From: nick on

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

>> Well you could just forget about it and either give it to charity or sell
>> it
>> on ebay,
>
> This does future prospective buyers a disservice. If it's the wrong
> size, ask the seller if they'll exchange it. If they won't, cancel the
> contract. If the seller then won't refund, leave negative feedback to
> warn others. This needn't take a lot of time or effort.
>
> You could also, ultimately, sue for a refund. This will take a little
> more time and effort, and only you can decide whether it's worthwhile
> to you.
>
> You could also report the seller to Trading Standards, again to protect
> future buyers.

Or you could just be normal and move on...


From: Alison Hopkins on

"Sid" <nospam(a)nospam.co.nospam> wrote in message
news:i7xdh.43552$Pk.12316(a)fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>

> i've had another look and the sellers feedback is in the thousands (my
> memory recall faded when i said 400), he is a powerseller, he sells loads
> of clothing all brand new, some identical lines with different sizes,
> these aren't unwanted gifts, so yes he is trading. I'd agree its not the
> sellers fault, but the DSR do not specify that the seller should be at
> fault (as far as i know).

Hm. And he doesn't state a returns policy? Have you got an item number,
please?

Ali


From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:23:28 -0000, "nick"
<pizzalovingcriminal(a)allstar.gg> wrote:

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

>> 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,

The seller is entitled by law to do just that. It is not for eBay to
circumvent that law.

>leaving the seller with commision to reclaim from ebay.

Any problem it leaves is between the seller and eBay.

>> 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,

The DSR's override eBays T&C's and remove the contract and therefore
the obligation to do anything.

It is no different from any other distance sale. You order goods
from a web site and once the company accepts your order a binding
contract is made. The DSR's give a seller the right to cancel that
contract.

>> 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.

As far as discussion of the DSR's are concerned they are one and the
same. It makes no difference if the cancellation comes before or
after payment (except it is in the sellers interest for it to come
before the goods are sent out).

As I have said before, good sellers, on eBay or elsewhere, have no
problem with the DSR's and they are a trivial part of their overall
business costs.

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

nick wrote:
> "bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote in message
> > You cannot 'sign up' to T&C's which are unfair, though (for example by
> > penalising you for exercising your legal rights). To the extent that
> > terms are unfair, they are void.
>
> How are they unfair??

By allowing sellers to use the system to penalise consumers who
exercise their right to cancel.

>
> >> >>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.
> >>
> >> I'm not doing anything illegal.
> >
> > You just said that you were. Perhaps you should seek the opinion of
> > your local Trading Standards office, before they approach you.
>
> Because I reclaim my final value fees from people who have not completed
> their purchase?
>
No, you reclaim your fees from eBay. What's illegal is penalising
consumers who exercise their right to cancel, by initiating the NPB
process (which leads to a strike).

By the way, I don't see any problem in using the NPB process on a
consumer who just doesn't contact you at all. But as soon as they
exercise their right to cancel, then the process shouldn't be used.

> Why would trading standards care?

See above.

>
> >> >>There's always going to be timewasters, and why should their
> >> >>incompetence
> >> >>be
> >> >>sponsored by sellers.
> >> >
> >> > Because the law says so.
> >>
> >> Well does it?
> >
> > Yes it does, in effect.
>
> "in effect"
>
> So in otherwords no.

Incorrect. The law doesn't specifically use the words which you used.
But it allows consumers (including timewasters) to cancel without
giving any reason, and this can impose a cost on sellers.

> Forget that, I'm more interested in why you think someone reclaiming their
> final value fees is a criminal.

Because the NPB system allows you to reclaim fees where the buyer
breaches their contractual obligation to pay. If the buyer's
cancelled, there's no obligation to pay. If, with a view to getting
money, you claim that someone has breached an obligation to pay,
whereas they have not in fact breached that obligation, is that not an
attempt to obtain property by deception?

Aside from criminal law, the activity would breach the (civil)
provisions of unfair terms and distance selling regulations.

From: Sid on

"Alison Hopkins" <fn62(a)dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:4tnluaF141d0dU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "Sid" <nospam(a)nospam.co.nospam> wrote in message
> news:i7xdh.43552$Pk.12316(a)fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>
>> i've had another look and the sellers feedback is in the thousands (my
>> memory recall faded when i said 400), he is a powerseller, he sells loads
>> of clothing all brand new, some identical lines with different sizes,
>> these aren't unwanted gifts, so yes he is trading. I'd agree its not the
>> sellers fault, but the DSR do not specify that the seller should be at
>> fault (as far as i know).
>
> Hm. And he doesn't state a returns policy? Have you got an item number,
> please?

I do, but i think it unwise and not useful to publish it here.
actually on inspection, a refund is offered "if the item is misrepresented,
but less postage costs" (I'm assuming he means postage both ways).
Sid