Ebay payment question.

[tonylumpkin]

Originally Posted by tonylumpkin

I don't see that the buyer here refused to live up to his commitment, or assumed the seller would not live up to hers. The buyer was willing to buy on the offered and listed terms and merely asked the seller to confirm the advertised warranty was in existence and would be provided. If the seller had said, yes, everything listed in the auction would be provided, the buyer would have paid and completed the auction under the terms listed. I don't know why you think it is such an inconvenience to sellers to confirm their listed terms, or to require an immediate payment by the buyer, and possibly a fight to get his money back, instead of asking up front if the warranty would be provided as listed.

Why shuld ebay sellers be immune from answering simple questions like the one asked?

Your answer assumes things that became known after the original post. I agree that once the seller admitted that she didn't have the warranty the buyer would have been foolish to make payment, but at the time the OP asked the question (which is when I replied) he didn't know that. He was only guessing she might not. My point was that the time to thrash that out is before bidding, not after commiting to buy.

 

[dave5]

Originally Posted by dave5

Your answer assumes things that became known after the original post. I agree that once the seller admitted that she didn't have the warranty the buyer would have been foolish to make payment, but at the time the OP asked the question (which is when I replied) he didn't know that. He was only guessing she might not. My point was that the time to thrash that out is before bidding, not after commiting to buy.
Let's say after buying the buyer says " Do you have everything you listed"? Now maybe you think that is a stupid question because why should the buyer think otherwise, but I don't think this means the buyer is re-trading the deal. And i don't seee why the seller cannot say "yes, the deal includes everything I listed."

this is not the same as the buyer asking for things that were not listed and should have been asked about before.

 

[dave5]

Originally Posted by tonylumpkin

I think it is you that is missing the point. This is from your original post:



I agree with you that the auction was inaccurately portrayed and that you should not have to accept the camera without the warranty that she made part of the agreement. Where we differ is on the timing of your confirmation of the warranty's existence. The time to confirm that is BEFORE YOU BID. You have no right to confirm it after the auction ends because the auction doesn't give you that right. It would be nice (and most quality sellers would oblige, as it seems this one did) if sellers would answer questions before settlement...but they have no obligation to do so. This doesn't relieve you of the obligation to pay for the item in the timely manner described in the auction.

The bottom line is...you asked originally if you should pay for the item if she fails to answer your post auction email. The answer to that is yes. Guessing that she may not perform doesn't relieve your obligation to perform. If you really wanted the item, and won the auction, would you have been happy if she sold it to someone else because she THOUGHT you might not pay?

By the way, I have never sold an item on eBay, but as a buyer I know to get any answers clarified before I bid.
I guess we do disagree. I agree with you that if there is something not discussed, or is ambiguous in the auction listing, the time to get confirmation is before one bids because the terms of the transaction are as listed and bid upon. Bt asking the seller whether everything listed will be provided is not cahnging the terms of the deal or bid. It is merely asking whether the seller will live up to the listing.

In a perfect world, where sellers were always straightforward and accurate, these sorts of questions would be unnecessary. But that is not the case, and it is not re-negotiating to ask the seller to confirm that what is won is what will be shipped.

 

[tonylumpkin]

Originally Posted by tonylumpkin

Let's say after buying the buyer says " Do you have everything you listed"? Now maybe you think that is a stupid question because why should the buyer think otherwise, but I don't think this means the buyer is re-trading the deal. And i don't seee why the seller cannot say "yes, the deal includes everything I listed."

this is not the same as the buyer asking for things that were not listed and should have been asked about before.

First, that is a very important and good question. One that should be asked BEFORE YOU BID!

And, I never said anywhere that the buyer was asking for things that were not listed. What you fail to understand is that the seller isn't obligated under the terms of the auction TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. Nice way of doing business, yes. Obliged, no. The buyer, on the other hand, is obligated to pay if they win.

 

[tonylumpkin]

Originally Posted by dave5

In a perfect world, where sellers were always straightforward and accurate, these sorts of questions would be unnecessary. But that is not the case, and it is not re-negotiating to ask the seller to confirm that what is won is what will be shipped.

Once again I never mentioned renegotiating. The buyers question is valid. The seller simply has no obligation to answer it.

 

[dave5]

Originally Posted by tonylumpkin

Once again I never mentioned renegotiating. The buyers question is valid. The seller simply has no obligation to answer it.
If the buyer is not renegotiating, why does the seller have no obligation to answer? Your saying that does not make it so.

 

[dave5]

Originally Posted by dave5

First, that is a very important and good question. One that should be asked BEFORE YOU BID!

And, I never said anywhere that the buyer was asking for things that were not listed. What you fail to understand is that the seller isn't obligated under the terms of the auction TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. Nice way of doing business, yes. Obliged, no. The buyer, on the other hand, is obligated to pay if they win.
I don't agree. The buyer is not entitled to renegotiate, but there is nothing to say the buyer is not entitled to ask questions. the buyer's obligation is to complete the auction on its terms. Nowhere does it say the buyer cannot ask questions pre-paying.

 

[tonylumpkin]

Originally Posted by tonylumpkin

Nowhere does it say the buyer cannot ask questions pre-paying.

Correct. And nowhere does it say the seller is required to answer! But it does say that if you win you are required to pay.

 

[tonylumpkin]

Originally Posted by dave5

If the buyer is not renegotiating, why does the seller have no obligation to answer?

Because the auction contract doesn't say he has to!

 

[dave5]

Originally Posted by dave5

Correct. And nowhere does it say the seller is required to answer! But it does say that if you win you are required to pay.
I suspect it says that if you win you have entered into a binding contract. At least that is the way it is always worded, not that if you win you have to pay. And then it is a matter of contract law as to whether one party has the right to assurances that the counterparty is ready and able to perform as a condition to the party's own performance.

I doubt it simply says if you win you have to pay. I think this is your own gloss as to what it means to enter into a binding contract.

 

[dave5]

Originally Posted by tonylumpkin

Because the auction contract doesn't say he has to!
The auction rules are that a winning bid is a binding contract. and then contract law governs whether one can ask the seller if he/she is ready to perform before paying.

 

[rnoldh]

Well, I'm the buyer and I've been following the last few posts with interest.

Basically the seller was honest and I came out all right.

But I think it is being wise (and not unreasonable), to ask a new seller (which she was), just to confirm that she was providing what she advertised. In no sense whatsoever was I backing out of the deal or trying to renegotiate.

If I had paid and she had never answered my questions, then the ball would have been in my court to seek redress for her error! That is why I think it is proper to ask for the confirmation as I did.

I keep going back to a sartorial example. To tonylupkin, what if you bid and won a great suit on Ebay that was advertised as a 3 piece suit. The seller was relatively new. And there were no clear pictures showing that the suit was a 3 piece.

Do you think that it would be improper to Email the seller and do exactly as I did. Something like, "I won your auction, but I wanted to confirm that you are providing a 3 piece suit as you advertised?'. Upon confirmation, I will pay immediately.

I find the above to be wise, proper, and a good idea. I'm not saying that it shoud be done in every instance. But with a new seller involved, where there is any ambiguity, I see nothing wrong with it.

Again I ask tonylumpkin. What if the seller refused to answer my Emails and kept sending me invoices. Would you have paid? Sure, if she delivered what she advertised then there would have been no problem.; But if she delivered something that was wrong or missing something, then it would have become my problem.

I think there is something being missed here, It's called common sense!

 

[tonylumpkin]

Originally Posted by dave5

The auction rules are that a winning bid is a binding contract. and then contract law governs whether one can ask the seller if he/she is ready to perform before paying.

Alright, here it is quoted directly from the eBay policy guide:

"Buyers cannot:
Commit to purchasing an item (either by winning the item or buying an item in a Buy It Now listing) without paying."

If you don't trust the quote have a look here:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/...-overview.html

The bottom line is that neither party can unilaterally void the auction.

 

[dave5]

Originally Posted by tonylumpkin

Alright, here it is quoted directly from the eBay policy guide:

"Buyers cannot:
Commit to purchasing an item (either by winning the item or buying an item in a Buy It Now listing) without paying."

If you don't trust the quote have a look here:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/...-overview.html

The bottom line is that neither party can unilaterally void the auction.
I don't see anything in what you have quoted that says the buyer cannot ask the seller if the seller is ready to perform before paying, unless ytou think it means the buyer has to pay regardless. What if the seller, at the end of the auction, "please pay, but I don"t have the goods." Wouyld you say that neverthe less, the buyer must first pay beofe seeking redress for the seller's nonperformance? Because the seller has not failed to perform until the buyer pays first?

That is a silly position and contrary to basic contract law. Similarly, simply because the buyer must pay does not mean the buyer has to pay without asking the seller if the seller is ready to perform.

 

[tonylumpkin]

Read this thread from the beginning. Nowhere in his original post does rnoldh contend that he has any knowledge that the seller doesn't intend to completely fullfill her obligations under the auction. He merely wants to be reassured, so he has asked questions after the auction is over. The seller is not obligated to answer. Arnold asks if he is still obligated to pay. I answer, yes he is because he said he would by placing his bid and winning the auction. Anything that occured after that is beyond the scope of the answer I gave to the question in his original post. The fact that she later answered and said she didn't have the warranty is totally unrelated to my position.

Got it?