Just a Note to buyers

[case_cover]

Before leaving feedback think about this.

Sellers do have the right to have customers charged if eBay does not remove defamatory comments such as neutral or negative feedback.

Due to Australian Laws the consumer has the right to take the matter up with consumer affairs.

How ever the consumer does not have the right to stand out the front of a business bad mouthing that business (or in this case on eBay leave neutral or negative feedback).

That is what consumer affairs is for is the consumer is in the right.

By law eBay must and does provide this link below

Defamation of character Stat Declaration

http://pages.ebay.com.au/help/community/defam-form.html

[leader-of-the-band]

Before leaving feedback think about this.

Sellers do have the right to have customers charged if eBay does not remove defamatory comments such as neutral or negative feedback.

Unwarranted neutral or negative feedback is not necessarily defamatory.  eBay do have a feedback policy that can be the basis of feedback removal.  There also does not seem to be a time limit for the removal of feedback under this policy.  Just this last week I had a feedback comment from a seller that was left almost three years ago removed under the policy.

As a seller, I have seen that neutral and negative feedback comments can hit hard, but that doesn't mean that a seller can have a buyer 'charged'.  I don't think law enforcement would take on cases and go around charging buyers and tying up the court system.  They have bigger fish to fry.

A seller can take legal action . . . . but that doesn't mean 'charges' are laid. 

[case_cover]

yes no need to be rude, I can tell by what your saying you think you know it all.

[downeyas]

Neutral or Negative feedback is not defamatory per se, unless it is accompanied by threats - threats can come in many forms, through a message in eBay, a telephone call if the buyer has requested and received the sellers details or private emails if a seller is silly enough, as I was, to put their email address on their packaging.

If private emails and/or telephone calls are received and are defamatory then and only then does a seller have the right to take action through Consumer Affairs - and proof must be produced ie; copies of the emails.

If you are a 'newbie' such as is indicated on your posting, please make sure you know the correct ins and outs of this subject

[bsal6160]

Some poeple should not be allowed to breathe the same air as the rest of the human race. Someone is swimming in the wrong gene pool.

[leader-of-the-band]

yes no need to be rude, I can tell by what your saying you think you know it all.

just to set the record straight for anybody reading this thread . . . . the original post #2 has been removed and this post quoted above is not aimed at my post #1.  I don't blame the OP for making this comment in reply to the removed post . . . it was out of line.

(this is being posted as post #5 - I suspect that post #4 will be removed too!)

[peternt2001]

the trouble with defamation OP , is the truth negates it. And it would be up to you to prove that

1. What was said "isnt true"

2. The buyer posting a Neg knew it wasnt true .

A negative comment or statement happening under a commercial transaction would more than likely not be taken up as by police as a criminal action, but you would be advised to take it up as a civil matter, and unless you had deep pockets to pay for a civil action against the buyer.

[nawty_knights_inc]

Infact The only prevision excluding a defamation law suit is if the buyer/Defandant provide the seller the opertunaty to fix and problem and in turn revises the feedback.

A summary of the provisions is as follows:

• An aggrieved person can serve upon the publisher of defamatory material a “concerns notice”.


• The “concerns notice” should be in writing and should identify the imputations alleged to arise.  If the publisher is of the view that the “concerns notice” does not adequately particularise the imputations, the publisher is entitled to serve a written notice (“a further particulars notice”) requesting further particulars of the alleged imputations.


• The aggrieved person should provide the further particulars within 14 days after being given the notice.  If the aggrieved person does not do so, then he or she is taken not to have served a “concerns notice”.


• Following service of a “concerns notice”, the publisher of the defamatory material can make an offer to make amends.  Section 14(1) imposes time limits for the making of an offer to make amends.


• The offer to make amends must:

(a)            be in writing;

(b)            be readily identifiable as an offer to makes amends under the Act;

(c)        if the offer is limited to any particular defamatory imputation, it must state that the offer is so limited and particularise the imputations to which the offer is limited;

(d)            include an offer to publish a reasonable correction of the matter in question;

(e)        include an offer to pay the expenses reasonably incurred by the aggrieved person including expenses reasonably incurred by the aggrieved person in considering the offer; and

(f)         may including any other kind of offer the redress the harm sustained by the aggrieved person including but not limited to:

(i)            an offer to publish an apology; or

(ii)            an offer to pay compensation for any economic or non-economic loss; or

(iii)       the particulars of any correction or apology made, or action taken, before the date of the offer.

[nawty_knights_inc]

"A" Problem sorry about that

[case_cover]

Defamation of the reputation of a person or business has nothing to do with items bought or sold, it is about the reputaion and loss of income or damages.

Some one could end up in a metal institute due to some one's defamating comments and still has the same legal grounds as a business you are defamating the character of

A Smart buyer would try resolve the problem but has not legal right to make defamatory comments.

a 20,000 dollar law suit is nothing for some one whom has that kind of money with a minimum out come of 250,000 dollars, and the plaintiffhas the right o have the case heard infront of a jury also.