---

@thecatspjs wrote:

What exactly have you quoted ?

 

No source ....

 

 

Edit not withstanding you undermine your own postion .... bahahahaha

 

"delivery of the goods to a carrier, whether known by the buyer or not, for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, is prima facie deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer."

 

The buyer paid for post according to invoice and cost issued to them. 

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1954-15/current/pdf/1954-15.pdf

Once again you have cherry picked the one part of the legislation that you think absolves sellers of having to give a buyer a refund because they have no proof of delivery.

---

@phorum_junkie* wrote:

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

What exactly have you quoted ?

 

No source ....

 

 

Edit not withstanding you undermine your own postion .... bahahahaha

 

"delivery of the goods to a carrier, whether known by the buyer or not, for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, is prima facie deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer."

 

The buyer paid for post according to invoice and cost issued to them. 

 

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1954-15/current/pdf/1954-15.pdf

 

Once again you have cherry picked the one part of the legislation that you think absolves sellers of having to give a buyer a refund because they have no proof of delivery.

---

Once again you have cherry picked one States legislation to side track the discussion as there is no supporting evidence for your ealier statements regarding eBays requirement for proof of delivery.   .

PJ is correct to "cherry pick" NSW legislation as that is what ebay uses in any dispute.

---

@phorum_junkie* wrote:

---

I am not sure why you continue to parade only part of the regulations, that is

 

Delivery to carrier

 

(1) If, under the contract of sale, the seller is authorised or required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier, whether known by the buyer or not, for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, is prima facie deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer.

 

the above part (1) without also quoting the rest of the parts, particularly in this case part (4) which applies directly to the OP and shows that the consumer law entirely in agrees with the ebay that the seller is liable.

 

(2) Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller must make a contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer that is reasonable, having regard to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case.

 

(3) If the seller omits to do so and the goods are lost or damaged in course of transit, the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier as a delivery to himself or herself or may hold the seller responsible in damages.

 

(4) Unless otherwise agreed, if goods are sent by the seller to the buyer by a route involving sea transit, the seller must give notice to the buyer that will enable the buyer to insure the goods during their sea transit and, if the seller fails to do so, the goods shall be deemed to be at the seller’s risk during the sea transit.

---

Not to butt in where I'm not wanted, but you're right, you can't just cherry-pick bits of legislation to suit an argument, and I'm afraid you're overlooking an extremely important line in those four paragraphs, and they definitely do not mean a seller is liable on a buyer's say-so.

Namely, in 3, where it says this:

If the seller omits to do so

That means that the seller has to fail to do something in order for a buyer to be able to decline to treat the delivery to the carrier as a delivery to himself or herself.

That paragraph can only be referring to the seller's obligations mentioned previously, namely the seller must make a contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer that is reasonable, having regard to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case.

So, how can a seller deliver goods to a carrier but fail to do that?

Simple, by doing something like posting standard when the buyer paid for registered, thus not following the buyer's instructions and creating the correct (reasonable) contract. 

Also, as we're actually talking about a sea mail item, by that legislation the seller can be held liable if the buyer was not informed of the transit method and not given the opportunity to pay for insurance, but by the same token if a buyer is informed and given that opportunity, the seller wouldn't be liable unless they agreed to be. 

(NB, I'm leaving eBay & PayPal T&Cs and/or how they handle such cases out of the equation, just seeking to clarify the above). 

The OP appears to be in South Australia.

Regardless of where eBay is, the sale and contract is viewed as occuring in the State the seller is in, so the SA goods act would be the applicable legislation- in the SA clause on this matter it includes additional wording "under circumstances in which it is usual to insure" so that throws another factor into the mix if we go further down the side track. 

I have yet to see any jurisdications legislation on Sale of Goods, Consumer Law or otherwise clearly support the general requirements that eBay imposes on sellers through the MBG. 

My view is that the support by particular regulars for this draconian eBay measure that does not support reasonable resolutions congruent with the relevant laws and rewards poor buying behaviour, reflects questionable values and a lack of knowledge and understanding for what is ethical and/or lawful behaviour in this market.

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

 

 

I have yet to see any jurisdications legislation on Sale of Goods, Consumer Law or otherwise clearly support the general requirements that eBay imposes on sellers through the MBG. 

 

 

 

 

---

Neither have I, but sometimes I wish there was, if for no other reason than it would simplify things (just from my perspective, anyway).

Other times, I more wish Australia Post wasn't getting away with "no responsibility taken for lost or damaged mail, except if we lose or damage it, and admit it, and you've paid us for 'extra cover'....", that way the responsible party would be the one that is held accountable and liable. 

I soooo agree DG.