Money Back Guarantee Policy

[gordo1955]

I am a casual eBay seller basically just selling my unwanted items (mainly collectables).  I have ended all my items so that I can assess the impact of the new money back guarantee policy. If I only sell items for 'Pickup Only' (either by cash or paypal), does the new policy still apply even though I make sure the buyer is fully satisfied with the item on pickup?

Regards

[tall_bearded01]

 “So Paypal don't hand over your money.

So instead eBay seek to recover funds by charging you via seller invoice.

You don't pay.

Your eBay account is restricted for non-payment”

The problem with the above is that eBay’s ability to impose sanctions is limited to those specifically provided for in the Agreement, and in so far as it is relevant, he sole remedy that Agreement provides in circumstances where “…sellers do not provide eBay with a valid reimbursement method” (which is the practical effect that revoking the consent), is “we may collect the outstanding sums using other collection mechanisms, including retaining collection agencies”. 

Now if eBay is stupid enough (and they are not) to follow the course of action you propose, then I would immediately phone eBay and give them 24 hours to lift the restriction, and if they don’t I will lodge a complaint with the SA Office of Consumer Affairs, with a CC copy to the ACCC, the Financial Ombudsman Service, and the Insurance Council of Australia, on the grounds that by imposing a sanction not provided for under the Agreement eBay is engaging in unconscionable conduct - which then opens the door through which I can introduce issues like - is the Guarantee a policy of insurance, and if yes, is eBay licenced to provide underwriting services in Australia; is the Guarantee legally binding on sellers in that it appears to attempt to impose contractual obligations in the absence of consideration etc. etc

Like I said, yes they could do as you suggest but are they that stupid

[thecatspjs]

"Sellers must have a payment method on file with eBay. Sellers may change this payment methodat any time. If we resolve a case in the buyer's favour, eBay may notify PayPal of the relevant case and seek to remove funds from the seller's PayPal account to reimburse the buyer for the full cost of the item, and postage. Where there are insufficient funds in the seller's PayPal account, we will directly refund the buyer and charge the seller's designated payment method or put the amount on the seller's invoice ("Reimbursement").

[thecatspjs]

I concede that the use of the word "insufficient" may be interpreted in different ways.   I am not going to comment further on that.

I also note TBA you referencing the clause re sellers without a payment method on record - not helpful for anyone to remove their payment method as you cannot create a listing if there is not one selected AFAIK.

[tall_bearded01]

“I concede that the use of the word "insufficient" may be interpreted in different ways.   I am not going to comment further on that. This is why our opinions more often than not differ”.

Let me introduce you to and old friend; a phrase which I was required to learn and retain word for word before I could qualify as a Gun Detachment Commander (Royal Australian Artillery) back in the early 70’s.

“Fire discipline is the language of fire control.  It consists of words, phrases rules and conventions which have a specific meaning and results in definite action at the guns”.  That is, for instance, though the word “right” can have multiple means, and therefore multiple applications determined by the context in which is it is used, for the purposes of fire discipline it has only one meaning, because, when you’re dealing with the delivery of high explosives on a ballistic trajectory to up to 20 km away, even small errors can have huge implications - usually fatal.

Legislation and policy work in much the same way.  Take for instance the word “delivery”.  It can be interpreted in multiple ways and therefore provide multiple outcomes dependent on what interpretation the individual assigns it.  This would render the legislation unworkable.  Therefore the legislation assigns it a specific meaning, and it is that meaning which applies, not only for the purposes of the legislation, but also any contract involving the sale of goods of the provision of services, and the eBay Money Back Guarantee is such  contract - unless the contract clearly specifies otherwise. That is the word “delivery” has the same meaning for the purposes of the Guarantee as it does for the legislation, unless the Guarantee assigns it a different meaning, and it doesn’t.

As for   “also note TBA you referencing the clause re sellers without a payment method on record - not helpful for anyone to remove their payment method as you cannot create a listing if there is not one selected AFAIK.’

The again this is based on another flawed interpretation.

As the consent was revoked “after’ the item was listed and as the consent was revoked in connection to a single transaction,  it has no effect on creating other listings.

Furthermore, the only thing that was revoked was one small part of a very extensive Agreement, with every transaction being a separate contract.  That is, the only thing that was revoked was eBay’s ability to access the funds in connection with a single transaction until, and only if, they obtain a judicial order that the funds are to be handed over.  

Therefore, it does not affect that part of the contract which authorises PayPal to hold on those until the dispute has been finalised - judicial determined.  Instead all it does if force eBay to, before they can access those funds, prove their right to recovery exists, before an independent judicial officer, which is one of the thing the policy attempts to avoid.

[dylan11235813]

I take ebays MBG as that we need to prove actual delivery (handed to the buyer) for INR. In contrast to what I have read about Australian consumer laws which seems to mean handing it to the delivery company. Why is there a difference?

I think TB is right about ebay acting as an insurer and cat is right about ebay deciding whatever they want (and not rocking the boat). Once an account is suspended it seems very dificult to find out why it happend in the first place. There is nothing in the policy about informing clients why an account is suspened, they can suspend an account for no reason basically. I think. They do have policy to follow but do they really follow it and how does someone really know if they haven't? I passed a uni course because the policy said one thing and then said another (luckely the dean agreed with me and not the professor), I should have failed it. No offence intended if I have missinterpreted everything.

[tall_bearded01]

When it comes to Items Not Received Claims, the eBay Money Back Guarantee is pretty much worded and administered in the same way that PayPal Buyer Protection was when it was first introduced.  That is, it relies on seller ignorance.  It relies on the fact that most sellers have not undertaken a basic course in business studies, and as such would not be aware that for the purposes of the policy, in all cases excepting where the seller specifically states “Pick-up not allowed”, proof of delivery and proof of postage are the same thing.  Furthermore, they are also aware that as eBay is not a financial institution, any decisions they make are not subject to oversight by the Ombudsman more about that latter... 

Therefore they pretty much appear to believe they can do as they like because if the seller disagrees their options are limited to (1) take eBay to court and get the decision overturned (and most sellers are simply not prepared or equipped to do that), and/or (2) lodge a complaint with the regulator – Consumer Affairs for private sellers and the ACCC for business sellers.

However they, (eBay) also know that, when it comes to individual cases, the regulator usually restricts their involvement to mediation, with the expectation being, if mediation fails, the person making the complaint will either give up or pursue their rights in a court of law.  But they will get involved, that is actually take over the complaint and, if necessary,  take companies to court, where it has been established that not only is/has a wrong being committed, but it is systemic and has the potential too, or is, affecting significant numbers of customers.  And this is where boards are proving invaluable. 

But back to where we stated.  That is the Guarantee has all the hallmarks of a policy of insurance which means to provide it, eBay must be a licenced insurer, because if they are not, then the Guarantee is rendered void., and his is the area of enqury I'm currently pursing..

[thecatspjs]

To tb - sorry. My eyes glazed over as will the public servants reading any submission you make on these matters.

Concise clear points - advocates basic tool.

[dylan11235813]

To be honest it doesn't really matter to me if ebay want proof of  "delivery" however they (or anyone) thinks it is defined, I am generally self insuring orders now anyway (if I really want protection I will pay extra for registered post), and I am happy to replace an order if lost by Aus Post (it is easy to recoup money lost from AusPost). I don't think I should be responsible but at the end of the day it is the customer who is losing out (assuming they are not a scammer) and ebay have created a monstrosity of a policy to combat scammers that they should be able to weed out to begin with. They are also creating a culture of scamming buyers who think it's OK to steal because ebays policy allows it.

There is a massive storm near me so I have to shut down my computer.

[thecatspjs]

I can't see that the eBay money back guarantee, a service and goods guarantee, can be viewed as being a form of insurance in terms of

Loads of retailers and services offer money back guarantees, some similarly worded - lol save eBay is offering this guarantee on goods and services it does not own, or transactions it is not a party too. 

AFAIK satisfaction / product warranties that are incidental to a purchase do not constitute insurance and are exempt from falling under the legislative requirements for companies offering insurance.

Good luck with that approach TB.

[cq_tech]

There are several legitimate product insurance companies who provide extended warranties for many different types of items once the statutory manufacturers' warranties expire, for a specific fee. This includes electrical items, white goods, even cars, and these entities are in fact, and in law, insurance companies.

Despite the fact that eBay don't charge a fee for the service, they are nonetheless doing exactly the same thing with private purchases on their site, which means that they're operating as an insurance company without being specifically licensed to do so. It would be different if they were the owners of the products being covered by their money back guarantee, but they're not, and neither do they have any financial or pecuniary interest in these items.

I therefore maintain that eBay are offering a form of insurance while not being duly licensed to do so, and consequently are not exempt from the legislative requirements for companies offering insurance. On that basis, I'm of the opinion that what TB is saying is probably correct and is indeed an avenue well worth pursuing.