if a seller has make an offer option but do not react to offers is that ok with ebay?

[deleu911]

See subject and let me know

[amber-eyed-girl]

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

The point I was trying to make is, basically, conditions like what? (i.e. ones that wouldn't disadvantage anyone unfairly if circumstances dictated they were not able to respond to an offer before the 48 hours).

eBay have actually introduced measures to make the Best Offer function less binding - at least on the US site, so it's a possibility they may be introduced here (that is, even if a seller accepts an offer, the buyer is not committed to follow through with the purchase). 

---

Digi, that system has already been trialled here for a short period late last year, I think it was.

buyers were encouraged to put in offers on similar items, at the same time, without needing to wait for rejection/acceptance from the seller, as an acceptance from a seller was not binding until the buyer, accepted it 🙂

that way, the buyer did not need to wait for a seller to respond before submitting an offer on another item, because there was no risk of being committed to buy more than the one if more than one seller accepted their price.

it did not last long here.

[digital*ghost]

---

@deleu911 wrote:

Only conditional in case of giving a wrong price ( 99.50 instead of 9.50) of if hte description has significantly changed.

Otherwise Best offer are Binding!

---

In theory, perhaps, in practice, not at all. 

I'm not advocating making offers with the express intention of withdrawing them within your own time limit, I'm just saying an offer isn't the same as a bid in terms of binding obligations. An offer is pending acceptance, a successfu bid is typically automatically accepted. 

What I am actually trying to say is that Best Offer has to be a mutually fair system, and I suspect that despite some of the frustrations lack of response by some sellers can cause, it is the risk a person decides to take when they choose to submit an offer rather than use BIN.

[digital*ghost]

---

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:

---

@digital*ghost wrote:

The point I was trying to make is, basically, conditions like what? (i.e. ones that wouldn't disadvantage anyone unfairly if circumstances dictated they were not able to respond to an offer before the 48 hours).

eBay have actually introduced measures to make the Best Offer function less binding - at least on the US site, so it's a possibility they may be introduced here (that is, even if a seller accepts an offer, the buyer is not committed to follow through with the purchase). 

---

Digi, that system has already been trialled here for a short period late last year, I think it was.

buyers were encouraged to put in offers on similar items, at the same time, without needing to wait for rejection/acceptance from the seller, as an acceptance from a seller was not binding until the buyer, accepted it 🙂

that way, the buyer did not need to wait for a seller to respond before submitting an offer on another item, because there was no risk of being committed to buy more than the one if more than one seller accepted their price.

it did not last long here.

---

I didn't know that, but I do remember seller reaction (here) when the idea was introduced in the US (t'was not favourable). I couldn't see too much of a problem with it personally, kinda like asking several retailers what's the best price they can do, but at the same time I could see the seller side of it - accepting an offer has slightly different connotations to a simple query and/or open negotiation. 

[deleu911]

Is it fair that through my commitment of an best offer I tie down  the fund for 48hrs until I know if it is accepted or not.

Just for example: I place a reasonable offer to a seller and have to wait 48 hrs while I can get the item from another seller for slightly more than my offer but since I have to wait for a response (or not) the other item expires. so I loose out.

The point is : thereis no incentive for a seller to respond if he/she does not like your offer until 48hrs later which basically means he/she blocks my funds until I get a response.

Rather have it automatically rejected if it does not suit the seller and maybe would be good if ebay would give more tan only 3 offer chances so you can get tto the reserve of yhe seller

[i-love-my-sheep]

Simple answer to that is, buy from the seller that accepted your offer. If the other seller then gets back to you and accepts your offer, you don't have to accept it. You are not obligated to buy because you made an offer.

[digital*ghost]

---

@deleu911 wrote:

Is it fair that through my commitment of an best offer I tie down  the fund for 48hrs until I know if it is accepted or not.

---

If you're asking for my personal opinion, then yes. I think it's absolutely fair if you decide to take the risk of doing that when you know what the potential outcome could be. The choice is driven by a desire to save money, but you also know when you make the offer that there are no guarantees - someone else can come along and buy the item at full price 2 seconds, 5 minutes, or 24 hours after you submit an offer. Making an offer for a lower price means making the choice to potentially miss out on the item. 

[digital*ghost]

---

@ilovemychooks wrote:

Simple answer to that is, buy from the seller that accepted your offer. If the other seller then gets back to you and accepts your offer, you don't have to accept it. You are not obligated to buy because you made an offer.

---

Yes, they are - if an offer is accepted, the item is immediately sold. The only time a buyer will have further choice is if the seller declines (make another offer) or counter-offers (make a counter offer of their own, or decline outright). 

[i-love-my-sheep]

Ahhh, OK, I stand corrected 😄

[jensmanchester-australia]

It might have something to do with the number of problem transactions you have had and also offering 20 - 30% off in your offers. There could be a lot of sellers who feel that a discount of that amount is being unrealistic.

[chameleon54]

---

@Why should I be required to respond to silly offers such as this ?deleu911 wrote:

If you make it that way that the seller can't sell the item until he responds ( +or-) then the time of response will be short if the seller has an interest to sell and if it is ouside the business hrs or weekend you are not selling anyway

---

I dont have best offer on any of my items, but regularly recieve offers. Many of these are clearly just silly. ( 20-30% of asking price ) . Why should a seller with best offer option have thier stock tied up by buyers making insulting offers such as this ?. Why should I be required to waste my time responding to idiots that make silly offers ? It seems you may have missed one of the key points in that the seller owns the items. They are the sellers to do with as they please. They are under no obligation to sell them to the highest offer, any offer or anyone. They can withdraw them from sale at any time, up to the point that the full price "buy it now" is activated at which time the buyer and seller have entered into a legal contract.. I realise you are trying to make some constructive suggestions so I hope this does not appear too harsh. I just get sick of the minority of buyers who try to screw sellers into the ground without any respect for them or their businesses. Ebay is certianly biassed towards buyers. We dont need sellers property ownership rights eroded by ebay rules requiring them to accept offers from buyers who think its their right to buy them below the listed price.