@digital*ghost wrote:
@crikey*mate wrote:Why would you report the listing that's still there?
How can you prove that he has none in stock at that price?
It depends on the item and the listing - the seller may be claiming no stock, but a good way to tell is to look at the purchase history (if any) of the item as that will show how many have sold previously, and for what price. If the seller seems to have honoured those sales (a quick look at FB can help verify that), it can be assessed fairly easily if it is a matter of no stock or deciding to change the price.
Considering the seller raised it to $999 then $9999, and that he has admitted to being out of stock, yesterday he admitted to being out of stock, he may have sourced some overnight at a high price to tide him over until his regular stock arrives - I'm guessing he doesn't actually make these cameras, so is not limited by the speed in which he can make one or obtain parts to do so, I would say it's a fair bet he is out of stock I would too, but is a fair bet reason enough to tarnish someone's business reputation? , and the listing should be ended As I said, he may have gotten more stock - the OP managed to find more stock in the same region, so maybe on his way to work this morning he bought a few at a much higher price than his regular supply cost just so he didn't have to end the listing early and adjusted his prices accordingly.. It is actually a breach of policy to list an item (or keep a listing active) when you can't supply it we don't know that he can't supply these items, all we know is that he couldn't/wouldn't supply the item for a listing that has already ended - heck maybe he didn't even realize it had been relisted if he relists in bulk and may not have even been aware that listing was active (I've done that
- it's even a breach of policy to list a higher quantity available than you can supply. According to the OP, there are plenty available, we have no idea how many he can supply at the current listed price, all that we know is that he won't supply the item at the previous listed price. I don't like reporting listings, but this is becoming a more and more common buyer complaint. Quite possibly because there are now more large volume sellers who have entered the market. I've done many stocktakes in my time, and it is rare that the expected inventory list matches the actual inventory list. Whether it be through poor inventory management, theft, system failure, lack of staff training or just an error someone in the process.
I've found myself in a similar situation - low stock numbers on an item, awaiting new stock to arrive and being tempted to keep the listing active - it sucks, but I have to end the listing, or let the last one sell and relist when the stock does arrive (sometimes it's been the next day, sometimes a couple of weeks later), and I do it not to abide by policies, as such, but because I never want to have to tell a buyer I can't supply the item they bought. ๐
Digi, I think the seller should honour the sale, please don't think I condone what he has done. It does appear that his business practises are somewhat creative, but on the whole, he doesn't appear to be one of the true bad guys. He fessed up, refunded immediately(ish) - i'e once he was aware of the problem or had a solution AND gave a bonus.
To me it makes good business sense to supply the item if possible in order to benefit from return business. Maybe he couldn't source the item cheaply enough to honour that transaction and so decided to minimize his losses and lose the customer.
I just think that reporting his current listings when we don't know if he does have new stock is just spiteful. The buyer has their money back, plus a bonus and they can still reflect their transaction experience via feedback. Short of going to court, when does the punishment end?
Out of curiosity, if a report was made, would eBay investigate (if so, how?) or would they just remove the listing based on heresay?
