eBay Auctions & Consumer Guarantee

[thecatspjs]

I noticed on another recent thread (on another topic) that board posters were indicating that goods purchased through eBay auctions were not covered by the same consumer guarantees as buy-it-now goods.

I just wanted to note that according to fair trading information on government websites, this appears not to be the case and that buyers of Australian businesses goods that are purchased through the eBay auction process, are covered by the same consumer guarantees as buy-it-now goods.

Some fair trading website facts that are easily located via google below, (my highlighting)

"Consumer guarantees do not cover goods bought at auction, where the auctioneer acts as an agent for the owner of the goods." 

"eBay sales are not considered to be an auction as eBay does not act as an agent on behalf of the seller. Therefore, eBay sales are covered by the consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law"

[*crikey*mate* · Accepted solution]

---

@this-way-up wrote:

---

---

Consumer Protection for both buyer and seller for all sales on eBay, is administered by eBay's sister company, Paypal....Except for sales not paid for through Paypal...in which case they basically tell you to go jump!

---

It is the Common Law and the various Australian, State and Territory Legislations that provide Consumer Protection.

I do not understand what PayPal has to do with this thread, but I am further perplexed by the introduction of Criminal Law Legislation.

Could somebody PLEASE join the dots for me?

[thecatspjs]

Thats the thing with a terrol so it won't ever make sense when u feed it.

But what would I know.....

[this-way-up]

I will raise you higher with a little quote from the Code of Conduct that Paypal says it abides by and agrees with....

4.1 A subscriber must prepare clear and unambiguous terms and conditions for facilities.

**bleep**...I can't get my head around how "may not" followed only a few lines later by "will" fits in and meets the requirements of 4.1 of the Code !!!

Please note, casual readers...The Code is NOT compulsory...However, it IS compulsory when the "subscriber" agrees to abide by it !!

In this case eBay [slash] Paypal is the "subscriber".

With all due respect to all parties concerned...As identified and stated by a person of legal learings as seen above...The wording and meaning of the User Agreement presented by eBay [slash] Paypal is ambiguous and as such in breach of the Code.

[coast_golf · Accepted solution]

One last contribution, then I promise I'll crawl back into my hole lol.

Pesonally I don't believe there is an ambiguity in the context that it is written. The Criminal Code (QLD) contains the terms, may not, must not and shall not and each has an identical meaning when read contextually. Unnecessarily complicated? Perhaps, but I wouldn't say it is ambiguous.

In any case, there is something called the doctrine of contra proferentem. In laymens terms it means that where any ambiguity is present, in a contract for example, the arbiter will rely on the interpretation that least favours the individual or body that drafted the contract.

[coast_golf · Accepted solution]

Excuse my typos BTW.

[digital*ghost · Accepted solution]

---

@this-way-up wrote:

---

Yes...and also you might find that it is accepted in legal "talk" that 'may not' means shall not or not allowed to etc...Like this -

S3.1 If you are a seller, we may not deduct funds from your account in connection with a Reversal where the following requirements are met for a transaction:

Condraticted by -

S7.3 If your purchase meets the requirements for the PayPal Buyer Protection Policy, we will attempt to recover your payment from the seller.

In affect, a buyer simply asking for a refund automatically dis-qualifies a seller from "seller protection"...and...the actual user agreement itself automatically dis-qualifies the buyer from "buyer protection" excpet in - our absolute and sole discretion.

---

I was going to reply to this earlier, but chose not to with respect to cats and the topic at hand (I'll try to keep it brief with said same in mind, with apologies for the side-track). Since it seems to be giving you some trouble, I'll just suggest that there are some other terms within the PayPal user agreement that put these two seemingly contradictory terms into the correct perspective - and taking each respective line out of context then putting them next to each other doesn't clarify things, just muddies the waters. 

First things first, you need to look at the definitions of Buyer / Seller Protection, then what the requirements for the relevant protections are. 

A reversal occurs for a range of reasons, but take a look at what Buyer Protection is first (it has nothing to do with credit cards, chargebacks, unauthorised use etc - it is confined solely to PayPal facilitated disputes concerning items that haven't been received or are not as described). Now, the most important thing is that if someone qualifies for Buyer Protection, it means they have effectively won their claim...and that means the seller has lost the dispute, and subsequently does not qualify for Seller Protection, so they do owe the money and PayPal will attempt to retrieve it from the seller's account.

[thecatspjs]

Thank you DG for your respectful comment and kudos to you.

Whilst I am channelling Homer Simpson and having a ball with the accept as solution greening post function - I still do think that the thread deserves at least one ninja if at all possible just for my own enjoyment given a terrol hijacked my topic.

[digital*ghost · Accepted solution]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:
 I still do think that the thread deserves at least one ninja if at all possible just for my own enjoyment given a terrol hijacked my topic.

---

I felt that was the most appropriate (that I have in my ninja stash, anyway  )

[thecatspjs · Accepted solution]

Bahahaha ... Love it

And i got use the accept solution function again...

My day is complete!!