Item refunded due to non delivery but has been returned to me.

[sardonicus001]

I sold a CD to a buyer in Norway on 11th March and shipped it the same day. On 8th April he complained that it hadn't arrived and PayPal gave him a complete refund. I have checked and ascertained that I posted it to the address he gave me. The returned item bears a sticker stating that it has been returned unclaimed. The CD was only $13 however the postage was $32, meaning that whilst I have the CD I have lost $32 in postage. Can Discogs do anything about this or is it a matter for PayPal?

[davewil1964]

Yep. The twenty mathematically challenged, despite evidence.

[huatao1975]

OK I understand now.

Your logic is that the $32 postage was buyer's money, seller was a mere middleman between buyer and AusPost.  It's ultimately the buyer who paid AusPost, not seller.

Buyer with $32  -->  Seller --> AusPost

So when the refund happens everything went in reverse then how can the middle man be out of pocket?

The reason it happened is when the transaction went in reverse, it's not AusPost (recipient of the money) who refunded the buyer. But the middleman, of course the middleman was then out of pocket.

Had the transaction been fully reversed, it'd been like this, when the transaction went in reverse perfectly

AusPost refund $32 --> Seller --> Buyer

But the actual scenario is:

Seller Refunded $32 --> Buyer

AusPost went away with their money. When the recipient of the money wasn't even involved in the refund, of course someone else had to pay.

Got it?

[michael_cullis]

Thanks to all  of you who failed kindy maths. Dave is obviously wrong, despite having been dux of his kindy maths class. A good example of cognitive dissonance where one holds two mutually exclusive positions. I Dave's case be believes 1. that the buyer was refunded the postage (meaning he didn't pay it). 2 that the buyer a paid the postage.

I think it is impossible to make the truth any clearer and Dave simply has too much pride invested to admit his error.

[gutterpunkz05]

Dave, break out the rods,  to the value of 32, any combination you wish to choose.

Now lay them on the table and rearrange them as many times as you like.

Now let me know when and how , you manage to create two identical bundles of 32 units simultaneously.  It is a mathematical impossibility , as per this thread,  AP and the  buyer  can not both be in possession of  $32    if the only source of funds was the buyers original $32.

[*sons_n_daughters*]

When the transaction took place, the buyer was out the $32 for postage. The seller then used that $32 to pay for the postage, meaning the buyer had paid the postage. Then the buyer was refunded the $32 for the postage. The postage had still been paid, because the item was sent. As the buyer was refunded the $32, they no longer paid for the postage, yet the postage has remained paid. It's the seller who is now out of pocket, because the buyer has now no longer paid for the postage.

[michael_cullis]

Dave, I do not wish to appear sarcastic but I will explain my reasoning in a way that a child could follow.

For the sake of example, let's assume that before the transaction my account contains $132.

1. Pre-transaction account balance:   $132

2. Buyer pays me $32:                               $132+$32=$164

3. I buy postage label:                               $164-$32=$132

4. I refund buyer:                                          $132-$32=$100

The post-transaction balance is $100, $32 less than it was at the begining.

The way I see it you have three option:

1. Show me the point at which my calculations become incorrect

2. Admit you were wrong

3. Do not respond, which I will take as an admission of your error.

[domino-710]

Just LOL.

[*sons_n_daughters*]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Just LOL.

---

Why is it LOL? He is absolutely correct. If AP had refunded the postage, then no one would be out of pocket, but they're not going to do that.

[davewil1964]

My bad, you seem to be correct.

Not having experienced the scenario myself, I erred.

As far as you OP goes, it is a cost of doing business, especially internationally.

[michael_cullis]

Thanks Dave. I respect your admission. And I admit I should have posted my question on Discogs or PayPal. I clicked the wrong bookmark. Put it down to my advanced age.