Frist ever for not as described item

[*sparklz*]

Long story short here.

With over 5000 sales I have NEVER had to deal with an item not as described dispute.

Buyer put in offer, offer accepted paid and posted.

Buy starts to ask questions after item is posted and realises she has purchased the wrong size item.

Description was 100% accurate re the item and size.

Buyer not in the know assumed she was getting bigger version.

Buyer then opens dispute for item not received less than 24 hrs after paying.

I call PP and tell them the item was paid for less than 24 hours ago.

PP say just wait and see what happens.

Next day buyer changes dispute to not as described.

Tracking shows the item is still in transit and not even delivered.

Call to PP again, they close the dispute and release money back to PP account.

2 days later buyer opens another not as described dispute saying item is not new as per description.

I supply all the proof possible to show it is exactly as described along with the history of the buyers disputes after a change of mind.

Paypal tell buyer to return to seller on the 27/9 for refund by the  by 8th Oct

Today the final day buyer enters tracking number for return of item.

So what happens if

a) the item is exactly as described and the buyer was using any excuse to get the refund (which is the case) as the item is as described.

or

b) they have damaged or used the item in the 10 days it was in their possession before returning it.

What proof would I need to send PP to win this dispute.

The buyer has sent abusive and profanity filed language via the ebay messages (which have been reported)

I can not understand how after opening 2 disputes BEFORE they even had the item that PP would even find in her favor when it was obviously a change of mind or buyers remorse.

[davewil1964]

 you would have to drive a VW or datsun . But I do currently drive a 300c   I guess there no good to. LOL. 

Vk Brock. Had a couple of SL/R Toranas at times, too. Wouldn't be seen dead in a Valiant. Mitsubishi made different cars alright. And the Valiant was discontinued, presumably because people didn't want to buy them, long before that.

[lyndal1838]

If you don't argue with women I suggest you stop posting immediately because at least 90% of the posters on this thread are women.

[tall_bearded]

My god, and I just got slapped on another thread for using language no harsher than, it seems you are incapable of assimilating any fact which does not accord with your perception of how the world should be.

Go figure

[rumplebear1951]

I got three in my inbox this morning...is a record for me for one thread...lol

btw...I am a woman, as are the majority of posters on this thread....but don't let that stop you...knock yourself out.

[tall_bearded]

Just got another one for my comments on this thread.  A record for me

[tall_bearded]

Response to Post 113

But didn’t the NSW Supreme Court in Peter Smythe v Vincent Thomas which mind you involved a eBay Action transaction where both the seller and buyer were private individuals and where the item was sold on the Ebay.au site, not only find that the transaction gave rise to an enforceable contract of sale, but also cited the Sales of Goods Act as the legislation on which the decision was based.

You may also want to look at decisions such as Evagora v eBay Australia and New Zealand Pty where the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that the Fair Trading Act applied to that transaction

So, in light of the above do you still hold to “Now just to make absolutely sure you understand: The sale of goods act, Fair Trade legislation, distance selling regs and consumer law do NOT apply to private sellers and do NOT cover eBay auctions”, and if you do, how do you say the Supreme Court and VACT erred in coming to their findings to the contrary.

[the-kazbar]

For any lurkers out there who may be confused this is a good guide to our consumer rights http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Consumers/Buying_goods/Consumer_rights_myths_and_facts.html

You will note that most of the people in this thread are correct, refunds are not a right for change of mind (even if you do buy the wrong size)

[tall_bearded]

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not supporting 1sweetap6v8.  In fact I got slapped for one of the comments I made as to what I thought of his reasoning ability. 

Instead I fully support all those who have said that consumer protection laws do not allow for change of mind returns; and in fact as you and others have already said, all 1sweetap6v8 needs to do is look at the websites for those bodies charged with administering those legislations, and if he did, he would find he is wrong.

However PJ is equally wrong in her assertion that the consumer legislations don’t apply to eBay transactions.  They do apply.  Just not in the way that 1sweetap6v8 thinks they should.

[the-kazbar]

My post was not directed at you t_b 🙂

[the-kazbar]

THE BUYER PURCHASED THE WRONG SIZE!!!!!

SHE BOUGHT SOMETHING AND THEN REALISED SHE BOUGHT THE WRONG THING!!! GET IT???

THE ITEM IS AS DESCRIBED BUT THE BUYER DOESN'T WANT IT ANY MORE!!! GET IT???

THATS WHY IT IS CHANGE OF MIND!!!! GET IT????