PAYPAL Will Hold EBAY SELLERS Responsible For Damage Caused by AUSTRALIA POST

[the-fab-gift-shop]

The scenario ... SOLD some merhandise and sent to BUYER via Registered Post, that was very badly damaged in transit.

AUSTRALIA POST badly tore and crushed the box, damaging the contents. This was a very strong box, designed specifically to transport artwork, but by the time AUSTRALIA POST got through with it, it looked like a bulldozer had run over the top of it ...

The contents were REGISTERED, so the buyer was able to lodge a claim against AUSTRALIA POST. She also lodged a 2nd claim against me as a SELLER with Paypal ... for ITEM NOT AS DESCRIBED ... in that it was now damaged ...

If AUSTRALIA POST refuses to honour the claim, then PAYPAL have told the BUYER that they will hold the EBAY SELLER responsible for the damage caused by AUSTRALIA POST.  The BUYER will be fully refunded at THE SELLER'S expense.

This is a nice BUYER who communicates well.  She is just trying to make sure she doesn't lose any money, obviously. But I do think that its unfair that PAYPAL would hold the EBAY SELLER responsible for damage obviously caused by AUSTRALIA POST.

So, the result is that if and when AUSTRALIA POST refuses to honour a claim, for whatever reason, or perhaops the BUYER doesn't even lodge a complaint, then the BUYER can always fall back on the EBAY SELLER through the PAYPAL system.

It will certainly save AUSTRALIA POST and THE BUYER alot of time and money, since why would AUSTRALIA POST bother to honour a claim for damage done by them, when the EBAY SELLER is going to have to pay for it anyway, ...

It also gives the dishonest BUYER a chance to claim twice, since PAYPAL and AUSTRALIA POST are not linked in anyway.

Has this always been the case?  I think the fair solution would be for BUYERS and SELLERS to go halves in the loss that was clearly outside of both their control. Not ideal for either, but I think fair to both ... But PAYPAL obviously doesn't see it that way ...

[robinsonmarineparts]

Yes, if your selling fragile items that's a great idea.

[security-supplies-australia]

DONT be FOOLED

The Law regarding ( who is responsible for delivery is clear ) - Sellers should always have proof of dispatch, or you are responsible for undelivered, lost or damaged goods - Free delivery, puts the onus on you the seller to always have proof, as the buyer according to the contract of sale, has paid no postage, even though eBay says postage is free - the seller pays for it, even though it is calculated in the cost of the sale price. Can you guess why they say it is free when it is actually not?

Remember, you deliver it to the carrier as requested on the purchase/sales order, as long as you do what the order states, and have proof, Paypal can not legally refund money, should they do so, and they most likely will, all you have to do is contact the ( Financial Services Ombudsman ) believe it or not, they have a section for PayPal on there web site. The law states the seller must refund customers for faulty goods, etc, not a third party, you can put your case to them and more than likely get your money back.

Postage via REGULAR, cover your self by duplicating the address on paper, and having the post office stamp it with the time and date, they will do it for you, this is proof of delivery to the carrier!

Sale of Goods Act - Similar in other States

Sale of Goods Act 1895 - South Australian Legislation

32—Delivery to carrier
(1) Where, in pursuance of a contract of sale, the seller is authorised or required to send
the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier, whether named by the buyer
or not, for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, is prima facie deemed to be a
delivery of the goods to the buyer.
(2) Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller must make such contract with the
carrier on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the
goods and the other circumstances of the case. If the seller omit so to do, and the
goods are lost or damaged in course of transit, the buyer may decline to treat the
delivery to the carrier as a delivery to himself or may hold the seller responsible in
damages.

[phorum_junkie*]

What has the sale of goods act, AP policy or anything else got to do woth Paypal's terms, conditions and ploicies which you agreed to abide by when you signed up?

What a seller in this position should do is ask the buyer if they will take the item with the packaging to the Post Office and make a claim. If AP accept responsibility they will pay up to $50, more if SOD or insurance has been added by the seller. Any shortfall should be made up for by the seller if they failed to insure a higher priced item.

If AP deny the claim then the seller has to suck it up and refund.

I have no problem with this as from every sale I make I allocate a few cents to a 'slush fund' which is enough to cover two or three refunds.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

What has the sale of goods act, AP policy or anything else got to do woth Paypal's terms, conditions and ploicies which you agreed to abide by when you signed up?

Becaue Paypals terms and conditions have this disclaimer

"TO THE EXTENT AS PERMITTED BY LAW"

[colic2bullsgirlore]

ebay should take note as well lmao

http://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/unconscionable.html

22  Matters the court may have regard to for the purposes of section 21

(1)  Without limiting the matters to which the court may have regard for the purpose of determining whether a person (the supplier) has contravened section 21 in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services to a person (the customer), the court may have regard to:

(a)  the relative strengths of the bargaining positions of the supplier and the customer; and

(b)  whether, as a result of conduct engaged in by the supplier, the customer was required to comply with conditions that were not reasonably necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of the supplier; and

(c)  whether the customer was able to understand any documents relating to the supply or possible supply of the goods or services; and

(d)  whether any undue influence or pressure was exerted on, or any unfair tactics were used against, the customer or a person acting on behalf of the customer by the supplier or a person acting on behalf of the supplier in relation to the supply or possible supply of the goods or services; and

(e)  the amount for which, and the circumstances under which, the customer could have acquired identical or equivalent goods or services from a person other than the supplier; and

(f)  the extent to which the supplier’s conduct towards the customer was consistent with the supplier’s conduct in similar transactions between the supplier and other like customers; and

(g)  the requirements of any applicable industry code; and

(h)  the requirements of any other industry code, if the customer acted on the reasonable belief that the supplier would comply with that code; and

(i)  the extent to which the supplier unreasonably failed to disclose to the customer:
(i)  any intended conduct of the supplier that might affect the interests of the customer; and
(ii)  any risks to the customer arising from the supplier’s intended conduct (being risks that the supplier should have foreseen would not be apparent to the customer); and

(j)  if there is a contract between the supplier and the customer for the supply of the goods or services:
(i)  the extent to which the supplier was willing to negotiate the terms and conditions of the contract with the customer; and
(ii)  the terms and conditions of the contract; and
(iii)  the conduct of the supplier and the customer in complying with the terms and conditions of the contract; and
(iv)  any conduct that the supplier or the customer engaged in, in connection with their commercial relationship, after they entered into the contract; and

(k)  without limiting paragraph (j), whether the supplier has a contractual right to vary unilaterally a term or condition of a contract between the supplier and the customer for the supply of the goods or services; and

(l)  the extent to which the supplier and the customer acted in good faith.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/unconscionable-conduct

Determining whether conduct is unconscionable

There are a number of factors a court will consider when assessing whether conduct in relation to the selling or supplying of goods and services to a customer, or to the supplying or acquiring of goods or services to or from a business, is unconscionable. 

These include:

• the relative bargaining strength of the parties
• whether any conditions were imposed on the weaker party that were not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger party
• whether the weaker party could understand the documentation used
• the use of undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics by the stronger party
• the requirements of applicable industry codes
• the willingness of the stronger party to negotiate
• the extent to which the parties acted in good faith.

This is not an exhaustive list and it should be noted that the court may also consider any other factor it thinks relevant.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

Some light reading for our newer members concerning ebays last attempt at usurping Australias laws... it ended up

nigh on being cracked over the head with the ACCC's big stick... well actually it didnt get cracked.... it just was forced to

pull it in........its head that is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_eBay

eBay requires sellers to use PayPal

In some countries, eBay requires sellers to offer its PayPal payment service[31] with the claim that this makes transactions safer and easier. Critics counter this claim by saying that in reality, it's a way for eBay to "double dip" on its fees (since eBay also owns PayPal). In addition to eBay fees, sellers must pay a percentage to PayPal, as well; this is charged on the shipping charges in addition to the sale price.[32]

Australia

In April 2008 eBay announced an introduction of a 'PayPal only' policy in Australia.[33] The new policy would have meant that sellers will only be able to offer PayPal or cash payment on pick-up as payment methods. eBay claims that PayPal is the most secure method of payment.[34]

Under the Australian Trade Practices Act 1974, it is unlawful for a company to require the use of a third party's products or services in order for a person to deal with the company, known as Third Line Forcing.[35] eBay submitted a notification under the Act,[36] which provides automatic exemption from this provision unless the notification is subsequently revoked by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

As part of its assessment of the notification, the ACCC called for submissions from interested parties.[37]

This attracted a record number of complaints from eBay members, banks, Google, and members of the business community and the Reserve Bank of Australia.[38]

During this period, rival auction site OZtion experienced a record number of new members.[39]

The ACCC completed an initial draft proposal to revoke eBay's notification, stating that it believed consumers were in a better position to judge risk on individual transactions than eBay's management and has ruled the plan

anti-competitive.[40]

However, before a final decision could be announced on July 3, 2008, eBay announced that it had withdrawn the notification to the ACCC and shelved its "PayPal only" plans.[41][42]

It's colloquially called  "The big stick"

[casbit33]

The problem with expecting Australia Post to accept responsibility is that they just don't care.

I received an item in the mail that was totally smashed. it had been very well wrapped - lots of bubblewrap and foam, then in a box more foam and another box. Fragile written all over it. I took it all to AP. They said it wasn't well wrapped and they wouldn't cover it, even though it was registered with insurance. They said the only way they will accept responsibility is if an Australia Post worker wrapped in the first place.

Any way you look at it - you lose.

[peri-landlubber]

How do U get extra cover without 'sign on delivery'?

My local PO says the regulations are U have to pay for 'sign on delivery' before U can pay for extra cover.  I got caught & out of pocket over that regulation.

[bigbrickshop]

If you print your postage labels online you tick the Extra Cover box and enter the value and description of the goods.

If you're paying postage over the counter ask for Extra Cover. You do not have to pay for Sig on Delivery unless the value of the item is over $300.

http://auspost.com.au/parcels-mail/optional-extras-domestic.html