From: bcc97 on

Peter Parry wrote:
> 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.

Rejection under SoGA does not extinguish the contract in the same way
as cancellation under DSR. If you reject for breach of contract, the
contract still exists, and you can claim damages by reference to what
you expected to get (i.e. loss of bargain). However, if you get as far
as rejecting under SoGA, the item's almost certainly already been paid
for.

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

But they have come up with a procedure which does exactly this, because
all a seller needs to do is to report the item as unpaid when the
consumer cancels. Whether or not this was the intention behind the
procedure, and whether or not it's legal, it certainly achieves this
effect.

> 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.

From: nick on

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

>> > 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.

Of course it is, the buyer has walked away from the sale, leaving the seller
with commision to reclaim from ebay.

>> > 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.

It's clear in ebays T&Cs that bidders are expected to perform, when they
don't they get a strike, three strikes and they're off.

> 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?

This is not about returns, this is about bidders not paying.


From: Peter Parry on
On 6 Dec 2006 01:49:51 -0800, "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote:

>Peter Parry wrote:

>> 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.
>> --
>
>OK, I can see how that might work in the example you have described.
>But this doesn't necessarily translate to all types of sellers and
>goods -- even if they set up a separate shipping company to try to
>evade DSR.

I agree. I've only ever come across it in cases where the shipping
costs of the item are in the order of thousands of pounds.

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

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:d16dn2lglm3is2mgbvevj027gdk2efnssh(a)4ax.com...
> 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.

I'd be interested to know if the original listing gave actual measurements,
as well as size. As a matter of course, if the brand is unfamiliar, I ask
for measurements.

Ali


From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:19:18 -0000, "nick"
<pizzalovingcriminal(a)allstar.gg> wrote:


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

>> 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.

Agreed, that is a matter between the seller and eBay.

>> 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...

Lots of people do illegal things, it doesn't make any of them right
or that they will get away with it for ever.

>> 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.

Because the law says so. Reality is that those suppliers who have
good descriptions and good customer service get very few returns. A
company I know makes about 2,000 sales a week over the Internet to
consumers and gets about 1 DSR return a month. Another I used to
know was more or less put out of business by the DSR's. However, they
deserved it having a policy of total non communication on complaints
and product descriptions which could most charitably be described as
imaginative rather than accurate.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/