Reply to Post 23.
I think you need to get a current textbook on commercial law and particularly one which deals with sales contracts and distance trading.
If you did, you will find that the vast majority of goods sold on eBay are SPECIFIC goods and therefore the property of the buyer as soon as they paid for it.
You would find that in connection with the sale of any such goods the PLACE FOR DELIVERY is the seller’s place of business, and if the seller is not a business, the place that the item is located at the time it is sold.
You would find that, when you buy goods with the intention they be delivered or the nature of the transaction requires they be delivered, then as the buyer is the one who made the decision to buy, it is they who nominate not only the carrier, but also the service to be used, and if the buyer nominates the carrier and/or service, then the seller has a legal onus to do as the buyer requests. However if the buyer doesn’t nominate either the carrier and/or the service this is nothing more than an implied request by the buyer that SELLER make the necessary decision on the their behalf.
You would find that the word RECOVERY, as used in the PayPal Buyer Protection policy has a specific legal meaning, a meaning which is will know to anyone who has ever worked in the insurance industry.
Now when you understand all of the above, you will come to realise that when it comes to items lost or damaged in transit, the buyer is not the third party. They are not the third party because they owned the goods which were lost or damaged. They are not the third party because they chose to have the item delivered. They are not the third party because it was they who, by specific instructions issued, or by implication, chose the carrier, and this is why the specific component of the legislation dealing with delivery clearly states the same principles apply irrespective of who chose the carrier. They are not the third party because only the person who owns the good can initiate a legal action to recover any loss arising out of the loss or damage to those good, and when it comes to the seller, any such action will only succeed if the buyer proves the loss or damage was on account of the seller negligence.
Reply to Post 24.
It is irrelevant what PayPal will accept as proof of postage. Irrelevant because all decision made by PayPal are disputable and when those decisions are disputed, then it’s what the law says is proof of postage, as distinct to what PayPal, will accept as proof of postage, which is what the ombudsman will use to decide if postage has been proved.
That is there is a reason why in every case that I know of, whenever PayPal has found for the buyer on the grounds that postage was not proved, when that decision was disputed, PayPal has reversed their decision.
That is there is a reason why, PayPal Seller Protection mirrors the relevant consumer legislation. That is there is a reason why PayPal’s policy acknowledges the fact that if postage is proved the buy has no right of recovery against the seller. They didn’t do it voluntarily. They were forced to by the regulator.
That is there are reasons why, whereas when Seller Protection was first introduced, PayPal would only accept registered post or simular as proof of postage, whereas now they will accept parcels sent regular post just as long as the seller has a Aust Post receipt showing something was sent to the suburb in which the buyer lives. They didn’t do it voluntarily. They were forced to by the regulator.
That is there is a reason why PayPal is no longer a mandatory payment option on the eBay site. They didn’t do it voluntarily. They were forced to by the regulator .
Reply to Post 29.
Your attempt to use SNAD claims to justify you point of view is even easier to dispose of.
There is a reason why goods damaged in transit are specifically referred to in the SNAD policy in the other PayPal User Agreements, for instance the UK PayPal User Agreement, but doesn’t rate a mention in the Australian agreement. Its non inclusion was deliberate.
It was deliberately omitted because in Australia, if an item is damaged in transit the buyer only has a right of recovery against the seller if the buyer proves the damage was on account of seller negligence, and negligence can only be determined when examining the facts individual to each case.
For instance if the damage was on account of inadequate packaging then ordinarily negligence would have been be proved. If on the other hand the buyer issued specific instruction as to the way the item is to be pack, and the packaging was inadequate, then there is no negligence by the seller and therefore no right of recovery by the buyer. As a case in point I once had a buyer demand that, to save on postage, that 3 entree plates be simply wrapped in bubble wrap and put into a post pack. Needless to say they arrived broken, but the buyer simply couldn’t/wouldn’t understand when they asked me to provide a replacement at my own cost, the answer is no.
Then let’s not forget thing like it was properly packed but someone drove over it with a forklift or dropped a pallet on it, or the tuck it was travelling in involved in an accident and burn out etc, none of which would give rise to a finding of seller negligence.
