Whereas if the piano company says to the customer that they can collect
>the goods using a courier of their choice, then they probably would get
>around it.

Basically that is it. The contract of sale has no reference to
shipping, only to collection. The buyer is more than welcome to make
their own arrangements and many do. If the buyer requests it the
seller will make quite separate arrangements with a shipping company
(which they may own) under a service contract, where they act as the
agent of the buyer not as the seller, for shipping. The shipping is
invoiced from a different company on a different date. It isn't at
all underhand and at that level of purchasing buyers understand why
sellers need to do it.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/