From: bcc97 on

Alison Hopkins wrote:
> Maybe this is an old fart moment: but I do read much of these threads as
> symptomatic of the whole compensation culture thing. "Ooops, made a mistake,
> better get someone else to pay for it." As I said, that isn't aimed at
> either of these chaps, but I think it's being ignored. This all seems to be
> about the legality, not the morality.

With clothing, there's no way of knowing whether the item will fit
until you try it on (even though standard sizes will give some guide).
There's also no way of knowing whether the colour or style suits you
(although again the photograph would give some indication). There
would be no significant market for mail-order / distance-sold clothing
if there was no right to return the goods. There's nothing immoral
about making use of the right to return goods.

The existence of this right gives consumers confidence to purchase
online, thereby improving turnover for businesses. The use of the
right provides valuable information to businesses, to help them to
identify where their descriptions or product quality are perhaps
disappointing.

Frivolous use of the right to cancel is discouraged by the fact that
consumers can be required to bear return postage costs (and also by the
sad fact that it can often be quite a battle to have a seller recognise
that right and fulfil their obligations).

BTW, I've bought loads of things online, over many years, and I don't
think that I've ever cancelled under DSR. I am about to do so this
week for the first time, for an item which was to be installed in my
home, but which I have now discovered is unsuitable. It would not have
been possible to discover this from the information given in the item
description, and it would have been reasonable to have assumed (from
the description) that it would fit OK in any ordinary home.

From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 09:42:11 -0000, "nick"
<pizzalovingcriminal(a)allstar.gg> wrote:

>But non paying bidders are a waste of everyone's time, there has to be some
>mechanism to discourage them.

There is, but the point you are missing is that if a cancellation is
made under the DSR's _or_ if the goods are rejected under the SOGA as
not complying with the contract then there is no contract and there
is no unpaid item.

Any term attempting to discourage people from asserting their lawful
rights would, as has been pointed out, be judged unfair and
unenforceable.

Even if they wanted to eBay could not come up with a procedure which
would penalise people for asserting their DSR rights.

The solution for sellers is very simple. Make your descriptions
clear, honest and comprehensive. If you do you will get very few, if
any, DSR returns.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
From: bcc97 on

nick wrote:
> > NPB's and cancellations are a cost of doing business online, but a
> > business whose descriptions are fair and accurate will generally face
> > few returns.
>
> But why should ebay sellers pay fees (commission on sales) on auctions and
> bin auctions where winning bidders have not paid?
>

A good question, and one which sellers should ask of eBay. It's really
nothing to do with the buyer.


> > In the example of clothing, online businesses must expect a significant
> > number of returns, although again, if they are fair and reasonable,
> > they'll find that consumers are often happy to have the item replaced
> > for an item in a different size.
>
> This is not about people returning things, this is about people bidding and
> them not paying.
>

Actually, Sid's example and question was about returning things.

> > There is a mechanism which a business can use, do discourage
> > non-payment. This mechanism is to stop trading on eBay and to open a
> > high street shop. And this is exactly what all the traders on eBay
> > would do, if the cost of dealing with NPB's and returns was really so
> > ruinous. I suspect, however, that access to a huge international
> > market more than compensates for the small number of returns and
> > cancellations for any well-run business.
>
> But why should ebay sellers not reclaim the fees paid on uncompleted
> auctions???

Again, ask eBay. There's no legal reason why they should not be able
to do so, so long as there is no penalty against the consumer.

Morally, why should the sellers with few returns subsidise those who
get lots of returns, either because of their choice of item type (e.g.
clothing) or because their item descriptions are misleading or
incomplete?

From: nick on

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

>>But non paying bidders are a waste of everyone's time, there has to be
>>some
>>mechanism to discourage them.
>
> There is, but the point you are missing is that if a cancellation is
> made under the DSR's _or_ if the goods are rejected under the SOGA as
> not complying with the contract then there is no contract and there
> is no unpaid item.

Well there is, as clearly commission on the sale has been paid to ebay, and
it is only reasonable that this commision on the voided sale is returned to
the seller.

> Any term attempting to discourage people from asserting their lawful
> rights would, as has been pointed out, be judged unfair and
> unenforceable.

I enforce it most weeks...

> Even if they wanted to eBay could not come up with a procedure which
> would penalise people for asserting their DSR rights.
>
> The solution for sellers is very simple. Make your descriptions
> clear, honest and comprehensive. If you do you will get very few, if
> any, DSR returns.

There's always going to be timewasters, and why should their incompetence be
sponsored by sellers.


From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 09:56:04 -0000, "Alison Hopkins"
<fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote:


>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote
>Hang on. (And again, not a dig at PP, who I respect greatly. Or Sid.) If Sid
>thinks his wife dropped a bollock, and wasn't mislead, how can it be right,
>moral or ethical to take this to court?

As I read it his wife bought a skirt of the size she thought would
fit. On receipt the size shown on the garment was the size she
ordered and thought would fit as it was the same size she usually
wears but when she tried it it didn't fit. I don't think this is
unusual in clothing where reality and the label often differ quite a
lot.

No one other than the manufacturer has made a mistake, the buyer
ordered the right size, the seller sent what they thought was the
right size.

In such a case the DSR's give the buyer the advantage as they can
return the goods.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/