on โ27-09-2014 11:35 AM
on โ11-10-2014 03:30 PM
I don't disagree with anything you have said.
I definitely agree on 'Why do you think you can' should be questioned and challenged.
eBay has given itself carte blanche to play Russian Roulette with sellers livelihoods.
I would like to know if anyone has been in touch with ACCC yet to find out what its position is.
Far better to get that information NOW instead of waiting till everything hits the fan after 1.11.14
on โ11-10-2014 03:30 PM
@5kazam wrote:DG wrote ...That is, rather than the "you can't make me" approach, but the "why do you think you can?" approach....
The 'why do you think you can?' approach appears to be covered in Other Terms point 1.
Buyers and sellers permit us to make final decisions about all cases, including appeals.
Which obviously means all sellers who continue to list on eBay have agreed to that T&C - not only not a level playing field, but full of rocks and unseen deep holes where sellers can take a spill.
That T&C can only be adhered to if the 'decision' made by eBay is correct & cannot be challenged.
Permission in this instance can be assumed to be not only fair but equitable for both seller & buyer.
Let us face it - if left to CS - as it stands at present - they have difficulty with the simplest matter - most not knowing their own policies.
Who at eBay is going to be making 'final decisions' of this nature - and it does mean - determining the information & evidence of both seller & buyer - it cannot be just on the evidence of the buyer. (That is not in their T&C)
If it can be reasonably challenged - they leave themselves way open to more trouble than they can poke a stick at.
โ11-10-2014 03:35 PM - edited โ11-10-2014 03:36 PM
@digital*ghost wrote:
@cmcoins2000 wrote:
@digital*ghost wrote:The angle that I would be looking at this from is whether eBay can ask its sellers to comply with the terms - if they can, then they can't get into trouble for enforcing them, because by using the site once the policies are in force, a member has agreed to comply. In other words, is it ok for them to make it so that if you sell on eBay (which is voluntary), you have to be prepared to provide (let's just call them) consumer guarantees above and beyond what you would normally be required to offer.
I don't know the answer to this question, but I think it's the most important one to ask at this stage.
From my experience with the law - if the law is being broken - no User Agreement, Contract or whatever is worth the paper it is written on.
I get that, but what law is being broken? Is there a law saying that eBay can't require members to refund whenever an item is not as described? (I understand the potential for abuse these rules have, but the repercussions and/or how they are handled by eBay is an issue separate from the one I'm trying to get at).
It's all very well and good to know and understand that a lot of sellers might not be legally obligated to refund a buyer in some / most / all / whatever circumstances, that's not the issue. What is the issue , or more to the point, what I don't know is whether eBay (or PayPal for that matter) can require a seller to refund in these circumstances as a condition of selling here.
To put it another way, retailers do not have to accept change of mind returns, they're not legally obliged to at all. But if they put a sign up saying "No questions asked return policy", then they are legally obliged to uphold that. Selling on eBay is now going to mean a bunch of signs are in your proverbial window, and because using eBay is voluntary, can it at all be deemed that the signs are accepted voluntarily just the same as in the retailer's change of mind sign?
Would Westfield be able to say that any retailer wishing to hold space in one of their centres has to be able to offer change of mind returns? i.e. How far can the conditions of use actually go?
One of the areas that IMO that applies is unfair contract through imposing conditions on sellers (proof of delivery) that are not required under law nor could be enforced by law in a sales contract between seller and buyer. It imposes responsibiity for events beyond a sellers control and/or additional expenses on sellers for sig on delivery etc. eBay is also a beneficiary, reaping additional FVF for addional post expenses that would not be required otherwise.
on โ11-10-2014 03:35 PM
Helen, I agree.
But how many sellers will just end up putting the 'final decision' by eBay into the too hard basket. And then post on the boards about how unfair it all is.
The time to be proactive about this is NOW - before it all happens.
Which I realise is where you and DG are coming from.
on โ11-10-2014 03:39 PM
Cats Pj's ....eBay is also a beneficiary, reaping additional FVF for addional post expenses that would not be required otherwise....
I wonder if that would be legally construed as 'vested interest'.
โ11-10-2014 03:45 PM - edited โ11-10-2014 03:48 PM
@thecatspjs wrote:One of the areas that IMO that applies is unfair contract through imposing conditions on sellers (proof of delivery) that are not required under law nor could be enforced by law in a sales contract between seller and buyer. It imposes responsibiity for events beyond a sellers control and/or additional expenses on sellers for sig on delivery etc. eBay is also a beneficiary, reaping additional FVF for addional post expenses that would not be required otherwise.
I agree, but I still have the same questions (sorry).
It goes back to additional consumer guarantees - say I decided to start offering a lifetime warranty on my products. I'm not required to, and I'm quite sure that what happens to a lot of my items once they're out of my possession are completely beyond my control (issues of faulty materials / flawed design notwithstanding), but if I offered that guarantee, I would be legally obliged to honour it, so not being legally obliged to do something in the first instance doesn't mean the voluntary agreement to do it can't be enforced.
That's what I'm really trying to understand, can eBay legally ask sellers to provide these consumer guarantees (although, in real terms eBay promote themselves as providing them, even though in most circumstances, at best they will be facilitating them and the seller is providing them). And I'm calling them consumer guarantees because they primarily based on them (get the item as described or a refund, the nuts and bolts of how it will work are a slightly different issue in my mind, and are more about there being no real basis to dispute a case or a decision - for a seller anyway, where the risk to do so becomes pretty much unacceptable).
on โ11-10-2014 03:57 PM
Um..Helloooooo
โ11-10-2014 04:29 PM - edited โ11-10-2014 04:31 PM
@digital*ghost wrote:
@thecatspjs wrote:One of the areas that IMO that applies is unfair contract through imposing conditions on sellers (proof of delivery) that are not required under law nor could be enforced by law in a sales contract between seller and buyer. It imposes responsibiity for events beyond a sellers control and/or additional expenses on sellers for sig on delivery etc. eBay is also a beneficiary, reaping additional FVF for addional post expenses that would not be required otherwise.
I agree, but I still have the same questions (sorry).
It goes back to additional consumer guarantees - say I decided to start offering a lifetime warranty on my products. I'm not required to, and I'm quite sure that what happens to a lot of my items once they're out of my possession are completely beyond my control (issues of faulty materials / flawed design notwithstanding), but if I offered that guarantee, I would be legally obliged to honour it, so not being legally obliged to do something in the first instance doesn't mean the voluntary agreement to do it can't be enforced.
That's what I'm really trying to understand, can eBay legally ask sellers to provide these consumer guarantees (although, in real terms eBay promote themselves as providing them, even though in most circumstances, at best they will be facilitating them and the seller is providing them). And I'm calling them consumer guarantees because they primarily based on them (get the item as described or a refund, the nuts and bolts of how it will work are a slightly different issue in my mind, and are more about there being no real basis to dispute a case or a decision - for a seller anyway, where the risk to do so becomes pretty much unacceptable).
It can only do by law if it is FAIR to do so, and does not interfere with our own consumer rights.
I get where you are coming from, but the way eBay is enforcing the buyer protection obligations of sellers is through a contract it has with sellers, and the contract it is seeking to change, seeks to remove business sellers consumer rights in relation to the ACL.
on โ12-10-2014 02:08 AM
on โ12-10-2014 08:04 AM
You are EXACTUALLY right , ebay think buyers are god and sellers are just dog **bleep**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!