Seller Has Full Tracking with SOD -- Still Loses INR Case

[clarry100]

I was reading a story over on the Facebook ebay sellers groups where a seller sent out an item with tracking and SOD.

The tracking was associated with the buyers delivery address.

The last ebay estimated delivery date passed but the tracking still showed "in transit". ie no delivery scan event yet.

There is a lodgement scan event inside the seller's stated handling time. Proving postage to the buyer's address.

Buyer opens formal INR case.

Seller launches Aust Post investigation. And uploads their tracking info onto the now open case.

Buyer escalates the case and ebay close in buyers favour and refund from seller funds.

How can this be?

I thought if ebay wished to refund then in this situation it should be their nickel, not the seller's.

I thought the tracking situation should have had this one covered hands down for the seller.

Especially since the Aust Post investigation has not completed yet. Tomorrow apparently.

Am I missing something here?

What would be the point of paying for tracking and/or SOD when you will lose like this anyway?

Might just as well send out everything by untracked large letter, if it will fit.

[jensmanchester-australia]

---

@clarry100 wrote:

As a matter of interest I just went and looked up the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) for QLD (each state has its own).

On Page #20 at Para 34 (1) it states.... See link below for full doc.

When, 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.

This would seem to say that proof of postage is all that is required under Australia Consumer Law (ie a carrier acceptance scan event).

This fits the PayPal model where proof of postage is sufficient.

I wonder if ebay are pushing the legal boundaries (at least in AU) a bit by having a MBG requirement to prove delivery (ie have a delivery scan event). I would be inclined to challenge their ruling on this case based on the above para.

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/S/SaleGoodA1896.pdf

---

Ebay are governed by the laws of NSW and under their sales of goods act there are two parts:-

Part 4 Sect 35 clause 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."

So goods are deemed to have been delivered once handed to the carrier BUT the next clause seems to clarify that if the goods do not arrive or if they arrive damaged then the seller is still responsible as per Part 4 Sect 35 Clause 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 the buyer, or may hold the seller responsible in damages."