@nevillesdaughter wrote:
With the utmost respect Cats, I have spent a reasonable part of the afternoon on the phone with my business lawyer (whom I pay).
His professional advice (in writing) is that onus is not on the seller (particularly of second-hand goods) to provide the provenance of every item he or she sells. It is up to the buyer, if they suspect a fake, to provide the proof. Obviously, inherent in this is that I believe the item to be genuine. And if a customer does come up with some sort of certification, their first point of call should be (also according to CHOICE) to the seller for a refund ( which I would happily provide). And even if I refused, the likliehood of anyone finding a lawyer prepared to take it on are miniscule (I'm referring here to second-hand ski wear). For a start, I could then "pass the lawsuit on" to whomever I bought it from) in good faith, ad infinitum. In the words of my lawyer - "The bloody economy would collapse while the lawsuits were sorted out!" Additionally, if I give someone their money back, the story is over.
I re-iterate, that I only list items I truly believe to be genuine, and have NEVER, in 10 years, been accused of doing otherwise. I refund everyone for ANY reason that they are unhappy eg, "The colour looked different on my monitor, I'm always a size 12 at Target, My son broke his leg and won't be going on the school trip, Her grandma bought her a skisuit already" etc, etc, etc.
But I am not infallible, and there are some very good fakes around. If in doubt, I don't buy the item in the first place. However the companies looking to prosecute are not looking to sue middle aged women flogging ONE ski jacket that turns out not to be genuine. They are chasing people at markets, or people selling entire ranges of new items purporting to be the real thing. Some of the goods I sell are by companies no longer in business - where would I stand if someone questioned the legitimacy of such an item (skiwear that is often only used for a few days a year can last forever!)
I'm not looking for a bunfight here, but consumer law is nowhere as cut and dried as you seem to be implying - particularly in respect of second-hand goods. As my guy said, the onus is not on the seller to provide the provenance (although you can ask for it), but for the buyer to prove otherwise.
Marina.
eBay has time and again, issued account restrictions because a buyer opens a paypal claim on the basis of goods being a knock off - if you are unable to prove it was not - it leaves your business very exposed to being shut down due to a single disgruntled buyer if you can not with certainity demonstrate your goods are the real deal,
Remember eBay has been issued (and fought) with multi million dollar fines in the past, so a sellers activities exposes it to risks that it doesn't need to prove to shut your operations down.
Whilst consumer law may have some grey areas, I think I can also safely say that those corporations that hold trademark and brand rights to goods being sold with their label - whether new or second hand - are also not so grey when it comes to a whisper that goods being sold by may be copies. I personally would never want to fight that kind of battle.
In addition, please don't take the comments so personally, I don't seek a "bun fight" as you put it.
I am putting forward my opinion on the very high risks that may apply if you are not certain, and cannot prove, that the goods you sell are the real deal. My advice is actually very consistent IMO with that given to many other posters overtime by many regulars, including some that have posted in this thread.
