posted on February 6, 2001 07:03:52 PM new
zazzie: better watch the "DB" word...
even though it is a name that EBAY gave us users to use for one that does not pay for their legally binding bid, it appears that using ordinary everyday EBAY GIVEN terminology is now against AW CG's...
What will be banned here next, the word...<shhh> p-o-w-e-r-s-e-l-l-e-r?
posted on February 6, 2001 07:04:19 PM new
I also ask before I bid if a seller will combine shipping costs. It is always safer to ask than to assume.
You know those ads that they run in magazines where you can get 12 CD's for a so-called penny? People quickly send their choices and then you get the bill for $25 to $30 for postage costs (or however high it is nowadays). I wonder how many folks call the company to complain? Is anything done? Doubtful or they still wouldn't be doing it. It may not be right but am sure many "assume" the shipping costs aren't going to be so high or they will be combined since the CD's are typically mailed together. Wrong! They just don't have Safeharbor telling the companys they are committing fraud!
posted on February 6, 2001 07:05:36 PM newObviously this seller intended to make their profit through high shipping to 15 different bidders
High shipping? $2.50 per 10 pack? How much does a 10-pack weigh packaged? I guesstimate it at at least 8 ounces. That's $1.30 for actual media mail postage from east coast to west, 50 cents for really cheap packaging materials and 70 cents for "profit".
Gee, I didn't realize there was such high profit involved here! I would have chucked my FT job and started selling 10-packs of CD-Rs ages ago! If only I'd known. I'd only have to close 66 such auctions per hour/8 hours a day/5 days a week.
posted on February 6, 2001 07:05:38 PM new
Pocono, you may want to read the reply to your post in the MC. Joice said she didn't moderate you based on that word.
posted on February 6, 2001 07:07:51 PM new
to anyone that honestly beleives that the "consumer is king"...
let all the grocery stores close down, and all the utilities, and all the other business's in the world, and then the consumer is...well, DEAD! ...LMAO
posted on February 6, 2001 07:54:14 PM newlet all the grocery stores close down, and all the utilities, and all the other business's in the world, and then the consumer is...well, DEAD!
Yeah right...
Consumer is King and the customer is always RIGHT! Food and Electric are needs, ebay is a want.
Besides the any electric company will take payments and some small grocery's allow credit.
posted on February 6, 2001 08:08:16 PM new
This country has never had a monarchy, so no one is king.
The buyer was wrong. She should not have bid without asking questions.
I would not shop at ANY website without first asking about shipping charges, if they are not clearly posted.
I hate canned green beans, but shop4's example is a good one. She may overpay for shipping, but she was not overcharged. The buyers terms are in his auction. If he charges more than waht is stated in his auction, then she was overcharged.
posted on February 6, 2001 10:35:21 PM new
okay--overcharged is not the correct word--how about 'taken to the cleaners'
Irregardless--SafeHarbour reviewed the case and felt that shipping/handling cost quoted was fee avoidence.
A seller does not have me by the short and curlies just because I won their auction just as I don't when they win one of mine Yes--it is a legally binding contract--but that contract is null and void when one then goes against EBAY's TOS.
The seller had the ability to contest and justify his shipping quote--I have no idea if they did--but the outcome was on the side of the buyer.
It is not just the big fraud cases that need fixing--the little things is what will bring the walls tumbling down.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:07:53 PM new
Brighid868...your example of the dirty clothing has nothing to do with the sellers TOS...it has to do with the description of the item (was it accurately described when the seller stated it was in excellent condition)
Shipping terms and shipping prices are not descriptions, they are TOS.
This seller said the shipping cost was X and from what Brigette tells us it looks like the seller did not say they combined items to save the customer on shipping.
The auction ad for an item is the contract terms, bidding and winning the auction is acceptance of those terms by the buyer.
That contract is a legally binding contract. The parties to a contract are bound to the terms IN THE CONTRACT and NO OTHER TERMS. If the term is not in the contract then it is NOT PART OF THE CONTRACT.
If the seller does not spell out in the auction that he will combine shipping, then combined shipping is not part of the contract.
This buyer wanted to change the contract after the fact, something that can only be done by agreement of BOTH parties to the contract. The seller (one of the parties) did not agree to the buyer's (the other party) demand to change the term AFTER the contract was sealed.
ZAZZIE...we don't know WHY safe harbor took the action they did. Could have been for something else all together...could have been for offering more items off ebay (and probably was).
posted on February 6, 2001 11:23:12 PM new
Where do you folks get this idea that a bid on eBay is a legally binding contract ??
The only entity that has stated this is eBay, and eBay is no legal authority. There is no legislation, nor case law that supports eBay's notion that a bid on eBay is a legally binding contract. It is all new territory. The only thing close is offer and acceptance via the mails, and much of it would not apply.
It is also the case that a bidder can not ask all pertinent questions before bidding. Certain assumptions must be made, or commerce would grind to a halt while the seller is flooded with emails. Combining shipping at a reduced rate is a mail order industry standard - it should not have to be asked - a seller who does not automatically combine shipping or refuses to has rescinded the agreement, not the buyer.
TOS stating "as is" and "no returns" are meaningless. What does "as is" mean- does it mean the item is as it would be expected to be by a reasonable person- or does it mean that the item is defective and the seller refuses to state this - does it mean that the item probably is something but the seller doesn't have any idea about the item he/she is selling ? Instead of stating "as is", why not just say you have no idea what it is, what it is supposed to be, nor how it works and I'm selling it to the highest bidder. Or how about - just state that the item may be defective, but I don't want to check it out because stating it is defective may reduce bids.
The same applies to "no returns". Any misrepresentation or omission by the seller, whether intentional or not, is grounds for a refund regardless of TOS. The seller controls the pertinent information at online auctions and carries the burden for misrepresentation and/or omission.
posted on February 6, 2001 11:51:02 PM new
WOW... I have not been on here all day and come back and see all the postings.
Let me explain a little better to you and maybe some of you may or may not understand why SH did what they did.
First off... The guy stated simply "Shipping $2.50 for Media Rate". (he did not say that he would combine them, nor did he say that each box would have $2.50 handling charge on them in the ad)
I admit and admitted to SH that it may have been my error for not contacting the seller before hand and that I would honor the seller's shipping at the full $2.50 per box if he would ship them separately if they found out that I was wrong in this situation)
I contacted sH because of the extremely strange e-mail the guy sent me after I tried to work it out with him. I don't think that I can repeat what he exactly wrote to me via e-mail here on AW.(something to the effect that he hoped I woke up "***ken dead with fingers stuck in my *ss, this e-mail was right after I asked why he was charging so much for shipping) This was not just name calling or threats that he would report me as a NPB or give me a negative. I fully expected and would have taken the negative if SH (at their own idea, will, and choice) had not deleted the auction from the database. They did this without my request.
He never once explained to me why the 15 boxes would cost $26.55 (after the break) or $37.50 to ship. He did inform me that he would ship them in one box for the $26.55.
After I told him I would pay him $10.00 for the S&H, he choose to verbally abuse me with e-mail and choose not to work things out. I warned him about the e-mails and told him to do what he felt he had to do if felt that I was backing out of the contract. His solution was to send vulgar e-mails me with contents simular to the one he sent me before (as I have shared above).
SH did not take action against him (as I understand it) for the vulgar e-mails, because he did not directly threaten me and that he only hoped that certain things would happen to me. (not considered a direct threat)
SH asked for full copies of the e-mails that went on between him and I (the wanted the e-mail headers also) So I sent them to AW in the order they came and went out. He e-mailed me 10 times total and I sent him a total of 5. 3 of the 10 he sent me where just vulgar e-mails on what he hoped would happen to me in violent way. This was all sent before I even reported him to SH.
After I sent the e-mails SH made their conclusion on what this seller did wrong. Here is just part of the e-mail which has been edited as I know I cannot include the exact wording here on AW.
Thank you for taking the time to send me the emails with the full
headers. I appreciate all of the effort that you have put in to this case.
I have reviewed the information that you have provided and wanted to let
you know that the member has been warned against any future occurrence of this type of activity.
If the member does file a Non-Paying bidder alert, please remember that you can appeal it. In your appeal, include this information as it will help your case.
I went in to see if maybe they had suspended this seller by using the auction number to call it up. To my amazement the auction was taken out of the database. This may be because they found that the auction listing was against eBay's policies. So I assume since they removed it from the database the seller cannot leave me any rating now.
My personal feelings are if the guy started the auction at $1.00 each and really wanted the $2.50 extra per each box then his opening bid should have started higher if he was taking a loss (maybe they should have been started at $3.50 per box). 1 box would weigh slightly under .5 pounds. So I guess the shipping at media rate would be $1.30 for 1 box... I was willing to pay him for a total package that would have weighed out to be 9 lbs (which is more than it would have weighed and Shipping would have been $4.60 on 9 lb box, giving him an extra $5.40 in handling fees)
The items where not prepacked as someone suggested that they might be and the guy had no intention to ship them in 15 separate boxes. Why would a seller do this? this would mean packing 15 boxes and labeling them, plus the extra waiting in line while the PO to weigh them and placed postage on them.
I know myself that this guy was trying to rip me off after getting the high S&H fees and eBay knows it. I know what type of e-mails he sent me. I would invite him here for a discussion, but the matter has been solved and eBay choose their own solution. I have 2 names on eBay one is my Buyer name and have over 385 feedbacks all have been positive. I also have a seller name and have over 500 positives and 2 negatives that are very old. One was before I had a buyer name and the seller thought I did not pay for something, but did and had the canceled check and scanned it for him. He came back right away and left me a positive, but the neg was already left in error. The other is from one guy that bought an old watch from me and the item was plated in gold and was stated in the ad that it was. The guy had a fit and I reminded him that I stated it was gold plated in the ad. The guy wanted his money back after he realized and admitted that he had made the error. I refused to give him a refund as I checked the guys feedback and he was customer on eBay that always wanted his money back from other sellers. The guy now sells on ebay and has at least 20 negatives against him nowadays.
I am no angel, thats for sure... but truly this guy knew what he was doing from the start and his feedback shows it. It is only a matter of time before he is suspended from eBay due to excessive negative feedback.
This was the first time I have ever used SH and it truly was a learning experience for me.
For those who think I did this guy wrong and have gave your point of view. I appreciate it... but I truly disagree that I did something wrong. Why should I pay someone that thinks customer service or working out a problem has to be resolved by vulgar e-mail. This guy screwed himself and he just found someone that was not going to let him get away with what he was doing.
I don't think that I need to prove anything to any of you that feel I did this guy wrong. I know what happened and I spend a lot of money on eBay... I will continue to do so but I will be more careful in the future.
Edited for spelling errors ( I probably still missed some of them)
posted on February 7, 2001 12:14:08 AM new
Zazzie wrote;
okay--overcharged is not the correct word--how about 'taken to the cleaners'
Irregardless--SafeHarbour reviewed the case and felt that shipping/handling cost quoted was fee avoidence. yes... this is what I think they think he was doing, and I agree
A seller does not have me by the short and curlies just because I won their auction just as I don't when they win one of mine Yes--it is a legally binding contract--but that contract is null and void when one then goes against EBAY's TOS. [b]yes... the auction would be against eBay TOS and this probably why they removed from the data base, they may even remove his negative I left form and he has every right to have it removed since the auction is out of the database now[/b}
The seller had the ability to contest and justify his shipping quote--I have no idea if they did--but the outcome was on the side of the buyer. yes... he can and if he wants the negative removed, then he can use SH to remove it
It is not just the big fraud cases that need fixing--the little things is what will bring the walls tumbling down. yes it was a little thing, but this guy could become a full time bad seller if knew he could get away with it, shoot... he might try to sell empty boxes with poor descriptions
posted on February 7, 2001 06:13:59 AM new
"You know those ads that they run in magazines where you can get 12 CD's for a so-called penny? People quickly send their choices and then you get the bill for $25 to $30 for postage costs (or however high it is nowadays). I wonder how many folks call the company to complain?"
Why would they? The shipping costs are CLEARLY stated in the ad. If the person who places the order can't figure out how to add up the PLAINLY STATED shipping fees to arrive at the total, who's the idiot?
There is NO fraud in your example ... just like there is NO fraud is the issue we are discussing here.
When did people stop taking responsibility for their own actions, or inactions???
posted on February 7, 2001 06:24:26 AM newsomething to the effect that he hoped I woke up "***ken dead with fingers stuck in my *ss, this e-mail was right after I asked why he was charging so much for shipping
Ok, so it wasn't FRAUD.
Since when does a buyer have to put up with vulgar crap like this via email? Geesh, question a shipping amount & get crap like the above in your inbox.
Oh ya, that's the kind of GREAT seller I want selling on eBay.
Not only am I glad SH yanked the auction, personally I wish they had yanked him right off their site!
Brigette
If I was you, I'd send those same email, with full headers to the sellers ISP.
posted on February 7, 2001 08:17:09 AM new
RB: The CD's were just an example. Sure, it is clearly stated but people don't read! They ASSUME. Which is my point! I didnt say it was fraud. I said that those who don't read scream fraud and report it. Then I said that they just dont have Safeharbor to report it too. Was being sarcastic but I guess it didn't come off that way.
posted on February 7, 2001 08:36:23 AM new
This also has been done... I just never thought I would have share parts of what this sicko said to me in his e-mails to defend myself. I know now NEVER to post on here unless I state everything.
Sometimes I think people are just looking for a reason to vent their anger at someone. Each person on here knows that we can state all facts word for word unless the person has been invited here and we have wait 24 hours before stating all the facts after we invited the accused.
I personally did not want to relive or go through more abuse by inviting the guy here. I doubt he would have came, but I am sure the private e-mails from him would have continued if I did invite him over here.
I sent him a final e-mail before contacting SH, that stated what my full intentions were. (That he was being reported to SH , His ISP and that after his abuse their would be no way that I would pay, unless SH find me at fault in this matter)
Since then I have not heard from him by e-mail... but the crank phone calls started right after he got my final e-mail. Right after that he did a request for my personal info that includes my Phone #. I have had my phone number already changed and will update my eBay records after all this has cooled down.
Something else that puzzles me, is this guy is now selling things that are factory goods (OEM equipment) and retail boxed goods but he states that the UPC's have been removed carefully from the boxes. The items are stated that they are new. Why would someone remove the UPC's off the goods? (what he is selling might be totally legal, but why mention that the UPC's have been carefully removed?)
posted on February 7, 2001 08:58:16 AM new
Pocono wrote
[b]I agree that the seller mentioned should be dealt with, and reported to his ISP immediately.
What he wrote was digusting, vulgar, and sick...HOWEVER...
THAT IS NOT WHAT YOUR ORIGINAL POST STATED!!!
You stated that eBay shut him down for FRAUD...
BIG difference there brigette.[/b]
Where in my original post did I say they shut him down for fraud ?
I stated;
[b]I was shocked to get such a prompt reply from eBay's Safe Harbor on my situation. (seller had a dutch auction for 15 items, I won all 15 in the dutch auction, but the seller tried to charge me $26.55 to mail a 8 to 9 pound package through USPS Media Rate Mail which would have been about $4.80)
Ebay saw this as excessive shipping & handling fees along with it being eBay commission fee avoidance. (ebay would not have received commissions of the high shipping charge, so his auction was against eBay's listing policy)[/b]
the survey I filled out dealt with how I felt about ebay overall and what I felt they should work on the most. This is when I mention fraud, but not fraud in my situation, but fraud in general. As in sellers selling boxes with no goods in them and buyers not paying. SH was given all the facts in my case and they did not find me at fault. They also could not do anything to the guy because he did not direct his thoughts of harm to me as if he wanted to actually cause this harm to me. So I assume they warned him about his auction and removed it because he was over charging on S&H and they considered this Ebay fee avoidance???
I guess the only thing I am guilty of is once again assuming that they did was due to over charging on S&H and they considered this Ebay fee avoidance... But common sense tells me that is why they warned him and removed the auction from the database.
I don't think I have to defend my action any further... Ponoco I did what I felt I had to do, I am sorry you don't agree, maybe you should read the TOS on eBay again and see that this auction was against the TOS before I even bidded. When I bidded I did not know at the time it was. After I bidded and the seller hit me with the high S&H did I investigate it and found out that something was seriously wrong. SH also felt this way also. Personally this guy off easy... with just a warning.
edited to fix the bold type and to add... that I am done stating the facts in this case. I just know now that SH works and people should not be afraid to use it. They should be wary of posting anything here and if they do...get ready to be attacked for their actions by some people.
posted on February 7, 2001 10:40:29 AM new
I would guess that the UPC's were removed in order to file for a rebate. I noticed this with the tax software up for auction. Buy the software, remove the UPC to get a rebate, and then sell. Free inventory. Not that I see anything wrong with it..there are a lot of people who buy things and don't bother to file for the offered rebate.
posted on February 7, 2001 10:49:11 AM newI would guess that the UPC's were removed in order to file for a rebate.
I was doing just that last year. None of the buyers complained, but I gave it up because it turned out to be a pain in the butt. You have to keep after some of the companies to get the rebate out to you- they were supposed to be sent in 6 to 8 weeks, but it was more like 6 to 8 months (the longest ended up coming back 10 months after being submitted).
