on 27-07-2023 09:42 AM
Hi everyone
I recently (we’ll still am) having an issue with a buyer who I believe is abusing the “money back guarantee” that eBay offer. In an effort to clarify where I stand legally I’ve been looking through the eBay user terms and conditions and the Australian legislation. This has given me a couple of questions that I would appreciate others input on, as I may have missed something or miss understood something. Below are the relevant points of info related to my question. (Some I’ve paraphrased”
1) In section 7 of the eBay user agreement, trading on eBay and limitation of liability. It is made very clear that any contract of sale is between the seller and the buyer and that eBay take no responsibility legally or otherwise.
2) In the same section it is make expressly clear that as a user it is your responsibility no eBay’s to ensure that you are adhering to any relevant laws and as a user it is your responsibility not eBay’s to enforce your legal rights and obligations under those laws.
3) In section 10 of the eBay user agreement, returns and eBay money back guarantee. It states that a seller can accept or decline a return unless the return meets the requirements of the eBay money back guarantee.
4) I am not trading as a business on eBay so any sale I make is considered a private sale under Australian law.
5) Under Australian law consumer guarantees do not apply to private sales. (Other than clear title etc)
6) When considering what rules or laws apply to any given situation the laws as stated in the relevant governing legislation take president and trump any rules, such as those in a user agreement that contradict these laws.
So this is my question.
Given that in Australia a private sale between two individuals does not come with any legal guarantee and that according to eBay’s user agreement any contract of sale is legally binding contract between the seller and the buyer alone. How exactly is the eBay money back guarantee fit into this legally? For a user to agree to offer a guaranteed return on a private sale contradicts what applies to a private sale in accordance to the Competitions and Consumer Act 2010. I would also like to understand how a user is expected to enforce their legally protected rights as a consumer when it would seem that the eBay user agreement is in place to diminish and seemingly waiver some of those rights.
I have stated that I do not accept returns. The item in question was delivered to the buyer on the 18/7. On the 25/7 the buyer wants to return the item claiming the return under the eBay money back guarantee. Which offers me no option to decline. Two days after the auction ended the buyer disclosed that they currently did not have the funds available to pay for the item and expected me to wait until he had the funds available. I was not willing to do so and reminded him he is required to make the payment within four days of the completion of the auction. If payment was not make I would be cancelling the sale in accordance the relevant eBay rules. The buyer informed me he had borrowed the money and had paid for the items, which was the case and the item was sent.
The item In question is a very rare hand plane only manufactured between 1909 and 1943 so it’s somewhere between 113 to 79 years old. It is well documented that these particular planes have a weakness in how the frog is attached to the body and it is estimated that approximately 30% of all these planes have been damaged due to this inherent weakness. The plane I sold had been repaired as it had suffered damage to to the same weakness. The repair did not effect the planes usability. There was also a crack in the lever cap of the plane. The crack in the lever cap is clearly visible in the listing photos, the repair is not due to its position. My description of the plane was simply “in great condition with original japanning” as even considering the repair it was perfectly usable and due to its rarity “great condition” i do not believe to be inaccurate. It is also completely subjective as to what one would consider “great condition” prior to the sale of my plane the last plane of this type sold on eBay for around $1700 AUD there is currently one for sale with a starting price of around $2000 AUD. Mine sold for $1250 and whilst iI was happy with this amount I believe that all things considered the price paid is under market value for the item.
The buyer is claiming, after a week or receiving the item that it does not match my description of being in “great condition” and has requested I refund $500 or give a full refund on the return of the item. I am of the firm belief that the buyer has simply decided they cannot afford the item as this was apparent from the start. I have said to the buyer I am more than happy to replace the lever cap but I will not be accepting a return. Although it appears that is exactly what eBay are trying to force me into doing.
I would argue that as the user agreement contradicts Australian consumer laws by forcing a seller to guarantee the buyers money back, where no such legal guarantee exists. The eBay money back guarantee is in breach of Australian consumer law, and as eBay state as a user it is my responsibility to enforce my legal rights any agreement to section 10 of the eBay user guide cannot and should not be allowed to be enforceable.
I welcome any input, thoughts and constructive criticism on this matter.
28-07-2023 11:44 PM - edited 28-07-2023 11:47 PM
Hmmmm, well that's strange.
Message #13 on my feed is Springy's.
OP's is #11
on 29-07-2023 07:29 AM
@imastawka wrote:Hmmmm, well that's strange.
Message #13 on my feed is Springy's.
OP's is #11
Message #11 shows as being from the countessa on mine & springy is #15.
Have to admit I'm on a cocktail of prescribed meds.
on 29-07-2023 08:08 AM
bottom line is you agreed to eBay's User Agreement when you signed up, and by continuing to use eBay you have agreed to ongoing updates of that agreement (including MBG).
That's my take on your situation.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, have no legal training or experience. Anything I post on these boards is just my opinion
on 29-07-2023 10:09 AM
@repentatleisure1952 wrote:Message #11 shows as being from the countessa on mine & springy is #15.
Have to admit I'm on a cocktail of prescribed meds.
Party at Repent's place tonight by the looks of it!!!
29-07-2023 10:11 AM - edited 29-07-2023 10:14 AM
Mine is also showing as message 11 as the reply to me.
Edit: Maybe Repent shows the messages as new message at the top, rather than new message at the bottom like most people do. That could explain the difference in the message numbers.
on 29-07-2023 10:14 AM
I was responding to the opening post.
And to one aspect of josh's later post. It is good he decided to accept the return but I had the sense that he felt the return was motivated entirely by the buyer's need for money and not by the undisclosed fault. And that even with the fault, the item was undervalued.
I believe that view needs to be addressed. I know others have said he should have mentioned faults and he acknowledges that but I think he is wrong in his assessment. I don't think he fully appreciates how disappointed the buyer was. And probably angry too. I would be.
on 29-07-2023 10:17 AM
Mine is showing the same as most posters.
However, if I change the sort order from "oldest to newest" to "by topics", the order is the same as repentatleisure.
So, none of us are going mad (or no more than usual 😄 ), the posts just show up in a different order depending on the option chosen.
on 29-07-2023 10:25 AM
@springyzone wrote:
I believe that view needs to be addressed. I know others have said he should have mentioned faults and he acknowledges that but I think he is wrong in his assessment. I don't think he fully appreciates how disappointed the buyer was. And probably angry too. I would be.
I wonder how OP would have felt if they purchased an item that was listed in Great condition. Than when they got it, it had being repaired and had cracks on it. I'm sure they would have being as happy as Larry
on 29-07-2023 10:27 AM
@springyzone wrote:I was responding to the opening post.
And to one aspect of josh's later post. It is good he decided to accept the return but I had the sense that he felt the return was motivated entirely by the buyer's need for money and not by the undisclosed fault. And that even with the fault, the item was undervalued.
I believe that view needs to be addressed. I know others have said he should have mentioned faults and he acknowledges that but I think he is wrong in his assessment. I don't think he fully appreciates how disappointed the buyer was. And probably angry too. I would be.
Obviously the buyer REALLY wanted the item because they borrowed money to buy it. To get something that is less than what they thought they were getting would have been shattering. I would have been really pished too.
on 29-07-2023 10:33 AM
I agree, Springy. As a collector of antiques myself (not planes though), I totally agree that it is very important for collectors to know if an item has been repaired. It can happen of course if an item is really antique, but it should definitely be mentioned and photos of the repair are normally provided too. Apart from the disappointment in itself, the value of an antique item is diminished when it has been repaired.