NEGATIVE feedback option for time wasting non paying bidders to be exposed?

[gsd76_2008]

It is high time that ebay reintroduce feedback options for SELLERS, other than positive - so that time wasting NON PAYING BIDDERS can be exposed!!   Any other sellers agree?....

[thecatspjs]

---

@gec2002 wrote:

On the US site eBay are altering how they handle handle Buy It Now and Best Offer transactions and won't consider items "sold" until the buyer actually pays.  They also changed being able to open an unpaid item case after two days. eBay states " eligible listings will remain active until a buyer submits payment; the item will only be considered sold when the buyer pays for the item."

This would really help, its not the non-payment by itself that is a pain its that 8 days stock is tied up which directly impacts on cashflow.  The sooner its introduced here the better.  I understand only the reduction in waiting time helps auctions but it would be a start.

At the end of the day eBay is about the only online marketplace where users can buy a fixed-price item without paying for it on the spot.   Items in carts not paid for, can become unavailable if others buy and pay straight away , so the concept is not unknown to alot of buyers.

---

I also noticed this - I think it is only a matter of time before this happens in Australia as well.

In the meantime, I like to at least see a reduction in the time available for payment until a seller can close a non-payment dispute.  This at least means the seller can get their goods back on the market more quickly if they deal in unique individual items, and it still gives sellers the option to give a buyer more time to pay if they chose.   I do not understand why AU buyers get 4 days to pay after a non payment dispute is open, and US buyers get 2 days only. 

[digital*ghost]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

eBay cannot interfere with the trading terms of a contract to which they are not a party.

---

I understand where you're coming from with this, but dealing with the problem wouldn't have to involve eBay interfering with contracts, as such, because they certainly can and do enforce consequences on members if they don't fulfil their contracts with their trading partner, though that is typically based on a system unavailable to sellers.

What I mean is, if I stopped honouring my contracts with my buyers, the consequences to me as an eBay member would be pretty swift and probably not able to be appealed, and the primary source for ebay to be informed of my actions, or lack thereof, would be feedback and DSRs, maybe PayPal claims (the closest to tangible evidence of non-performance) and non-performing seller reports as well.

Conversely, the majority of the time an item goes unpaid for, which is in a nutshell the same as a seller not sending an item in terms of each member not honouring the contract which was formed, it is provably so based on evidence rather than opinion. 

I'm not a fan of the fines for NPBs, though. I prefer prevention over cure, or punishment, and eBay's got enough sticks as it is.

[digital*ghost]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

---

In the meantime, I like to at least see a reduction in the time available for payment until a seller can close a non-payment dispute.  This at least means the seller can get their goods back on the market more quickly if they deal in unique individual items, and it still gives sellers the option to give a buyer more time to pay if they chose.   I do not understand why AU buyers get 4 days to pay after a non payment dispute is open, and US buyers get 2 days only. 

---

On a site I use relatively frequently (as a buyer), which is entirely populated with a variety of sellers from all over Australia, with each item a unique listing both in fixed price and auction format, if I add a fixed price item to my cart, the listing is ended (marked as sold), for two hours maximum, and would be immediately relisted if I hadn't paid for it by the end of that two hours (allowing me to secure items but continue browsing / shopping). 

Auction items are allowed 48 hours for payment before the same thing happens - no dispute process, If I don't pay, I miss out full stop.

I quite like the way it works, though I know it only can if electronic payment methods are all that's on offer, but it would be good if - like immediate payment required - sellers had some stricter options to impose if they do only offer electronic methods integrated with the checkout.

[gec2002]

"What I mean is, if I stopped honouring my contracts with my buyers, the consequences to me as an eBay member would be pretty swift and probably not able to be appealed, and the primary source for ebay to be informed of my actions, or lack thereof, would be feedback and DSRs, maybe PayPal claims (the closest to tangible evidence of non-performance) and non-performing seller reports as well."

Yes eBay now has a program Guardrail Quick Decline Program they blocked some 15000 sellers in the US and I know of at least one in Australia.  It is based on Negative or Neutral FB, Low DSRs and Buyer Prrotection Cases both SNAD & INR.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

eBay cannot interfere with the trading terms of a contract to which they are not a party.

---

I understand where you're coming from with this, but dealing with the problem wouldn't have to involve eBay interfering with contracts, as such, because they certainly can and do enforce consequences on members if they don't fulfil their contracts with their trading partner, though that is typically based on a system unavailable to sellers.

Do they? May I ask how, and at what point? I am of the opinion, that this would occur at a point in time when eBay are certain that they have sufficient evidence for implementing their actions should the person seek justification through legal channels. I am also of the opinion that they take this action at a point in time when it becomes either financially, legally or otherwise viable to do so. i.e. at a time they are prepared to risk any chance of a court failing to find in their favour, although most people only initiate legal assistance when they believe they have a case and will win.

I suspect that the consequenses they impose on the "trading partners" within the buyer/seller relationship, come at a time when there is sufficient and adequate proof of such which also provides sufficient and adequate proof of a breach in the contract between the contract that exists between themselves and the member. Hence, it is not an interference in the "other contract" but rather an action on the contract to which they are a party.

There would also need to be evidence that their actions were commensurate with the situation.

That is my opinion, I am however interested in yours and relevant examples so that I can further my understanding.

What I mean is, if I stopped honouring my contracts with my buyers, the consequences to me as an eBay member would be pretty swift and probably not able to be appealed, and the primary source for ebay to be informed of my actions, or lack thereof, would be feedback and DSRs, maybe PayPal claims (the closest to tangible evidence of non-performance) and non-performing seller reports as well.

How many contracts are you not honouring?(theoretically, I know you honour all yours and don't mean to imply otherwise). Would any action taken by eBay as a result of these actions arise due to the number of complaints, thus giving weight to their belief that you are not honouring your contract with them. (which means they are acting on that contract, not the one between buyer and seller)

Ebay fully disclose the standards that they expect and these form part of the contract formed with them. You agree to these terms and conditions when you become a member/start selleing. Undoubtedly, these are the standards set that ebAY believes is the point in time in which they have sufficient evidence to defend their actions should a seller appeal or seek justification through legal channels. Or perhaps it is the point in time when they are legally allowed to implement the penalties that they advise are able to be implemented (I don't know) simply because they are a term of the contract.

Conversely, the majority of the time an item goes unpaid for, which is in a nutshell the same as a seller not sending an item in terms of each member not honouring the contract which was formed, it is provably so based on evidence rather than opinion. 

Not in all cases. What happens in the instance where the buyer pays by bank deposit? An unscrupulous seller could make the claim they never received the money.

I think we have to consider eBay's right to determine, at what point in time they believe that the contrtact between them and another party is not being honoured and to also determine the point in time they determine it is financially viable for them to pursue this.

eBay blocks buyers and sellers as part of the contract between them and the user, not because they are interfering in the contract between two trading partners in a contract unrelated to themselves.

I'm not a fan of the fines for NPBs, though. I prefer prevention over cure, or punishment, and eBay's got enough sticks as it is.

---

eBay have preventative measures in place, people just have to use them.

from countless information sheets including those relating to safe online trading,

many encouragements to avail yourself to this information and to also know relevant laws

protective measures such as buyer blocks

and so on

Additionally, it is up to each of us (seeing as we are all over 18 and have acknoledged that we are legally allowed to form binding contracts) to protect ourselves. eBay is not our mother, their terms and condition are quite clear in the limitations of the protection that they offer when using their service, When people enter into a contract, they need to take responsibility for themselves, not expect an unrelated third party to do it for them.

What other legally compliant forms of prevention would you propose?

it is prudent here to understand the process of how and when the contract is formed between PayPal and the member.

Similarly, it is prudent to understand why ebay have formed that particular business model with a user agreement as it is (it's to do with electronic communication and at what point in time and the type of control ebay has over when offer and acceptance occurs and the laws surrounding the electronic communication of these elements)

[digital*ghost]

"I am of the opinion, that this would occur at a point in time when eBay are certain that they have sufficient evidence for implementing their actions should the person seek justification through legal channels."

Why do low DSRs result in account sanctions, including indefinite suspension, with no appeals process in place? DSRs are not even tangible evidence of poor performance or a seller not honouring their contractual obligations, they are buyer impressions, but they result in the aforementioned restrictions and suspensions. No one can be certain they have sufficient evidence based on a couple of low impression ratings from 3 buyers out of 100, but that's enough to get eBay to enforce consequences on a seller's account.

So, my point was, if a completely unsubstantiated "review" (as in, a combination of feedback and DSRs) results in consequences, then eBay can and do enforce consequences without interfering directly with contracts between buyer and seller. There is plenty of evidence to suggest eBay will restrict an account due to basically rumours of poor performance by a member (read: seller), very little - if any  - evidence to suggest eBay will take the same kind of action when it's a buyer who is not fulfilling their obligations.

"Conversely, the majority of the time an item goes unpaid for, which is in a nutshell the same as a seller not sending an item in terms of each member not honouring the contract which was formed, it is provably so based on evidence rather than opinion. "

Not in all cases. What happens in the instance where the buyer pays by bank deposit? An unscrupulous seller could make the claim they never received the money."

That's why I said "the majority of the time". I would be willing to be that - percentage wise - most transactions on eBay are paid for electronically, and even when they're not, the rest of the time a buyer generally has to complete checkout for the details of how to pay - an uncompleted checkout would, I know, amount to circumstantial evidence, but so is a low DSR. If a seller does not even offer non-electronic payment methods, then their UPIs can be proven almost 100% of the time (I say almost because there are always exceptions). 

"

Additionally, it is up to each of us (seeing as we are all over 18 and have acknoledged that we are legally allowed to form binding contracts) to protect ourselves. eBay is not our mother, their terms and condition are quite clear in the limitations of the protection that they offer when using their service, When people enter into a contract, they need to take responsibility for themselves, not expect an unrelated third party to do it for them.

What other legally compliant forms of prevention would you propose?

it is prudent here to understand the process of how and when the contract is formed between PayPal and the member."

I didn't say anything that really disagrees with, contradicts, denies or undermines that, nor have I even come close to suggesting eBay acts as my mother. What I am saying is that they do not act upon their policies in a consistent manner, and that just because they provide a service, doesn't mean I can't see failings in system or that there is definite room for improvement, which fully comply with the law. I don't get in for that without buyers there wouldn't be eBay or without sellers.... stuff, because we are all - ultimately - eBay's end users, and improving the end-user experience should always be a company's major priority, and that means offering functions, facilities and options that are sorely needed. 

For example, there is nothing in the user agreement that stipulates I can not decide upon my own payment time frame (as a seller, I mean), the dispute process is just how ebay decided to handle it universally for whatever reason, making it impractical for me to have a shorter time-frame, yet there is a stipulation that says a buyer is agreeing with my terms of sale, so rather than make everyone comply with a minimum 4 + 4 time frame, why not create a system whereby I can clearly indicate payment is required within X days, just like I can with my handling time, and with no "second chance to pay" BS you have to sit through with a dispute? Is there a law that says if I give a buyer 4 days to pay, I have to actually give them 8, or can not the validity of a contract rely on it being fulfilled according to its terms (see my post above, when I "buy" an item from the aforementioned site, I am agreeing to pay for it within two hours or I miss out - I can't see any reason why similar TOS could not just be stated, but enforcable via eBay's system if such options were available and selected, in the same way immediate payment is).

[*crikey*mate*]

digital*ghost wrote:

"I am of the opinion, that this would occur at a point in time when eBay are certain that they have sufficient evidence for implementing their actions should the person seek justification through legal channels."

Why do low DSRs result in account sanctions, including indefinite suspension, with no appeals process in place?

probably because this is the unit of measurement or criteria that eBay have decided to use to assess if a seller is meeting the terms of their contract with eBay. It was their business decision that this was sufficient indication for them to end or limit the provision of their service/product to a person, Maybe this is the point in time that eBay regards as the time to risk engagement in legal action for breach of contract. I don't know. But as it is eBay's platform, I daresay that it is their decision who they wish to offer their services to.

As for appeals: Is it a legal requirement that they offer these? That they invest money to offer a service or avenue for a person to "argue" with or question their decision? If not, it is their choice not to do so. Their business decision undoubtedly addresses the risks that some innocent people will get caught up in what is an overarching policy. You have to consider the sheer numbers that eBay deals with, people are treated as a collective rather than an individual. This business decision undoubtedly incorporates the point in time when eBay are prepared to assume the risk of legal action.

There is an appeals process available to people who believe they have not breached their contract with eBay meaning that it is infact eBay who are in breach of their contract. It's called Court. The person who believes that they have met their standards can sue eBay for breach of contract,

......................................................................................................................

DSRs are not even tangible evidence of poor performance or a seller not honouring their contractual obligations, they are buyer impressions, but they result in the aforementioned restrictions and suspensions.

For eBay, this is the measurement that their risk assessment strategies have decided to use. They are prepared to believe those opinions. Take those opinions as an indication that a person is harming their (eBay's) business. It's their decision. And it is the opinion of the buyers which will harm their business.

If they have to go to court, they can say "I've got 10 people who all say Johnny posts slowly or Johnny is a lousy communicator". Then Johnny will have the opportunity to say, "no I'm not", here is how I handled those situations".

I look at the DSRs etc like a Guest Comment Card. Management usually implement these in order to take action on those comments to improve their business practises.

No one can be certain they have sufficient evidence based on a couple of low impression ratings from 3 buyers out of 100, but that's enough to get eBay to enforce consequences on a seller's account.

Is it only 3? I don't know. The guardrail slideshow seems to suggest otherwise in addition to taking other factors into consideration as well.

It's called damage control and risk assessment.

eBay can enforce consequences at any time they are prepared to take the legal risks or consequences that accompany this, and whatever standards they set are clearly the levels at which they are prepared to believe that they do have sufficient evidence, or reason to act. It's their business, their decision.

This is something I learned many years ago, If 1 person has a bad experience, they will tell 10 people. If they have a good experience they will tell 3.

If the current practises appear to hurt their business at some point in the future, or they think they can find better ones, I am sure they look at ways to implement them. The point that it seems the action is being taken on sellers rather than buyers suggests that it is sellers who eBay believe pose the biggest risk/threat to their business atm. I guess only time will tell if their strategies work for them. If not, no doubt they will adjust them.

Remember eBay is trying to protect their business - trying to implement strategies in place to improve performance in areas they believe are weak, Obviously, whilst NPB **bleep** off us sellers, they are not imposing a great enough risk to eBay ATM for them to take more action then they already are.

So, my point was, if a completely unsubstantiated "review" (as in, a combination of feedback and DSRs) results in consequences, then eBay can and do enforce consequences without interfering directly with contracts between buyer and seller. There is plenty of evidence to suggest eBay will restrict an account due to basically rumours of poor performance by a member (read: seller), very little - if any  - evidence to suggest eBay will take the same kind of action when it's a buyer who is not fulfilling their obligations.

Remember those figures PayPal gave me about disputes? They expect 4/10 transactions to end badly? That's 4/10 Bad buying experiences. Are there this many NPB's or bad selling experiences? (I don't know) But 4/10 transactions end with a buyer raising a claim with PayPal and that's just the transactions that are paid through PayPal, it's not taking into consideration other payment methods.

Maybe eBay don't view NPB as a risk to their business ATM, so have no need to take action? Maybe there is not as many NPB's as we believe?

This brings me to, how does eBay know if a seller has a NPB? It's through the seller reporting them and/or going through an UID. As we are well aware, at least some sellers do not do this, preferring instead to do nothing, or worse, leave a false positive,

So if the NPB are prevalent, how is eBay to know if no one tells them?

Clearly they are not prepared to read millions of feedbacks, but they are prepared to use this reporting system. So maybe the number of NPB's are underrepresented, but how is eBay to know if no one tells them?

How do they know that the NPB's are posing a threat to their business in sufficient quantities to warrant action?

"Conversely, the majority of the time an item goes unpaid for, which is in a nutshell the same as a seller not sending an item in terms of each member not honouring the contract which was formed, it is provably so based on evidence rather than opinion. "

Not in all cases. What happens in the instance where the buyer pays by bank deposit? An unscrupulous seller could make the claim they never received the money."

That's why I said "the majority of the time". I would be willing to be that - percentage wise - most transactions on eBay are paid for electronically, and even when they're not, the rest of the time a buyer generally has to complete checkout for the details of how to pay - an uncompleted checkout would, I know, amount to circumstantial evidence, but so is a low DSR. If a seller does not even offer non-electronic payment methods, then their UPIs can be proven almost 100% of the time (I say almost because there are always exceptions). 

"

Additionally, it is up to each of us (seeing as we are all over 18 and have acknoledged that we are legally allowed to form binding contracts) to protect ourselves. eBay is not our mother, their terms and condition are quite clear in the limitations of the protection that they offer when using their service, When people enter into a contract, they need to take responsibility for themselves, not expect an unrelated third party to do it for them.

What other legally compliant forms of prevention would you propose?

it is prudent here to understand the process of how and when the contract is formed between PayPal and the member."

I didn't say anything that really disagrees with, contradicts, denies or undermines that, nor have I even come close to suggesting eBay acts as my mother.

No, you haven't sorry if that is what you thought I was implying, I was meaning in general.

What I am saying is that they do not act upon their policies in a consistent manner,

That is their choice.The reasons explained above.

and that just because they provide a service, doesn't mean I can't see failings in system or that there is definite room for improvement, which fully comply with the law.

I agree, there is. You know I've got my ebay cranky pants on lately LOL. but the point is, IF eBay are aware of them, then they have decided that at this point in time they do not pose a risk to their business with enough significance to take action.

If we the sellers believe we are being badly treated or that eBay is in breach of their contract with us, then we can take legal action. Might even be able to mount a class action if enough people with the same specific claim are prepared to come together and act.

I don't get in for that without buyers there wouldn't be eBay or without sellers.... stuff, because we are all - ultimately - eBay's end users, and improving the end-user experience should always be a company's major priority, and that means offering functions, facilities and options that are sorely needed. 

I agree. Clearly eBay are not aware that their sellers are having a bad enough time to warrant intervention at this time. Maybe if more people used the tools provided such as the issuing of strikes??? so that eBay could get a valid indication of the occurrance, they could/would take action if it is as bad as we believe it to be.

For example, there is nothing in the user agreement that stipulates I can not decide upon my own payment time frame (as a seller, I mean), the dispute process is just how ebay decided to handle it universally for whatever reason,

The dispute process is a service provided to sellers so that they don't have to go to court. cos that takes time and money. They don't have to implement anything, neccessitating us to go to court to get every contract ended.

making it impractical for me to have a shorter time-frame, yet there is a stipulation that says a buyer is agreeing with my terms of sale,

so, sue the buyer for breach of contract.

so rather than make everyone comply with a minimum 4 + 4 time frame, why not create a system whereby I can clearly indicate payment is required within X days,

you can, write it in your T&C, then take legal action on those who don't comply. It is not eBay's responsibility to chase your money.

NOTE - I get where you are coming from with the payment timeframe doobie, but I suspect the fact that some users may use bank deposit affects the implementation of this.

just like I can with my handling time,

meh - that's just so eBay can "advertise" due dates for buyers.... *rolls eyes*

and with no "second chance to pay" BS you have to sit through with a dispute?

In the real world, I think it's pretty l;ong process to make people pay if they don't want to - so guessing that has something to do with it. The Law. But we do have the option of BIN's with instant payment, so what's wrong with that?

Is there a law that says if I give a buyer 4 days to pay, I have to actually give them 8,

Not sure, but maybe on the due date you have to send them a reminder kind of thing? I know it's a pretty long drawn out process to get a contract cancelled for non payment, or phone companies and councils and people who rent would be able to take immediate action iykwim

or can not the validity of a contract rely on it being fulfilled according to its terms (see my post above, when I "buy" an item from the aforementioned site, I am agreeing to pay for it within two hours or I miss out - I can't see any reason why similar TOS could not just be stated, but enforcable via eBay's system if such options were available and selected, in the same way immediate payment is).

---

I don't know, what's the smalll print say? are the items being placed into a shopping cart situation, so not really purchased/contracted for, then just not shown to other users for 2 hours?

[*crikey*mate*]

with that scenario it is like the sellers giving permission for their items to be taken from view for two hour periods.

I'm thinking it is like a shopping trolley in kmart. someone puts the item in their trolley, so no one else can have it, then walks around with it for two hours deciding iof they want it or not. Then putting it back on the shelf when they decide they don't want it.

(If so, I know the law surrounding that and it's kosher LOL)

Is the occurrance of NPBs that prevalent that we need it for every seller on every item?

Why not just use auto payment required?

There would be no contract formed, I bet that's what it is, and why they can do it. It's the electronic version of the kmart trolley.

[*crikey*mate*]

that works for me didi, You're a rock star!

and i can't think of a legal reason why it couldn't be implemented.

so now we have to think of reasons why eBay haven't implemented it.

Would it be a case of not enough sever room or caopability to cope with millions of items going on and off the site every 2 hours?

(It would have top be a standard time for everyone.)

and if there is no legally binding contract, then if the person chose not to pay for it after whatever time frame is chosen, then there could also be no repercussions for them.

so they could do this to hundreds of items. with no strikes issued.and still no ability to leave feedback (even if negs for buyers were reinstated) as there was no contract to begin with.

[digital*ghost]

crikey, I think you are still missing my point. We have seen cases on the forums where a buyer admits to having well over 50 (I actually think it was just over 80-odd) UPI strikes in the last 12 months, eBay took no action against them. I get that we have a strike system and that it can work as a preventative measure (that's why I keep advocating it - see my first post in this thread today), but my point was... eBay can and do take action against sellers, but they are reluctant - at best - to take action against buyers. 

I understand the reasoning behind eBay's bias - and that's exactly what it is - NPBs do not hurt them anywhere near as much as a non-performing seller can, so I don't really need a lesson on the how's and why eBay make the decisions they do, what - if anything - I can do about it or situations eBay can't handle on my behalf, and if I had a major problem with it I wouldn't still be here - I know about freedom of choice, and I know that both eBay and I have it.

However, none of that means I can't or shouldn't regard eBay and their actions with discernment, which is what I'm doing when I enter into these discussions. 

I do not expect eBay to chase after money on my behalf - that is not what I'm suggesting happens when I suggest a seller - as an end user of eBay - is provided with more options than "immediate payment required" when conducting business here, there's no reason for them not to help sellers have a higher success rate, and it wouldn't compromise a buyer's user experience either. 

It's the same as any user of any service - I can make suggestions, wish things were a certain way, provide feedback on my experience and ask if certain things are possible in order to improve my experience. It doesn't equate to an expectation the site, in this instance eBay, will cater to my every whim, or meet my "demands", it just means I'm looking at / thinking about / highlighting certain areas and maybe they'll be workable or get taken on board (ever the fantasist in some ways).

They provide immediate payment required options to eliminate NPBs and having to do any chasing whatsoever, via eBay and/or the legal system, my suggestions only serve to make that option more flexible so that different businesses and buyers can have their needs met, which IMHO should be important to them.

In regards to the site I mentioned, if I add a fixed price item to my cart, it is immediately sold (ergo purchased), then in their T&Cs:

4. BIDDING AND BUYING

As a buyer, you have a legal obligation to complete a transaction with XXXXXXXX:

• a) if you purchase an item through one of our fixed price formats; or
• b) if you are the highest bidder at the end of an auction-style listing (meeting the applicable minimum bid or reserve requirements and including any bid that becomes the highest after a valid bid retraction) and your bid is accepted by the seller, unless the transaction is prohibited by law or by this User Agreement.