Ridiculous Ebay/Paypal Situation

If the seller can prove that they did ship the item out like through a post office purchase receipt, then the buyer should not get the shipping amount refunded if they claim non-delivery. I currently have someone from Singapore claiming non-receipt for around $60.00 which is going to hit me somewhat hard. It would appear that they didn't supply me with an extra number in the address that may be a suite after I have looked at the address closer after they made the claim even though paypal has the address as verified the way the buyer has it without the extra numbers. I am going to call paypal about this since they have escalated to a claim.

If the address was wrong, it must have gone to someone else, who presumably kept it rather than returning it to sender.

It's probably a good thing for you that they've escalated it to a Paypal claim - my experience (which if you send me a private message I'm happy to expand on) is that Paypal is fairer than (US) ebay.

I'll spell that out clearly for everyone to read: always escalate to a Paypal case if you can. The Paypal process takes longer, but is fairer.

It was difficult to make the distinction clear in the previous posts because I had two cases, one of which was closed by Paypal and one by ebay. It's the second process that stinks.

UPDATE: I've just written a letter to my local MP about this matter in the hope that it will reach someone concerned with the regulation of e-commerce and that ebay will be put on the spot about its facilitation of theft. After all, the buyer protection policy is less a 'policy' than a racket.

How would the Military Police have jurisdiction in this matter?

That's Member of Parliament for us Yanks.

I guess you can't be too careful

I don't think we even have military police in Australia!

UPDATE: I had a call today from the office of my local MP. It seems that one of his staff spent some time researching the issue, but all the woman who called me on his behalf could say was, "Well, that's just how ebay does business."

I think she fundamentally missed the point. I KNOW this is how ebay does business. What I can't understand is how it can be legal for ebay to penalise someone who hasn't done anything wrong. This is theft.

No, you just disagree with their policies. There's a difference.

ebay CLEARLY states that they require proof of DELIVERY, not proof of SHIPMENT in order for a seller to be protected. You may not think that is fair, but it is their policy and you always have the option to not sell there.

Just because you don't like a policy or that policy costs you more to be protected does not make it theft. If you don't use methods that provide proof of delivery, you leave yourself open to possible scamming. Those are the risks. You know them going in.

It is theft, if something is taken from someone who has done nothing wrong.

I KNOW how the ebay system works. What I'm asking is, how can it be legal?

If anything, it is the buyer who did something wrong by not paying for registered postage.

I don't know any sellers who wouldn't be happier if their buyers would all pay for registered postage.

But it's a very unequal playing field: sellers - regardless of their track record and regardless of whether they can prove they posted an item - end up paying for buyers who say they haven't received their items, regardless of the fact that they could be lying or that postal workers have failed to deliver them their items.

You really don't get it, do you?

Under ebay policies, it is incumbent upon THE SELLER to ensure delivery. Period. End of discussion.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it theft.

You're missing the point, deliberately it seems.

I KNOW how ebay policies work.

Sellers cannot ensure delivery and it's absurd to think they can.

ebay has no right to place demands on sellers that cannot realistically be met.

This leads to ebay facilitating theft, enabling buyers who claim not to have received their items to get them for free, which means they've effectively stolen the items in question from the sellers.

The question is, how can policies that result in theft not be illegal?

End of discussion.

As an ebay seller when pricing I take into account the scammers, lgit lost mail, mailing cost(when free mailing). So I have my own insurance built in.

I ask myself can I afford to loose this item or not?

With some kiloware listings I choose to have location calculated parcel post with all the trimmings so to speak.

But when it comes to unfair neg feedback........

Yes, and ebay doesn't give you sufficient space to respond to negative feedback, so anyone reading it will most likely get the completely wrong impression.

jimjam,
I am not knowledgeable on Australian commercial code laws, but here in USA ebay's terms and conditions are not considered illegal. No one is holding a gun to the head of a buyer, they can freely choose to participate under ebay's policies or not. Everyone should read and understand the terms and conditions on any transaction before entering into it. It is considered a 'meeting of the minds', an agreement between two parties.

Your question that this 'leads to ebay facilitating theft' is a huge legal slippery slope. It seems equivalent to a 'invitation to liability'. Say you leave the keys in your car; some bonehead steals your car and kills a family of four in it. Does this makes you, the car owner, responsible for the deaths? (If I recall correctly, this was an actual case in Boston and was originally upheld but later over-turned? Perhaps CJ, our resident attorney, can weight in here.)

Another example would be if you owned a company and decide to put up a basketball court for your employees to get some exercise. You have a security fence, with no trespassing signs, around your property but over the weekend some kids climb over the fence to play some ball. One of them falls and breaks his leg on the basketball court. Can the parents then sue the company because 'it lead to' the boy being injured?
Don