Did you purposely misunderstand why I provided the main two examples of why an Ebay buyer would wish for a refund just so you could be snotty and condescending?
No, I understood perfectly but your statement that responsibilty for shipping costs liability lies with the seller as a de-facto statement of fact was simply incorrect.
Ebay has to abide by the rule of the land and for a seller to put down 'no refunds' is a clear contravention of the Sale of Goods Act (which I suggest you read).
Yes of course they do, I didn't suggest otherwise. I'll get back to the SOG act a little later if I may.
The buyer's contract is not with Ebay it is with the seller therefore it is up to the seller not Ebay to refund him and Ebay's buyer protection is in addition to statutory rights and used only when unable to gain satisfaction from the seller (given the nature of Ebay and the sometimes small amounts of money changing hands this is the easier option). Just as the buyers contract is with the seller, the sellers contract is with the carrier, therefore any claim against the carrier is pursued by the seller not the buyer which is the whole point of why it's the seller who has the proof of posting.
Interesting, I have already stated that, did you miss it or simply choose to ignore it?
dong20 said:
..The contract for liability is between you and the purchaser not you (or him) and ebay....
If you read the above why did you throw that back at me when it was me that stated it in the first place
Now, please explain how does the requirement for Ebay's legislative compliance have
any bearing on the claiming of a refund and or postage under the SOG act beyond the publishing of a statement of terms and conditions and the provision of any additional voluntary assistance it may offer?
Just to clarify; the sellers contract is also with the buyer
in terms of the goods, his contract with the shipper is irrelevant in the context of the SOG act (although the sellers claim against a shipper will likely be covered by the supply of goods and services act), you seem to be confusing the two.
Of course you left out the first part of Ebays terms where it tells you to contact the seller in the first instance.
Well yes, but only because it's not entirely germaine to the SOG act and so
obvious I didn't believe it
needed to be spelled out.
In any event it makes no difference to the fact that Ebay state expressly they will not allow a claim for a refund of postage costs, that
is what it says or do you dispute that?
Sale of Goods act:
This is from the DTI about Ebay.
"
The role that eBay itself plays in transactions is often misunderstood. EBay is a trading arena, rather than a party involved in the transaction. This means it carries no responsibility for ensuring that buyer and seller abide by their responsibilities, so the onus is on eBay's users to complete transactions."
Can we at least agree that we agree on the above?
The Sale of Goods act (in a nutshell) is intended to provide protection for consumers (
not businesses) and provide a means of remedy in the event that an item is not as described, inherently faulty etc. It is
not intended to cover shipping damage (the OP).
Now, a vendor may choose to deny that shipping damage occured in which case the buyer
may therefore have a claim under the SOG act. Such a claim will likely include a claim for additional compensation and no doubt postage. The problem with ebay and the SOG lie mainly in establishing the sellers liability under the SOG act where the status of that seller is in doubt. Private sellers must comply with the act as professional traders must but the levels of liability are different as are the means of enforcement.
A seller may describe an item's faults, if a purchaser buys the item based on that description they are deemed to have purchased the item as described and no refund can be claimed on the basis of those faults unless the item is proven to be significantly
other than as described, e.g. a colour TV that is described as having a "poor picture" when it only works in B&W may give rise to a valid claim whereas a description of "colour is faulty" would probably not. A key thing to note is that the only means of redress the purchaser has against private seller in such cases is through the civil court.
I.E a seller must ensure
:
"Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description. Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description. "
and
"Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale). "
Note the phrase "conform to contract". An item may be sold as faulty if that condition is known to both parties at the time, e.g. a laptop sold with a broken screen or for spares or repairs. There would be no right of redress in such a case.
As another example someone buying an item that would normally cost £500 for say £10 (especially if it's described as
untested or sold as seen) would almost certainly preclude any claim under the SOG act "
taking into account the price", if the item was described merely as a "bargain" but no claim was made about it's quality then it's a little more murky.
Again the levels of expectation and right to redress will also vary depending on whether the item is new or used.
Some real life examples.
warwickshire trading standards said:
Some other problem areas when buying goods
Private sales
When you buy goods from a private individual, you don't have the same rights as when buying from a trader. All the goods are required to be is 'as described'. The legal principle of caveat emptor or "buyer beware" operates.
Second hand goods
You have full rights under the Sale of Goods Act when you buy second hand goods, although the law does say that you must consider the price paid, and if necessary be prepared to lower your expectations about their performance.
and
OFT consumer rights said:
Internet auctions: If you dont have a chance to examine the goods before buying for example, when bidding at an internet auction you normally have the same rights as when you buy goods elsewhere. But be aware that some internet auctions are actually only notice boards between private buyers and sellers in which case your rights are the same as when buying from a private seller."
I could find a hundred more but the theme is the same.
I agree that a blanket statement of NO REFUNDS would almost certainly be a breach of the SOG act, I've never said otherwise. You see this frequently in shops where they say "Sale items - NO REFUNDS". It's so dumb and I always point out they are committing an offence. What I'm saying is the right to redress is contingent on several factors; the type of seller, the venue, the description of the item and it's faults and whether these are implied or expressed with clarity. We're not talking about blatant misrepresentation here (or at least I'm not).
My disagreement with you is that you seem[ed] to be asserting that a buyer has an automatic unconditional right to a refund (inc. postage) and/or an automatic right to have return posage refunded if a refund is granted voluntarily regardless of the terms a seller may state when that simply is
not the case. We are fortunate in the UK in that the burden of proof lies with the seller to prove that the goods were not faulty, rather than with the purchaser to prove they were.
I wasn't intentionally being 'snotty' but this is not the first time you have made blanket authoratative statements without, (it seems) proper knowledge of and research about the subject at hand and seemingly unable or unwilling to read what's
actually being written.
It's complex legislation, especially on the margins. I own and run my own Ltd company so I
need to know this. :smile:
Here are some useful links:
Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (PDF Link)
Sale of Goods Act 1979/Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002
