eBay in breach of the Sale of Goods Act

[amax-1]

How is eBay getting away with extinguishing a seller's right of protection under the Sale of Goods Act with their Money Back Guarentee Policy?

I am embroiled in a dispute about an item I sold where the tracking didn't update to delivered and the buyer claimed not have received the item. Despite Australia Post claiming from result of investigation that the item was delivered with the scanning subject to an electronics error, eBay provided the buyer with a refund and debited my account to reimburse them?

Section 21 of eBay's User Agreement states "all aspects of the agreement are governed by NSW law" The NSW Sale of Goods Act in Section 35 states delivery to a carrier is deemed delivery to the buyer, that is there is no NSW law supporting the Money Back Guarantee Policy requiring proof of delivery to the buyer which is essentially USA consumer law not applicable in Australia.

Furthermore, PayPal mirrors the Sale of Goods Act where a seller providing proof of postage is protected from INR claims, so what's eBay up to making policy in contradiction to the laws Section 21 of their User Agreement states is governed by?  

[clarry100]

To be 100% eligible for seller protection you need three things:

a). mail to the address given by PayPal at the time of checkout

b). use a trackable means of delivery that can be associated to at least the buyer's postcode or to the full address

c). have a receipt for lodgement with a carrier. ie lodge over the counter.

You are correct about the SOGA in Australia requiring that you have proof of lodgement and that is deemed as delivery to the buyer.

If you have all 3 of the above in place then you cannot lose an INR claim against you.

If you do then you can raise a complaint against ebay with the ACCC citing your evidence. And the SOGA para for your state.

Or against Paypal with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

It depends if the case was raised thru the ebay MBG or a PayPal INR case as to which one you lodge the complaint with.

Given that all the criteria above are met then your complaint should have the case overturned in your favour.

You might try a phone call to ebay first citing the evidence to them and if they refuse to reverse the decision state that you are aware of the relevant laws of the land and that you will be filing a complaint with the applicable body.

They really should reverse it, unless there is something about this case you have not presented here.

[thecatspjs]

---

@amax-1 wrote:

How is eBay getting away with extinguishing a seller's right of protection under the Sale of Goods Act with their Money Back Guarentee Policy?

I am embroiled in a dispute about an item I sold where the tracking didn't update to delivered and the buyer claimed not have received the item. Despite Australia Post claiming from result of investigation that the item was delivered with the scanning subject to an electronics error, eBay provided the buyer with a refund and debited my account to reimburse them?

Section 21 of eBay's User Agreement states "all aspects of the agreement are governed by NSW law" The NSW Sale of Goods Act in Section 35 states delivery to a carrier is deemed delivery to the buyer, that is there is no NSW law supporting the Money Back Guarantee Policy requiring proof of delivery to the buyer which is essentially USA consumer law not applicable in Australia.

Furthermore, PayPal mirrors the Sale of Goods Act where a seller providing proof of postage is protected from INR claims, so what's eBay up to making policy in contradiction to the laws Section 21 of their User Agreement states is governed by?  

---

Goodness knows what led to eBay to flout Australia law in this way and interfere in sales contracts that it is not a party too   - one can only speculate. I suppose its partially because our watch dog is not watching over on-line sales, too busy prosecuting supermarkets. 

My advice is to fight it through every avenue available - I know I will be when my turn comes.

[cq_tech]

Fully agree with cats on this one, and I too am just waiting for the day they try the same BS with me, but in the interim, lodge a written complaint to the ACCC re eBay, but because eBay are not a signatory to the FOS, I'd also lodge an on-line complaint to the FOS about Paypal's involvement in this farce. Their URL is https://forms.fos.org.au/OnlineDispute and I wish you the best of luck. Please keep us informed as to your progress.

[jensmanchester-australia]

It is in the User Agreement, which is effective for all ebay registered users from 15th of June 2015. It already applies to users registered from 1st May 2105.

By using ebay you agree to ebay's terms.

Under the eBay Money Back Guarantee, if we resolve a case in the buyer's favour, the seller will be required to provide a full refund to the buyer, either:

- By automatic reversal of the transaction from the seller's PayPal account, or
- As otherwise invoiced by eBay to the seller,

in accordance with the seller's authorisation provided to us under this User Agreement.

As you were registered before 1st of May 2015,  providing you can provide proof of postage to the address on the Paypal payment, you can argue with ebay that under Australian Law you are not responsible in this case as the new user agreement will not apply to you until the 15th of June.

[clarry100]

Jens,

they can say all they want in their terms and conditions.

But if anything they say is against the laws of the land they simply cannot enforce it. ACCC or FOS will overturn it.

Their terms and conditions MUST obey the laws of the land in which they operate. Full stop.

In this country the SOGA is the law and it says a seller needs to have proof of lodgement with a carrier and this is deemed delivery to the buyer. It's very succinct and clear in this regard.

[jensmanchester-australia]

Clarry - up to now neither the ACCC or FOS seem interested in this. When there was the big Paypal issue many years ago they were more than interested and so ebay backed down on that.

The SOGA is not quite that straightforward and clear as there is a second part to it where the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier as delivery to the buyer and they may hold the seller responsible. The legal technicalites are too complicated for me to understand but the ebay legal eagles probably understand it all.

[thecatspjs]

Consumer laws are quite simple on the other hand.

You can not sign away your consumer rights under Consumer law.

Sellers are consumers of an eBay service - the agreement can not override our rights.

[thecatspjs]

Its like you or another business seller trying to enforce a no-refund policy when goods are faulty.

No matter what you have in your terms and conditions consumer law is crystal clear, consumers have a right to remedy or refund - your terms and conditions stating otherwise are meaningless.

[jensmanchester-australia]

cats - I understand what you are saying about consumer rights but buyers also have rights so if they don't receive a parcel, or it is damaged then surely they are entitled to a replacement or refund.

As I said before - the legalities of all this is beyond me but if what ebay are doing is illegal then why aren't the goverment bodies stepping in.