I will give you one last chance if you care to look at real events relating to real proof and law? not this pretend 'make up our own, cherry pick this and that' **bleep** you keep giving me.
Ebay has refused to honour a "30 day money back Guarantee" that we made at the point of purchase and violated my consumer rights doing so.
Thus far Ebay has absolutely refused to comply with Australian Consumer Law and their own policy.
My issues are a direct result of incompetence, negligence and inaction when they were originally advised of the issue, completely violating my right to acceptable duty to care.
This matter will go to court.
I bought a phone from a seller on Ebay. The Title was "AS NEW SAMSUNG Galaxy S7 32GB SMG930 Unlocked Smartphone FROM MEL"
Ebay has a drop-down condition box within the advertisement, with the possible options being NEW, OPEN BOX, MANUFACTURER & SELLER REFURBISHED, USED and FOR PARTS. The seller put “NEW” as the option.
As per Ebays own conditions guide:
NEW - A brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item in its original packaging (where packaging is applicable). Packaging should be the same as what is found in a retail store, unless the item is handmade or was packaged by the manufacturer in non-retail packaging, such as an unprinted box or plastic bag
In the Description the seller then said is was... MANUFACTURER REFURBISHED -An item that has been professionally restored to working order by a manufacturer or manufacturer-approved vendor. This means the product has been inspected, cleaned, and repaired to meet manufacturer specifications and is in excellent condition. This item may or may not be in the original packaging
At this point, based off the title, the description and the condition box, I am expecting an excellent "AS NEW" condition phone that has been refurbished. I believe this to be a extremely reasonable expectation.
It should have been a warning to me that this phone was described as three different key words contradicting themselves slightly."AS NEW", "NEW" and "REFURBISHED" however I was happy, all 3 descriptions should have been a minimum of excellent condition as per ebays description seller policy
According to Ebays Policy "Item descriptions must be accurate and not mislead the buyer. For example, the Item Condition selected must match the item and should be consistent across all areas of the listing (title, description and item specifics)."
This policy was completely ignored by the seller, I believe intentionally but even more concerning, In the 5 months, despite multiple notices ebay has allowed this seller to have the add alive and well, in the process promoting false advertisement for financial gain.
At the time of sale the seller was required to comply with ebay policy and this same policy also offered me (false)confidence. This (broken)policy is a significant reason why the item was purchased from ebay instead of a reputable vendor like a Telstra shop
Ebay does indeed accepted this was false advertisement but have failed to meet their obligations in fixing the issue.
They have breached their own policy and guarantees and offer invalid excuses as to why they dont think they are liable.
Ebay has clearly failed their duty of care breaching a un-waiveable automatic right/law.
I purchased the phone for one reason only, to run an (CPU/ram heavy) application required for my courier job.
I needed a replacement phone prior to sending the falsely advertised phone for a refund, otherwise I would not have been able to go to work. At the time this wasn't an issue as I had 30 days to sort something out thanks to the 30 day money back guarantee.
I was in financial difficulty and didn't have the money to purchase an unexpected and additional phone immediately.
I decided to keep the falsely advertised phone until day 25 of the 30 day guarantee(well within my rights as per ebay policy). On day 25 of the 30 day guarantee I attempted to lodge the case for the first legitimate time and was refused because there was a previous case opened, however this stipulation was not stated in the agreement at the point of purchase.
On the 24th of October I contacted ebay to enquire about the process of returning the item.
My Intentions for the conversation was to understand the process.
Within the conversation an ebay rep opened a case based off out of context responses, misinterpreting my politeness saying “please” or me asking questions such as "Then yes. I want to return. What's the process? Does it need to be registered post?" as permission to open a case on my behalf.
To be very clear, I did want to return! but just not straight away. hence the reason for all the questions.
Upon receiving a email conformation a case had been opened, I immediately understood there was some sort of misunderstanding within the conversation, which I have never denied as I myself can see where things could easily get mininterprated.
I Immediately and continually advised this case should never have been open but Ebay refused to fix anything forcing me to return the phone within 5 days as the case had started, enacting a time limit, well before I had the financial freedom to buy an additional and unexpected phone. Considering my work requirements as stated earlier, sadly this was not a possibility for me at the time. I saved enough for one phone, not two and it certainly wasn't my fault i revieced a fake phone.
I expressed these concerns many times early on and they provided me with every excuse possible to ignore the misunderstanding and failed to offer a single solution. Again, breaching their duty of care.
Disappointingly, I have since been made aware that there was an option to extend the period for cases such as this but that was never offered, again breaching their duty of care.
Their refusal to honour their own policy and 30 day agreement at the point of purchase is a failure to comply with Australian Consumer Law with regards to guarantee's/warranties.
One of the significant reasons I used ebay was because of the 30 day guarantee, sadly however when attempted to put into action, Ebay refused to honour the agreement.
A warranty or guarantee is a voluntary promise offered by the person or business who sold the product or service to you. Once you buy the product or service, the promise becomes a right that can be enforced under the ACL.
Ebays delusional refusal to honour the agreement is based on 2 things that i know of:
1: A case had already been opened(incorrectly) so they refused to open one at a later date for the first legitimate time.
As per Ebays own policy, It states:
Buyers can't use more than one resolution method to get a refund. After selecting a resolution process (eBay Money Back Guarantee, PayPal Buyer Protection or requesting a chargeback from their payment provider) a buyer is required to use only that process to resolve the transaction issue”.
In these situations it is important to look at the intentions of these rules. The intentions of this section of policy is clearly to ensure that multiple methods are not opened, potentially resulting in two or more refunds for the one item.
Ebay Is trying to use this specific part of the policy to absolve themselves of responsibility.
Problem being is, this would never be an issue if my duty of care rights were not violated. I was and still am operating within my consumer rights and ebays own policy and within this small section of the policy they believe to be a defence.
I have only ever used the SAME resolution method or process, not “more then one resolution method or process”
However all of this should be an invalid argument as the mistake should have been addressed. Negligence is NOT a valid excuse and does not absolve ebay from their duty of care or responsibility to honour an agreement.
One of my automatic unwaiverable rights is: ebays duty of care when an issue arises. They have breached this law.
2: Some sort of “in house policy” that was not made available to me at the point of purchase. The policy that was available at the point of purchase can be found at https://www.ebay.com.au/help/policies/ebay-money-back-guarantee-policy/ebay-money-back-guarantee-pol...
since this is the only policy made available to me at the time and is what I agreed to, the very suggestion that there is a different interchangeable policy that ebay can cherry pick from is not only silly but would suggest an extremely poor understanding and lack of intelligence regarding their own policy and consumer laws.
I suspect this reason has no real basis as it is immensely and impressively stupid. I dont think I need to explain this further.
when Ebay breached the 30 day agreement at the point of purchase they became liable for the value of the item. Instead they keep passing responsibility to someone else like paypal who have absolutely nothing in the slightest to do with the problem.
“If a manufacturer, or supplier provides such a warranty, there is a consumer guarantee under the ACL that the manufacturer or supplier will comply with that warranty. If the supplier or manufacturer fails to comply with the warranty you will have rights against them under the consumer guarantees”
Part of my Automatic rights that can not be waived by any agreement/terms of service:
Services must be provided with acceptable care and skill or technical knowledge and taking all necessary steps to avoid loss and damage.
Ebay violated these rights by refusing to fix an error despite being made aware on numerous occasions early and throughout, causing financial losses as i essientially paid $230 for a $5 phone. They did not provide acceptable care in the slightest but rather refused every suggestion and provided no resolutions during the period, despite an extension being a very viable option.
Ebay consistently tried to pass liability to PayPal. When I contacted PayPal they very reasonably did not accept liability and advised they could not help me as I didnt have an account and said “ebay should not be saying anything on our behalf”
Regardless of if paypal could or couldn't have helped, ebay are they ones that have breached many different laws not paypal.
Ebay have a misguided view that their User Agreement/Terms Of Service supersede all law, even my automatic un-waiveable rights, implying this is the deceptive behaviour I encountered on a daily basis.
"ToS/user agreements that purports to override a binding non-waiveable law are void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy and do not provide a defence to someone who breaks the law"
To date, Ebay has refused to comply with their own policy, general law and ACC and I will be seeking damages from loss of wages caused by dealing with this failure to comply and damages caused by unlawfully loosing my opportunity to return the item.
(sorry about the different sizes, it did not convert well to here)
Regards,
Mitchell
