Buyer expects to keep incorrectly sent item for free. Hmm...what to do?

[icollected]

We accidentally sent a wrong sized folder to a buyer.

Of course, I've already sent out the correct one.

The wrong one is valued at $18.95 - I told them if they want, they can keep it for $6. Or, alternatively, they could please return it and I'll compensate return costs.

However, the buyer says that it's not fair to pay $6 if "we the seller" sent the wrong stuff in the first place.

??????

Yeah- can't argue with people like that.

I don't really care for $6. It's more the kind of customers eBay is breeding if I facilitate this. The $6 is just a message- you don't get a free item for another's mistake.

Suggestions good citizens? 🙂

[tall_bearded]

For future reference

Extract Sales of Goods Act

36—Buyer not bound to return rejected goods

Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, having the right so to do, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them.

You sent the wrong item.

Under the Act they have a right to reject the goods you delivered, and once rejected it is up to you and not the buyer to go to the time and trouble to get them back

So your options are.

Offer the buyer an incentive to accept the incorrect item sent.  You have done that and they have rejected the offer.

You can go to where the goods are, or arrange for someone to go there on your behalf and demand they give them back, and the as this goods still belong to you, they must hand them back.

In the alternative you can simply cut your losses and give it to them.

[phorum_junkie*]

Had you not already sent a replacement you could have demanded the item back and you could have insisted it was sent at the buyer's expense but that does not mean you have to do that.

If I have sent a faulty item then I either just refund or replace and tell them to keep it or if I think I can repair and resell for more than the cost of return postage I will pay for the return.

I would never expect a buyer to be out of pocket for a mistake on my part, you offered to let them keep the item for a partial refund but they refused, as you ave already sent the replacement you cannot do anything about it now anyway.

[jerryman12a]

"

36—Buyer not bound to return rejected goods

Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, having the right so to do, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them."

I think you'll find that is for unsolicited goods , such as a company sends you a product to 'try' when you didn't order it or ask for it .

[tall_bearded]

“Had you not already sent a replacement you could have demanded the item back and you could have insisted it was sent at the buyer's expense but that does not mean you have to do that”.

On what basis.

The buyer either intentionally or by accident asserted their right to reject the goods under the SoDA.  So what mechanism do you say now exists where the seller “could have insisted it was sent at the buyer's expense”

[decoretrocollectables]

I agree entirely with phorum, Ive made the same mistake & have never expected buyer to pay a cent, my error, I pay

[beach_and_home]

In these situations I always weigh up the various costs. For instance, as you sent the wrong item it is YOU who will have to pay for the buyer sending it back. Is it worth paying the postage to get an $18 item back? I take into account the cost of the item, the cost of the return postage and if the item is damaged (I know it's not in this case) whether I can resell it or not.

Often you are better off financially to just let them keep an item and resend the replacement.

[tall_bearded]

“I think you'll find that is for unsolicited goods , such as a company sends you a product to 'try' when you didn't order it or ask for it.”

I don’t think so.

Section 35 is a component of Part 3 (Performance of the Contract) and nowhere in that part is there mention of unsolicited goods.  However, in so far as it is relevant, Part 3 does make specific mention that it applies to contracts where specific goods are sold.

[the-kazbar]

Regardless of what the letter of the laws says I personally think it is morally wrong for someone to expect a free item simply because someone else made an error.

They will receive exactly what they ordered and paid for and to demand anything more is just wrong.

[icollected]

Just to clarify, as it seems some people are suggesting that I want the buyer to pay for return costs.

I have already sent the correct item out.

I will pay for all costs associated with the return.

Additionally, I've offered the choice to keep the wrong product (as it's purpose and use is similar to the item the customer bought) for a heavily reduced price well below cost price.

Their response is that I send them the correct one and they keep the wrong one- free.

My query is not the law or otherwise the semantics. But the morality of this expectation and the profitable leverage exploited by another's oversight. 

[phorum_junkie*]

As soon as you sent the replacement out the deal was done. If you were prepared to pay for the return postage you should have said so and then waited until the item arrived back before sending the replacement.

You chose to do it the way you did and you have absolutely no way of forcing the buyer to now return the item.

I don't know what your profit margin is on the item but If it was enough to give a substantial refund or pay the cost of return plus sending a replacement you should have waited for it to come back first.

If your profit margin is minimal after you take into account postage 3 ways and the cost of the replacement why would you bother fussing about it?

Sometimes it is just better to let things go, you now know that if you want an item returned you don't send a replacement until that happens.