Would I have to offer a refund?

[oxford0614]

Hi, I am a private seller on ebay and am selling a new unopened (thus untested) router, would I have to offer a refund if the buyer says it's faulty (assuming he tries it as soon as he gets it).

thanks

[hightail]

Is there any reason you can't test it? If it's in sealed packaging then I can understand why you would want to leave it but not why you'd worry it may be faulty. If it's not sealed why not test it?

 

You don't have to offer a refund but if it is faulty the buyer could open a paypal or ebay dispute and there is every chance they would win.

[perplexity]

As a matter of law, it's the duty of a supplier to inform a consumer that the right to cancel a distance contract exists, which implies a full refund.

 

A buyer is entitled to a refund in any case under the Sale of Goods Act, if what is sold fails to conform to description, whatever the seller would offer.

 

Or you could sell an item as untested, not guaranteed to work, so long as the description is clearly to that effect, if you think it worthwhile to do so.

 

[buzby]

In a word, no. As a private seller, you are entitled to state it is new in the box, if you plug it in, to 'test' it will not be new. If the buyer claims it doesn;t work, it is then up to you to decide whether to refund him or not. But if it is genuinely faulty, why wouldn't you?

[perplexity]

If the buyer claims it doesn;t work, it is then up to you to decide whether to refund him or not. But if it is genuinely faulty, why wouldn't you?

 

The eBay User Agreement is clear enough about it:

 

where there are insufficient funds in the seller’s PayPal account or where PayPal is not the reimbursement method of the seller, directly refund the buyer for the cost of the item and the original postage cost, and, in this case, the seller must reimburse us in full, and in a timely manner, for an amount equivalent to the sum we paid to the buyer.

eBay's Buyer Protection Policy makes no distinction between a business seller and a private seller so neither would the law because the law applies to the contract.

 

Instead of turning up here to ask, or advise in ignorance, the better idea would be to read and respect the User Agreement, hence the Policy.

 

[buzby]

Here we go again... if you want to have a fight, do it on your own, I've got better things to do.

 

To the OP, it is in your interests to sell items that work, if they do not then as I pointed out, why would you not refund? However, since you are not required to sell items exclusively with PayPal, if your buyer paid by cheque or cash, and then tried to seek a refund, ebay's 'Protection Policy' doesn't apply - something our pal forgets to mention. Actually, if you accept PayPal; and the item works, but the buyer feels you misdiscribed the item, they'll take the money back anyway, and may even tell the buyer not to bother sending your item back!

[hightail]

if your buyer paid by cheque or cash, and then tried to seek a refund, ebay's 'Protection Policy' doesn't apply

 

Nowadays sellers are obliged to offer paypal as a payment method and obliged to accept it if the buyer chooses to pay this way.

[buzby]

The point being made is that is is ONLY PayPal payments that can be reversed in the manner described. Similarly, it is now common for buyers to reject a PP payment (any variety of reasons) and carry on as before.

[andydd]

You will get more money if you open the box and quickly test it and sell it as working fine as opposed to selling it as untested.

 

Andy

[buzby]

The point is, if the item is opened and tested, it will no longer be new (under eBays revised rules on this classification). If the item is in its box with cables coiled, there is a reasonable expectation that it will work fine out of the box. By testing it, you lose the 'New' kudos, and is simply becomes a piece of working s/h kit.

[hightail]

Similarly, it is now common for buyers to reject a PP payment (any variety of reasons) and carry on as before.

 

As a buyer I'd always use paypal. Why would any buyer voluntarily forego the protection it offers? Sellers may not like it which is exactly why ebay made it all but compulsory. Anyone who rejects a paypal payment risks being reported by the buyer as a non-performing seller plus the inevitable feedback and detailed ratings.

[buzby]

Ask the sellers (many who are on here) who have been ripped off - by accepting paypal then letting the customer collect the item? All my listing include PAypal, because I cannot prevent it, but if someone collects, I do not permit or accept a PP payment, it has to be in cash.

[hightail]

I also take cash for collection items and have never had a problem with buyers paying that way. Nor would I expect to pay by paypal for a collection item. It's perfectly OK to list cash on collection as a payment option. However, I still stand by my previous statement that any buyer could still make the payment by paypal and the seller risks sanctions if they don't accept it.

[easilyconfused]

DOesn't matter what you offer, ebay and paypal screw sellers over in eevery way they can;

 

I sold an xbox360 game which i had completed, i look after my games so i knew it was perfect, guy who had it complained it didnt work and started dispute when i wouldnt offer refund. (no refunds was stated in my listing, nor any guarantee of the game working)

Paypal told him to send it back as as soon as he gave the recorded item number they refunded him, When the disc got back to me it wasnt even the same disc i sent out, this one had a huge crease which prevented it from working.

I contacted paypal over this and they said tough, resolution is closed by us, end of matter.

 

I now sell in local paper, no listing fees, paypal fees and i stil usually make more then i would on ebay.

Only exception in this is when i sell a vehicle, then ebay is used purely as advertising.

Edited August 14, 2010 by easilyconfused
spelling

[perplexity]

However, since you are not required to sell items exclusively with PayPal, if your buyer paid by cheque or cash, and then tried to seek a refund, ebay's 'Protection Policy' doesn't apply - something our pal forgets to mention.

 

I did not forget.

 

Which part of "or where PayPal is not the reimbursement method of the seller" is so hard to get?

 

where there are insufficient funds in the seller’s paypalautolinker.com autolinking image account or where PayPal is not the reimbursement method of the seller, directly refund the buyer for the cost of the item and the original postage cost, and, in this case, the seller must reimburse us in full, and in a timely manner, for an amount equivalent to the sum we paid to the buyer.

eBay's Buyer Protection Policy applies.

 

This eBay Buyer Protection policy forms part of the eBay.co.uk User Agreement. This policy was last updated on 16 February, 2010. Generally, all purchases by eligible buyers that meet policy conditions and who do not fall within an exclusion or coverage limitation are covered by eBay Buyer Protection

The Paypal policy is another issue.

 

[buzby]

I still stand by my previous statement that any buyer could still make the payment by paypal and the seller risks sanctions if they don't accept it.

As I've already proved, that is not the case, so no risk whatsoever. There is no compusion to accept. only offer.

[hightail]

As I've already proved, that is not the case, so no risk whatsoever. There is no compusion to accept. only offer.

 

There are plenty of sellers who would say otherwise. A buyer can choose which method of payment to use of those which the seller offers. As sellers must offer paypal they are by default a non-performing seller if they don't then accept that payment. The ebay forums are full of examples where this has happened and filing an NPS report is the most quoted advice for sellers who try to circumvent the paypal monopoly.

 

I'm not saying I agree with it. I do understand why it was introduced after a particularly damaging Watchdog report.

[perplexity]

As I've already proved, that is not the case, so no risk whatsoever. There is no compusion to accept. only offer.

 

Yes there is.

 

It's a part of the eBay User Agreement, Accepted Payments Policy that every UK member subscribes to:

 

 

eBay requires all sellers listing on eBay.co.uk and eBay.ie to accept PayPal in their listings with the exception of listings in the categories of cars, motorcycles, aircraft, boats, caravans, trailers, trucks (commercials), services and property categories. Sellers listing on eBay.ie are currently exempt from this requirement, but must offer PayPal in their listings if they wish them to appear in search on eBay.co.uk or eBay.ie. In most cases, other additional payments options, which are currently permitted onsite, may also be provided.

 

Sellers who list in certain categories or transactions may additionally be required to offer PayPal as the only payment method offered on a listing, and this will be messaged accordingly within the listing flows.

 

...........................

 

All sellers must offer PayPal in their listings.

 

 

 

 

 

[buzby]

As mentioned earlier:

 

"There is no compusion to accept. only offer."

 

It is within the sellers power to refuse to accept a PayPal payment if they are unhappy or unwilling to do so. I could refuse for a variety of reasons, no verified address, not enough transactions, suspected fraud, local pickup or any other of a multitude of reasons.

 

Just keep those eyes rolling..... they don't seem to be doing anyithing else that's useful.

[perplexity]

As a matter of fact, this is a part of the eBay User Agreement, Accepted Payment Policy:

 

eBay requires all sellers listing on eBay.co.uk and eBay.ie to accept paypal ....

N.B. "accept", not "offer".

 

Those are the terms.

 

... and this is cut and pasted from the User Agreement:

 

Buyers and sellers agree to follow the requirements of eBay Buyer Protection Policy with respect to claims. eBay Buyer Protection covers only claims filed in accordance with the eBay Buyer Protection Policy, not claims filed with PayPal.

 

eBay sellers shall comply with our resolution process. Sellers permit us to make a final decision, in our sole discretion, on any claim that a buyer files with eBay under the eBay Buyer Protection Policy and agree to the following:

 

Sellers must have a reimbursement method on file with eBay. Sellers may change this reimbursement method by contacting eBay and searching for Change My Reimbursement Method.

 

If we resolve a dispute in the buyer’s favour, we may:

 

*

remove funds from the seller’s PayPal account to reimburse the buyer for the cost of the item and the original postage cost; or,

 

*

 

where there are insufficient funds in the seller’s PayPal account or where PayPal is not the reimbursement method of the seller, directly refund the buyer for the cost of the item and the original postage cost, and, in this case, we will require the seller to reimburse us for the refund.

 

For this purpose you, in the capacity of a seller, authorise and instruct us and PayPal to collect or reverse variable amounts (representing payments related to covered claims) from your PayPal Account to carry out a buyer reimbursement. You acknowledge and agree that your authorisation to collect or reverse payments will be made on a recurring basis and on various dates as required by us to implement the terms of the eBay Buyer Protection Policy.

[Kraken1]

1. DSRs? Sigh. Perpy's got on his soapbox again. Did we agree to adopt the term 'Perpxed' or similar when he did this? Perpy - you never did confirm if you were the poster lambasted on the ebay forums for the dsrs thing?

 

Anyway - dsrs don't apply. Perpx's views on contract law are odd.

 

Next - he's a private seller - s14 of the SoGA - satisfactory quality does not apply to a private seller. No claim there. As long as the seller describes the item accurately, there is no potential claim under the SoGA.

 

As for the ebay terms of service thing - I've not read so can't comment. If there is a term in them that says that goods must be of satisfactory quality or similar, no matter what the status of the seller, then this might be an issue. I'd like to see an extract of the relevant term before commenting further.

[perplexity]

Next - he's a private seller - s14 of the SoGA - satisfactory quality does not apply to a private seller. No claim there. As long as the seller describes the item accurately, there is no potential claim under the SoGA.

 

---

 

To the contrary, except for the mentally incapacitated or an intoxicated idiot who should not have been allowed to subscribe to an agreement to start with, every eBay member ought at least to understand that sellers who sell on eBay are not allowed to enforce a private term of sale as if to divorce themselves from the rules that apply to each and every member

 

On eBay in any case the relevant contract above all else is the eBay User Agreement, where the standardised terms of sale for buyers and sellers apply to all, and that is what the law applies to, the relevant contract.

 

 

Furthermore, according to the Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Community Infringements Specified UK Laws) Order, section 14 of the SoGA implements the EU Directive 1999/44/EC, recital (2) of which explains the intention:

 

.... whereas free movement of goods concerns not only transactions by persons acting in the course of a business but also transactions by private individuals;..

--------

For the enforcement of certain consumer legislation, Section 210 of the Enterprise Act also defines the meaning of the sale of goods "in the course of a business" that section 14 refers to.

 

A business includes—

 

(a) a professional practice;

 

(b) any other undertaking carried on for gain or reward;

 

© any undertaking in the course of which goods or services are supplied otherwise than free of charge.

---

Section 212(4) requires that "References to a listed Directive must be construed in accordance with section 210", which therefore includes the Distance Selling Directive 97/7/EC and the EU Directive 199/44/EC.

 

This followed from the test case of Stevenson v Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613 where the Appeal Court held that a broader interpretation of the term is appropriate to s.14 of the SoGA.

 

8-)

[buzby]

I can see it now... Paypal forced me to accept a fraudulent transaction that I was suspicious of....

 

I can tell you I've refused 11 PP transactions in 4 years. Strange those T&cs you quote did,t do what you expected them to. not only that, 7 of those layers WERE fraudulent! (and were found to have hacked accounts).

 

Of course, you always use prevailing T&Cs as your benchmark instead of common sense, don't you?

[perplexity]

I can tell you I've refused 11 PP transactions in 4 years. Strange those T&cs you quote did,t do what you expected them to. not only that, 7 of those layers WERE fraudulent! (and were found to have hacked accounts).

 

---

 

And so could a so called business seller or anybody else suspect a crime, which is then a matter for the complainant to prove, not for a seller to try for himself. If a buyers sues for non performance the seller would not have a leg to stand on, if a suspicion of crime is not at least reported to the Police as such.

 

Were the buyers convicted?

 

If not, they're innocent. That is the law of the United Kingdom.

 

8)

[buzby]

As you very well know, eBay do not provide information on the disposal of these cases, so - who knows? The sellers, as owners of the goods are the final arbiter, something you fail to appreciate. However, a buyer suing for non performance would have to have more money than sense.