Selling high value item on ebay

[muon]

Lots of if's there. They won't win, and they know it (which is why these court cases don't happen). They'd have to prove their decision to refund the buyer was sound and because they don't give a toss and always side in favour of the buyer they would lack this concrete evidence that a court requires over their sham of a dispute process.

All they have to show is that they followed the T&Cs you agreed to when you decided to sell on their website. There aren't any laws governing this. You aren't a buyer protected by consumer laws.

This is a contractual dispute.

There is only one if here and that is whether they take you to court over £2.5k.

 

[Tephnos]

All they have to show is that they followed the T&Cs you agreed to when you decided to sell on their website. There aren't any laws governing this. You aren't a buyer protected by consumer laws.

This is a contractual dispute.

There is only one if here and that is whether they take you to court over £2.5k.

Prior court cases where users took PayPal to court over these decisions calls supreme bull on your statements.

 

[Theophany]

what's this about filming yourself opening/packaging things? could easily change something/redo it after you've filmed packaging, or could have already opened it before filming opening a package...might be wrong but can't see it being any help

I have no idea, my mother insists on doing it when I sell stuff for her on eBay and I really don't get it.

 

[muon]

Prior court cases where users took PayPal to court over these decisions calls supreme bull on your statements.

Thought you said these court cases don't happen.

I reckon your the one making up BS.

The T&Cs on ebay are very clear. A judge won't randomly throw them out.

Once the OP receives a return there is no way they will convince a judge that they should be entitled to that money ebay/paypal have refunded.

 

[Tephnos]

Thought you said these court cases don't happen.

I reckon your the one making up BS.

The T&Cs on ebay are very clear. A judge won't randomly throw them out.

Maybe try reading. I said 'users took PayPal to court' because PayPal had taken the money from them, and they wanted it back. Turns out, they can do just that because T&Cs aren't everything. My point was that PayPal's BS doesn't hold up in an actual court.

Once the OP receives a return there is no way they will convince a judge that they should be entitled to that money ebay/paypal have refunded.

In the circumstance that the OP receives his actual cards back this would be true. When he is given fakes back (which is certainly what will happen), this is not true. How is this so hard for you to understand is beyond me.

 

[muon]

Maybe try reading. I said 'users took PayPal to court' because PayPal had taken the money from them, and they wanted it back. Turns out, they can do just that because T&Cs aren't everything.

It isn't Paypal doing the refund. It is ebay. All paypal will show is that ebay have retrieved the money forcing the person into a negative balance (a debt).

I have a feeling you aren't even bringing up a like for like comparison. Not that you've even provided an example of a judge throwing out the contract.

 

[Tephnos]

It isn't Paypal doing the refund. It is ebay. All paypal will show is that ebay have retrieved the money forcing the person into a negative balance.

I have a feeling you aren't even bringing up a like for like comparison. Not that you've even provided an example of a judge throwing out the contract.

I have a feeling you are being deliberately obstinate despite having zero credentials as a lawyer. As it is, I'm done debating this with you.

These court cases do exist if you'd spend less time arguing and more time searching.

 

[muon]

I have a feeling you are being deliberately obstinate despite having zero credentials as a lawyer. As it is, I'm done debating this with you.

Sure. What you are saying goes against the contract you have with ebay and paypal as a seller.

You believe there is some precedent out there saying that isn't valid, prove it. Judges don't throw out contracts like that arbitrarily. Since the OP is a seller they are not protected by laws that protect buyers of goods and services.

You claimed paypal doesn't take people to court and then go on to say actually they do and have lost. I could believe the former but I doubt you could say for sure (especially with large sums), the latter you would have to prove as its a very bold claim.

 

[muon]

In the circumstance that the OP receives his actual cards back this would be true. When he is given fakes back (which is certainly what will happen), this is not true. How is this so hard for you to understand is beyond me.

A court isn't there to arbitrate a dispute between the seller and buyer (the buyer isn't even there). A court is there to understand if ebay/paypal have the right under the T&Cs to retrieve the debt following the carrying out of a service which the seller agreed to.

Therefore I am leaning towards you making stuff up now.

Imagine if banks could not pursue debts created by refunds they had to give. According to what you are saying they would lose on the same arguments/precedents.

 

[Surveyor]

No, we don't assume anything. To successfully sue you would need proof that the seller was in on it to avoid fees and that the buyer simply didn't change their mind after the auction was cancelled. You would also need a signed contract from the seller agreeing to pay the fees, I doubt agreeing to a website's TOS when creating an account would hold up. Show me one example where eBay have successfully sued a seller for dodging fees. Legally he owes nothing, you're grasping at straws.

The whole premise of our discussion is that the sale was completed between the parties introduced by a middleman. In such circumstances the middleman is legally entitled to their commission. The agreement for a commission to be paid could be formed by a written or oral contract.

For the middleman to start an action for their commission they would have to know the deal had been completed and it's unlikely ebay know this has happened.

There are probably millions of deals a year carried out through middlemen and it's ridiculous of you to suggest they have no legal recourse if they don't get paid.

 

[Tephnos]

A court isn't there to arbitrate a dispute between the seller and buyer (the buyer isn't even there). A court is there to understand if ebay/paypal have the right under the T&Cs to retrieve the debt following the carrying out of a service which the seller agreed to.

Therefore I am leaning towards you making stuff up now.

Imagine if banks could not pursue debts created by refunds they had to give. According to what you are saying they would lose on the same arguments/precedents.

On what planet is the service carried out if the seller does not receive his goods back. You're really stretching here. Under your premise I may as well as send a rock back because as long as he gets something that eBay can say has been tracked to the seller then I've done my bit as the buyer.

You claimed paypal doesn't take people to court and then go on to say actually they do and have lost.

I said this once and I'm saying it again: reading comprehension, please. I did not claim PayPal took somebody to court, I claimed somebody took PayPal to court.

 

[muon]

On what planet is the service carried out if the seller does not receive his goods back. You're really stretching here. Under your premise I may as well as send a rock back because as long as he gets something that eBay can say has been tracked to the seller then I've done my bit as the buyer.

Then your problem is with the buyer who defrauded you. Not the middleman who simply carried out the service as per the T&Cs as per their procedures which you agreed to.

What we are is discussing is the ability of ebay/paypal to recover the funds you withdrew and then was refunded as per the T&Cs and the mediation/escrow procedure that exists.

In the unlikely case the OP is pursued we'll point him in your direction.

 

[DeliciousStorage]

The whole premise of our discussion is that the sale was completed between the parties introduced by a middleman. In such circumstances the middleman is legally entitled to their commission. The agreement for a commission to be paid could be formed by a written or oral contract.

For the middleman to start an action for their commission they would have to know the deal had been completed and it's unlikely ebay know this has happened.

There are probably millions of deals a year carried out through middlemen and it's ridiculous of you to suggest they have no legal recourse if they don't get paid.

In this specific situation where eBay was used there was no contract, agreeing to TOS would not hold up in court, especially when it was the buyer who decided to cancel the sale. Therefore he does not legally owe eBay anything and you were wrong.

 

[Surveyor]

In this specific situation where eBay was used there was no contract, agreeing to TOS would not hold up in court, especially when it was the buyer who decided to cancel the sale. Therefore he does not legally owe eBay anything and you were wrong.

The sale wasn't cancelled. When a user agrees to the Terms of Service a contract is created between the user and company. As long the presentation and acceptance of the TOS meet approved standards the contract is legally binding,

 

[DeliciousStorage]

The sale wasn't cancelled. When a user agrees to the Terms of Service a contract is created between the user and company. As long the presentation and acceptance of the TOS meet approved standards the contract is legally binding,

The sale went ahead, nevertheless it was the buyer who initiated the cancellation of the eBay auction. I very much doubt eBay's TOS would hold up in a UK court to enforce the seller fees from a cancelled auction. However I'm happy to be proven wrong, show me one example where eBay have taken a seller to court for allegedly owed fees and won.

 

[LeeUK]

This is terrible advice, if PayPal decide a case against you and your account balance is negative then you need to pay it, otherwise they can send debt collectors after you. The correct route to recover the money would be small claims court.

I wouldn't worry about PayPal's tame debt collectors. They send a few letters then give up.

 

[Surveyor]

The sale went ahead, nevertheless it was the buyer who initiated the cancellation of the eBay auction. I very much doubt eBay's TOS would hold up in a UK court to enforce the seller fees from a cancelled auction. However I'm happy to be proven wrong, show me one example where eBay have taken a seller to court for allegedly owed fees and won.

It matters not a jot who instigated the cancellation, it was the seller who did it. He's responsible for his actions.

I'm not privy to cases eBay has taken to court or cases they may have settled out of court. The principal remains that their TOS constitute a contract which has been breached by the seller falsly cancelling the auction on the basis the sale didn't take place.

 

[DeliciousStorage]

It matters not a jot who instigated the cancellation, it was the seller who did it. He's responsible for his actions.

I'm not privy to cases eBay has taken to court or cases they may have settled out of court. The principal remains that their TOS constitute a contract which has been breached by the seller falsly cancelling the auction on the basis the sale didn't take place.

The fact remains that he does not legally owe them anything until they have taken him to court and won, which in my opinion would have a low chance of success based on a TOS agreement, thus your original statement was false.

 

[Theophany]

I thought the TOS allows you to cancel an auction at any time prior to the final 24 hours without penalty as you are not exclusively advertising on eBay. But by backing out of the TOS you lose any and all protection that eBay would otherwise afford you?

Which seems pretty dumb, because as a seller you get sweet FA in the way of protection, so what is the incentive to pay their fees?