on โ13-01-2018 06:57 PM
why do so many sellers let ebay walk all over them and put up with their policy which is not legal..i can prove that because if their policy was legal ebay would not have returned funds they tried to take from me within 4 hours after i got my bank involved?
on โ15-01-2018 03:32 PM
@clubesquire wrote:
Is that the end of the series, or is there another 'episode?'
Stay tuned for the thrilling Season Final, in which the OP explains to Jackson Guitars why a guitar neck not made by Jackson but bearing a Jackson decal isn't counterfeit at all, and how they won't win in court.
on โ15-01-2018 03:43 PM
How many threads have their been already?
Must be up to the Jackson Five by now ?
on โ15-01-2018 04:09 PM
on โ15-01-2018 04:12 PM
on โ15-01-2018 04:32 PM
on โ15-01-2018 06:02 PM
@clubesquire wrote:
Is that the end of the series, of is there another 'episode?'
Unfortunately this one seems to be stuck in development hell - maybe there was a writer's strike.
What the OP doesn't seem to be aware of, is that there are likely many sellers here (and tens of thousands who don't frequent the forums), that would quite literally have a field day if aspects of eBay's MBG policies were proven to be illegal; myself included.
There are sellers who have always been dubious about the legalities of certain policies, explored relevant laws and even reported practices, for years now, only to ultimately be disappointed. This situation contains no new information or evidence. eBay's attempt at PayPal only some years back, and the reaction from sellers when they knew perfectly well there were laws in place to prevent such things, shows that sellers will fight ebay when they have right on their side. The reaction and mass reporting to the ACCC when they introduced FVF on postage further shows that sellers still question policies and have the motivation to take issue with a wrong - perceived or otherwise.
So, the OP isn't getting support (and never will if they persist with this train of thought) because no one cares, it's because they know it's irrelevant to the actual issue.
I mean, if getting your money back thanks to the decision of an entity given authorisation to access / debit funds is proof that the entity that took your money was legally in the wrong....what does that suggest to the buyers who got their money back from the OP?
on โ15-01-2018 06:21 PM
u assume i don't know what im doing.....i took aus government to court and won
on โ15-01-2018 06:25 PM
i never loose, why is it as a seller u succumb to bull**bleep** law?
on โ15-01-2018 06:27 PM
just like fender have been selling my design for years...so it's ok for fender to make huge dollars from my design but im the **bleep** who took a few hundred back
on โ15-01-2018 06:31 PM
so your saying it's ok for fender to steal my design and make huge dollars and not for me to make a cple hundred back from them?