posted on August 29, 2000 01:11:57 PM new
KatyD, I have no argument with it being unscrupulous. The best way to deal with that is to not bid. Sellers doing this will get the message by a lack of income.
posted on August 29, 2000 01:13:20 PM newPadding shipping to get a "more satisfactory" price.
When dealing with a specified shipping cost (as this particular thread does), the only way that this could be considered to be padding is if the bidder makes their bid with absolutely no regard to the shipping total, be it $1 or $100.
Does anyone think that this is how bidders determine their bids?
edited... sppeling
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Aug 29, 2000 01:14 PM ]
posted on August 29, 2000 01:19:41 PM new
Buyer agreed to pay $6 for "shipping" as stated in the auction. Shipping was not $6. Therefore, seller did not give buyer what she paid for. If he would have said shipping and handling that would be different. I would at least ask for a partial refund and recommend that the seller changes his wording for future auctions.
posted on August 29, 2000 01:20:19 PM new
Just throwing my 2 cents worth in.
Never assume anything, that's just common sense. The buyer saw the shipping charges listed in the auction and by placing the bid, she agreed to the charge. (Personally I would never pay $6.00 for necklaces to be shipped. They can go priority for 3.20!) Because the shipping cost, however evasive it may have been, was in the auction, I certainly don't think a neg. is in order. Therefore, since you are very unhappy about the shipping, I would leave a neutral stating the items were received as promised-inflated shipping charges. Or of course, you could leave no feedback at all.
I would also encourage your sister to email the seller, not to ask for a refund (remember, you agreed to pay the $6.00 without questioning it) but rather to say that while you like the merchandise, and are pleased with the prompt shipping, you were very unhappy to see the actual shipping was much lower than what was charged. (Did you look at any of the auctions this seller had up? Did all the shipping charges seem inflated?- Just curious.)
Whatever you decide, I hope you learned what we have all had to at one time or another - ASK, ASK, ASK!
Good Luck,
Teresa
[email protected]
[ edited by lovetosell on Aug 29, 2000 01:22 PM ]
posted on August 29, 2000 01:42:08 PM new
What does "shipping" mean to you? To the seller? To eBay?
If your definition of "shipping" differs from that of the seller, who is right?
Each auction listing includes the following:
3. Know the details - read the item description and payment & shipping terms closely.
4. If you have questions - contact the seller xxxxx before you bid.
posted on August 29, 2000 01:54:44 PM new
What this seller did was wrong. BUT you agreed to pay 6 dollars for shipping. He doesn't deserve a Negative or even a Neautral, just a very dry Positive.
I for one would never charge 6 dollars, and send First Class. That is just WRONG! Not even 6 dollars for Priority! That is why I say many a time that your item will be shipped via USPS Priority Mail many times in my auctions.
If you don't say every last bit a few times, and maybe again, with every detail spelled o-u-t l-i-k-e t-h-i-s for the buyers, you will encounter problems. Idiocy (spelling haha what a time for spelling!) on the internet is rampant.
posted on August 29, 2000 02:22:08 PM new
The shipping charge is stated and you thought it was a good value overall. When you received it the value suddenly changed because of the....postage? Huh?
There is the posibility that the seller meant to add insurance or use a different type of shipping or didn't know what they were doing.
Yes the shipping charge appears out of line.
That happens and this seems to be on more threads than I'd care to count. 99.9999% of the time it is the bidder who accepts the charge knowingly upfront and complains later.
What's that all about?
posted on August 29, 2000 02:44:21 PM new
It remains a simple fact that your sister knew ahead of time that she had to pay 5 dollars postage. It was her choice to bid on the items anyway, and therefore her responsibility to pay the 5 dollars.
I don't agree that what the seller did was right. But she was totally upfront about it. But once you agreed to the price, it is none of your business if she spent it on postage, envelopes, or a taxi to the post office.
Just don't give feedback if you feel that strongly about it. But don't neg her because she didn't do what you ASSUMED she would!
posted on August 29, 2000 02:54:01 PM newBut once you agreed to the price, it is none of your business if she spent it on postage, envelopes, or a taxi to the post office.
Kinda similar statement that someone said in another (locked) thread about a seller being free to "allocate" shipping fees however he/she sees fit (paraphrasing). It IS my business if someone says send "X" dollars for shipping costs, and then DOESN'T use that money on shipping costs. It's called "gouging". It's called lining the pocketbook with undeclared and hidden "profit". It's called "fee avoidance". It's called LYING. It's called dishonest. How honest sellers can defend this practice is beyond me. I hope it doesn't say anything about the sellers who post here. I really do.
posted on August 29, 2000 03:06:43 PM new
The cost was clearly posted in the TOS. I walk away from auctions like that all the time. If a bidder doesn't like a sellers TOS, that bidder should walk away.
Whether or not the charge was reasonable became moot as soon as the bid was made. Offer made. Offer accepted. The seller did not violate any part of the contract, and does not deserve a neg.
posted on August 29, 2000 03:11:35 PM new
Absolutely the seller violated his/her own TOS. She requested (in her TOS)$6 to ship. That is not what the seller used the $6 for. Seller did not mention "handling" fees, simply $6 to ship. Seller lied. Very simple.
posted on August 29, 2000 04:33:10 PM new
KatyD, the seller did not lie. She said 6 dollars to ship. She did NOT say $6 for stamps. 'To ship' may mean 50 cents for stamps and 5.50 to stand in line at the PO. If you wanted a breakdown on her business expenses, you should have asked for it.
If the postage had been 6.75, would you still think she was a liar because it wasn't exactly 6 dollars? Would you rush to send her the 75 cents?
I personally do not check every package I receive to make sure the postage on the box matches what I sent. Life is too short to be so petty.
posted on August 29, 2000 07:38:37 PM new
KatyD, I am with you on this. All the rationalizations in the world do not excuse this deceptive overcharge.
But how some sellers like to punish buyers for not asking the RIGHT questions rather than trying to be clear up front. Yes, a great deal of deception is going on in auction shipping statements, and we the sellers are already paying the price.
I doubt that your sister will look on eBay as being "fun" after getting screwed out of $4 and if she bids in the future, it will be with caution. This seller took all the fun out of it.
I for one am sick of the lawyer-esque charade of not only having to ask about shipping charges, but HOW they will be packed, HOW it will be sent etc. Otherwise it is the buyer's fault! Hogwash! Sellers are poisoning the eBay waters with this kind of tricky nonsense. The seller in question should be censored, not defended.
I believe it is our responsibility as sellers to be fair, clear and accurate about shipping and handling charges since doing otherwise only alienates customers in the end.
posted on August 29, 2000 08:29:16 PM new
OK let's gets this right
Buyer asked about shipping and bid anyway despite being warned that the price seemed high and now we are supposed to believe that the seller was
Deceptive
Gouging
Dishonest
Unable to fulfill his TOS because the AW lexicographers on this thread said it didn't say "and handling". (As if the shipping process could somehow possibly be done without handling)
Blah blah blah....
The price was quoted. The price was accepted. The bidder used their free will in making a decision. She had been warned and bid anyway.
The very best anyone could do in this circumstance is to chalk it up to experience.
That seller is certainly not deserving of "a shipping charge remorse negative"
Bidder should learn how to use the backbutton when an auction is questionable.
posted on August 29, 2000 10:04:07 PM new
valerie47 made a good point. Six dollars ships under four pounds priority mail with sixty cents left over. This in itself should tell you there is a sixty cents shipping charge. A necklace that weighs more than all the others combined would weigh maybe two pounds or just under.
By the way was the seller a big guy named Misster T. Sorry about the spelling, but I wouldn't want to use a valid seller ID.
[ edited by getalife on Aug 29, 2000 10:11 PM ]
posted on August 29, 2000 10:31:22 PM new
I agre with you mballai, you are right. That statement that you made,"As if the shipping process could somehow possibly be done without handling" is so correct and should be obvious to everyone that I will have to remember that for future arguments.
{b]litlux[/b], I do agree that it is unnecessary for Buyers to have to ask Sellers about how thier item would be packaged and how it would be shipped. The solution, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, is to get eBay to make it MANDANTORY when Listing an item for sale to disclose Carrier and Shipping Method when shipped.
I'd also like to see something more obvious for what is now the "Who pays for shipping" in the Listing area where the statement: Buyer Pays Fixed Amount versus Buyer Pays Actual Shipping Cost. What does that mean? It ought to read either:
a) Buyer Pays Only Exact Postage
b) Buyer Pays For Exact Postage and Materials
c) Buyer Pays For Postage, Materials, and Handling
By clearly spelling it out like this, may stop some problems. I also sugges the the top part of the screen where eBay lists that data to have a either a Red, Blue, or Green background so Buyers can instantly tell which one that it is.
Other than that, you can't get a stupid, lazy Buyer to read what we already have in place before they bid!
posted on August 30, 2000 12:31:23 AM new
I would say that the key Shipping $6. One of the necklaces is heavier than all the rest combined
shows a definite anticipation of buyers' shipping queries ; therefore a thinly veiled attempt to mislead !
It's all very well to trot out the old " e-mail questions first " escape-clause ; but I have to concur with KatyD on this example : this particular seller was counting on the odds of being mis-interpreted and garnering those " going going " bids on his/her " apologetic" excuse for exorbitant postage.
I also bid only 1% to what I sell ; and although mostly " impulse" , from seeing something very attractive that I wasn't even seeking , for the most part , it's been far less rewarding than the satisfaction from my customers also !
I've e-mailed repeatedly up to 3 days before an auction's end , with no response. Then I don't bid , but it may have been just what I was looking for for my daughter's birthday , with $100.00 burning a hole in my pocket !
For retail items , I will always check to see who has the most reasonable S&H. I don't object to a bit of " H " if it's up front. Buyers shouldn't have to e-mail every time to see if $3.20 is priority mail , or a nice necklace stuffed into a manilla envelope for .55.
I'd say in kerryann's example , a neutral would not be misplaced..it was obviously misleading.
posted on August 30, 2000 05:45:15 AM new
Maybe I'm too honest for my own good, but I have actually sent refunds (with my .33 cent stamp) to customers who paid more than actual shipping turned out to be. I've been thanked numerous times for it too. I want every customer to be satisfied and this is part of the sales process. However, it's sad for the ones that I undercharged and I had to "eat" some of the shipping costs... I've never been thanked for that. Anyway, my conscience is clear and I think the seller who charged the $6 should start losing sleep... therefore he/she should be aware of the fact that someone has questioned his/her ethics. A neutral should be left. JMHO.
_________________
posted on August 30, 2000 08:35:08 AM new
Wow! So many opinions!
Personally, I would have tried to ask about the shipping before I bid, however it comes down to the fact that shipping was stated in the description, and technically the seller has not violated their TOS. A bid should only be made after completely reading the TOS and agreeing to them. I wouldn't neg or neutral because of this fact, however a properly worded postive would effectively communicate this sellers gouging!!!!
posted on August 30, 2000 10:12:00 AM newBorillar posted: Other than that, you can't get a stupid, lazy Buyer to read what we already have in place before they bid!
Wow! Tell us how you really feel about the people who put money in your pocketbook!
KatyD
(ubb)
[ edited by KatyD on Aug 30, 2000 10:13 AM ]
posted on August 30, 2000 10:26:28 AM new
In my oppinion a negative should not be left. If the auction (for necklaces) says $6 shipping, it should clue a person in that there is a heafty handling fee.
By bidding on the auction, a person is accepting the sellers terms. Like it or not. If the person states outrageous shipping charges in their auction description, DON'T BID.
If anything, turn the person in to ebay for excessive handling charges and FVF avoidance.
posted on August 30, 2000 11:09:45 AM newI wouldn't neg or neutral because of this fact, however a properly worded postive would effectively communicate this sellers gouging!!!!
No, it wouldn't. People, generally, do not read positives. They may see the one or two postives at the top of the page, but once it's buried, the words just flash by as the viewer scrolls past them looking for neutrals and negs.
posted on August 30, 2000 01:26:57 PM new
I don't think the seller deserves a neg. Shipping costs were clearly stated; buyer bid and won auction; items acceptable. I agree with others...if the bidder thought the postage was too high, she should have asked before bidding OR not bid. The seller followed through with the auction as described in the TOS so, IMHO, doesn't deserve a neg. Seems a neutral would be best with notation that postage was excessive.
posted on August 30, 2000 02:00:26 PM new
Mrpotatohead...well said!
This one is even worse than the other thread about an irresponsible bidder who complained after the fact.
Here we have a bidder who read the TOS, including the shipping charge. Bidder acknowledges she felt the shipping charge was high yet went ahead and bid anyway.
And then, lo and behold, the POSTAGE was not equal to the shipping charge (as if anyone would have thought it would be, considering the merchandise involved). Now the buyer cries great big crocodile tears about how she has been cheated.
Get real!! The seller did NOT say $6 for postage. The seller said the charge to ship to the customer was $6. If the buyer thought it was excessive then the buyer should have exercised a little self control and kept her fingers OFF THE KEYBOARD.
The seller didn't hold a gun to the buyer's head. There were no "rays" eminating from the computer screen that compelled this buyer to bid. The bidder, of her own free will, bid on this item even though she was warned the shipping charge sounded excessive.
I wonder, is the original poster one of those people who frequently lament, on these threads, about how the general public refuses to take responsibility for their own actions, preferring to blame others for their own actions?
[ edited by amy on Aug 30, 2000 02:02 PM ]
posted on August 30, 2000 02:08:39 PM new...about how the gerneral public refuses to take responsibility for their own actions, preferring to blame others for their own actions?
There seems to be a definite trend towards spinelessness these days. Not nearly enough people are willing to step forward and say "I made a mistake", and accept the consequences of their actions. I guess they feel the need for sympathy that the cry of "I am victim- hear me wail!" seems to provide.
posted on August 30, 2000 02:24:17 PM newBuyer agreed to pay $6 for "shipping" as stated in the auction. Shipping was not $6
Something indeed went wrong in this story, but it was not that "shipping was not $6".
Seller offered shipping for $6, collected $6, and shipped the item.
What went wrong was the implication that the built-in handling was "reasonable", in other words, that postage was at least the majority of that $6, or, sort of summarizing, that
"Priority mail shipping" would be $6.
What we have is "lying by implication". Nothing in the description was false, but the impression left upon a reasonable person was false.
If buyer (or seller) is unhappy with the transaction, and having been tricked is surely reason to be unhappy, eBay has a very specific remedy.
