or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Archives › Buying and Selling (Archive) › Ebay Experiences - Seller ratings
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ebay Experiences - Seller ratings - Page 27

post #391 of 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post
sure, but that's not what happened here. that's a completely different set of facts.

and remember - charley always could have (1) read the rules of the game before doing best offers, which he didn't do (with respect to timing of best offers - the rules say they last for 48 hours, and with respect to shipping prices - the rules say that part is non-negotiable) and charley could have (2) used the ask a question feature to clear up misunderstandings prior to the offer, and most importantly, charley could have (3) not jumped the gun with the neg-repping and tried to work things out instead of automatically assuming he did everything perfectly and the seller was in fault.

It really doesn't matter... remember "good faith and fair dealing"? Putting a computer in the middle makes absolutely no difference; at worst this offer was defective, and an honest seller has a DUTY to decline it as such.

What if he'd accidentally entered $900 in the box when he meant $90--should the seller pounce on that because eBay's computer will let him? No, and he would be wrong to do so.

Quote:
In fact, #3 is the reason why all this is occuring. Despite of trying to violate 2 clear rules of the ebay, Charley assumes that he did everything right and is in the clear. Had he simply said "my bad, i'll pay the listing fees" instead of neg-repping and acting as if he had been wronged, this situation would have turned out differently.

The rules of ebay are only relevant to the extent that if the offer had to comply with the ebay rules, the seller should have REJECTED THE OFFER.

Trying to exploit another's obvious mistake is the very definition of a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This is an easy case.
post #392 of 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post
It really doesn't matter... remember "good faith and fair dealing"? Putting a computer in the middle makes absolutely no difference; at worst this offer was defective, and an honest seller has a DUTY to decline it as such.

What if he'd accidentally entered $900 in the box when he meant $90--should the seller pounce on that because eBay's computer will let him? No, and he would be wrong to do so.



The rules of ebay are only relevant to the extent that if the offer had to comply with the ebay rules, the seller should have REJECTED THE OFFER.

Trying to exploit another's obvious mistake is the very definition of a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This is an easy case.

all good points, but my gut instinct is that what you're describing is not what happened. my suspicion is that charley is the one trying to exploit the system, not the other way around.

and good faith and fair dealing would have resulted in charley saying "my bad", not flipping out, going on a rampage on the internet, and neg-repping the selling.
post #393 of 659
Good faith and fair dealing requires you to be honest and fair, not polite. Charlie is in the right here.
post #394 of 659
It really doesn't matter... remember "good faith and fair dealing"? Putting a computer in the middle makes absolutely no difference; at worst this offer was defective, and an honest seller has a DUTY to decline it as such. I'd agree except for the fact that Ebay will likely force the seller to pay insertion and final value fees on this item. Meaning the seller would be required to pay money because of Charlie's boneheaded mistake. Charlie should have offerred to pay the Ebay fees. If he had done that, the seller (IMHO) would be obligated to refund the rest of the money and call it a day.
post #395 of 659
Ataturk, you're a dumbass. I've dealt with Tarmac before on ebay, buying a pair of shoes at auction and then finding them not exactly to my liking when they arrived. There was a small question of whether they matched the description, but Tarmac cleared it up and he was definitely in the right. I asked if he would relist them and allow me to send them to the new buyer and I offered to eat the difference if they sold for less. He graciously relisted them and refunded the difference to me when they did sell for less, despite my previous offer. The lesson? Almost anyone will deal fairly with you if you're not a jerk. Charley made an error, but it's hard to call it an honest mistake. It was more of a lazy, self-satisfied, careless mistake that he completely refused to take responsibility for. I don't sympathize.
post #396 of 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clench Million View Post
I'd agree except for the fact that Ebay will likely force the seller to pay insertion and final value fees on this item. Meaning the seller would be required to pay money because of Charlie's boneheaded mistake.

Charlie should have offerred to pay the Ebay fees. If he had done that, the seller (IMHO) would be obligated to refund the rest of the money and call it a day.

But you're wrong about that for two reasons, first because eBay lets you get your fees back if the transaction was not completed, and second, because it would have cost the seller nothing to "decline" the defective offer. He loses nothing and only loses the opportunity for wrongful gain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron View Post
Ataturk, you're a dumbass.

Pleased to meet you.

Quote:
I've dealt with Tarmac before on ebay, buying a pair of shoes at auction and then finding them not exactly to my liking when they arrived. There was a small question of whether they matched the description, but Tarmac cleared it up and he was definitely in the right. I asked if he would relist them and allow me to send them to the new buyer and I offered to eat the difference if they sold for less. He graciously relisted them and refunded the difference to me when they did sell for less, despite my previous offer.

Wonderful.

Quote:
The lesson? Almost anyone will deal fairly with you if you're not a jerk. Charley made an error, but it's hard to call it an honest mistake. It was more of a lazy, self-satisfied, careless mistake that he completely refused to take responsibility for. I don't sympathize.

A mistake is a mistake, and by his own admission, the seller recognized it as such, but still purported to accept the offer on different terms than it was made. That conduct maybe doesn't justify rudeness in response, but it's certainly understandable and not at all unexpected to see it.
post #397 of 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron View Post
Ataturk, you're a dumbass. I've dealt with Tarmac before on ebay, buying a pair of shoes at auction and then finding them not exactly to my liking when they arrived. There was a small question of whether they matched the description, but Tarmac cleared it up and he was definitely in the right. I asked if he would relist them and allow me to send them to the new buyer and I offered to eat the difference if they sold for less. He graciously relisted them and refunded the difference to me when they did sell for less, despite my previous offer.

The lesson? Almost anyone will deal fairly with you if you're not a jerk. Charley made an error, but it's hard to call it an honest mistake. It was more of a lazy, self-satisfied, careless mistake that he completely refused to take responsibility for. I don't sympathize.

Exactly.

Ataturk, you are also assuming that Tarmac saw the 'shipping included' part of the offer before he accepted. Twice now I have accepted offers and missed exactly that sort of addendum, which made already low offers unacceptably low. Even though I didn't know what the specific ebay policy was at the time, I greatly disagreed with it on principle (didn't seem right because of the fees.) Still, both times I chalked it up to experience and granted the free shipping. But had I sensed a vibe like Charley was putting off, from either buyer, I absolutely would have gone through the policy with a fine tooth comb and granted no favors.
post #398 of 659
Quote:
Furthermore, as per eBay rules: best offers are good for 48hrs. You cannot withdraw a best offer by emailing the seller later. If the seller accepts your offer within 48hrs, you are bound to the transaction much like a buy-it-now.
Are we talking ebay rules, or actual "binding"? Because that's not accurate, really. Of course, it's ebay's system, so they can suspend whoever they like, but he's not "bound" by any means. In fact I'd say that's a pretty shady rule for ebay to be operating under.
post #399 of 659
Huh? If you don't want to be bound by ebay's best offer rules then don't submit one. And there is nothing shady about the 48hr time period. Sellers don't just sit at their computers 24hrs a day constantly checking for offers so a time period is needed.
post #400 of 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD_May View Post
Are we talking ebay rules, or actual "binding"? Because that's not accurate, really. Of course, it's ebay's system, so they can suspend whoever they like, but he's not "bound" by any means. In fact I'd say that's a pretty shady rule for ebay to be operating under.

It probably would be actually binding, under the same theories as shrinkwrap licenses and based on practical evidence (sellers don't sit at their computers 24 hours a day). It's not a shady rule by any means, especially when eBay is up-front about the time and provides a timer as to when the offer expires.
post #401 of 659
But you're wrong about that for two reasons, first because eBay lets you get your fees back if the transaction was not completed, and second, because it would have cost the seller nothing to "decline" the defective offer. He loses nothing and only loses the opportunity for wrongful gain. a) Only final value fees, not the insertion fees. b) You are assuming he saw that offer instead of just accepting from seeing hte original number without the added on stipulation.
post #402 of 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post
It probably would be actually binding, under the same theories as shrinkwrap licenses and based on practical evidence (sellers don't sit at their computers 24 hours a day). It's not a shady rule by any means, especially when eBay is up-front about the time and provides a timer as to when the offer expires.
Well the problem is that you need consideration for a firm offer to remain open... so in the real, outside of ebay world, if I say, "I'll offer you 50$ for x, offer good until friday", you're free to revoke the offer thursday, unless I pay you something to keep it open until friday. So I'm ok with the idea of expiry in 48 hours, but you really should be able to revoke it subsequently by emailing the seller. The shadiness is something one notices generally about ebay: they start with, "Your bid is a CONTRACT," but then abandon various rules of contract wherever they aren't convenient for the website. Of course, they're free to run it however they like, but most of these rules are there for good reason, to balance competing interests, whereas the ebay rules that conflict with them are indifferent to parties' said interests except in so far as they accord with ebay's own commercial interests. That's all I meant.
post #403 of 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post
It really doesn't matter... remember "good faith and fair dealing"? Putting a computer in the middle makes absolutely no difference; at worst this offer was defective, and an honest seller has a DUTY to decline it as such.

The rules of ebay are only relevant to the extent that if the offer had to comply with the ebay rules, the seller should have REJECTED THE OFFER.

Trying to exploit another's obvious mistake is the very definition of a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This is an easy case.

Charlie agreed to eBay's user agreement before making his offer. He again affirmed that he would follow eBay rules/guidelines when he placed the offer. It was his duty to read them before affirming that he would be bound by them. So it wasn't just a computer between them. Agreements were already in place.

Good luck with your easy case!

And for Charlie a word of advice: Next time just pony up the extra $19 and enjoy some $500 custom boots instead of a major headache.
post #404 of 659
It is an easy case. As I said before-- an offer is what it is. If it didn't comply with eBay's rules, that's, well, that's for eBay to worry about.

It's analogous to someone handing you a form contract and your scratching out a paragraph before signing it. Would it matter if the first paragraph said, "you can't change any of the terms of this contract?" No...
post #405 of 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post
It is an easy case. As I said before-- an offer is what it is. If it didn't comply with eBay's rules, that's, well, that's for eBay to worry about.

It's analogous to someone handing you a form contract and your scratching out a paragraph before signing it. Would it matter if the first paragraph said, "you can't change any of the terms of this contract?" No...

I see where you are coming from but eBay essentially supplied a form contract to which the seller and Charlie agreed to be bound regardless of whether or not he actually read those terms. I do not think it is a mere eBay rules violation.

I think a more appropriate analogy would be Charlie signing a contract offer as written for him by a third party and after his signature writes in "PS: I reserve the right to unilaterally withdraw my offer at anytime and/or change the shipping terms despite what the silly little contract above says."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Buying and Selling (Archive)
Styleforum › Forums › Archives › Buying and Selling (Archive) › Ebay Experiences - Seller ratings