I Hate eBay! ...They do NOT honor the money back guarantee.

[miguelvp]

For all I care the mining boom can go bust. Hopefully our housing bubble will crash as well, and the greedy housing scalpers will lose their money. For the first time in decades young Australians might finally be able to afford their first home. Bring it on. Forcing greedy multinationals like Apple and Google to pay their fair share of taxes will help improve the income of the government and benefit the people.

An economic jolt might just make our politician goons wake up that technology (eg: electronics and IT) and manufacturing is where real economic and social benefits are, not digging up dirt and selling it to third world countries.

Our housing bubble went bust and it did affect the greedy housing scalpers but to their benefit. It did hurt your average citizen that got caught in the middle.

Most houses in foreclosure when up for grabs in auctions, but only people that had the money to pay the full thing got them, so it doesn't help the young.

As for google and apple, well there are tax havens out there and why wouldn't take advantage of that? a billion here or there is just a drop in the bucket. Sounds like a lot for a person but if you multiply it by the population its really not that much.

I bet there is more tax evasion from the combined population than corporation, although it seems it's easier for them.

Let's say I buy an apartment complex and I make 10 times more than what I spend on paying the loans and my family's cost of living. I could pay taxes on the extra 90% (of course I'm exaggerating) but I could take that money and invest it to my realstate business so it's all spent and not taxable plus it helps me grow my business.

And by growing my business I have to employ people so I'm creating jobs and all of the surplus income keeps on feeding the machine.

Somehow I don't see a problem with that at all.

[TMM]

Some people would argue that this is morally wrong, but when i get sent the wrong item (of low value) or that the quality of the item was grossly misrepresented by the listing/price (i.e. listing shows stock picture and asks OEM price, but the item turns up obviously counterfeit), I wait 30 days and claim the item did not arrive. If the item is not tracked, Paypal will always rule in favor of the buyer.

Probably the most border line case was when i bought a replacement LCD display for a smartphone at near-OEM price ($100). The seller claimed that it was OEM quality, money back guarantee etc. When it arrived, it looked alright physically but upon installing the display it was very washed out and even a non-techy user would spot it as being non-OEM.
Investigating the feedback of the seller, i found other buyers complaining about this exact model display. The seller sent the display via slow shipping (took a month to arrive) and was tracked within the sellers country but not Australia. I figured that the display probably only cost the seller $10-20 max, it would cost me $15 to send it back and i would probably damage it attempting to remove it from the phone so I claimed that it did not arrive. Paypal ruled in my favour because the seller could not prove that the item arrived at my door, even though they could prove that they sent it.

If i get sent the wrong item, but it is of significant value, i figure how useful it is to me or how much i can sell it for and try to bargain a partial refund with the seller. This way we aren't wasting shipping costs both ways.

[Falcon69]

I got an email back on the other seller, the one that sent 3/6 LED flood lights, and the 3 they did send, were wrong.

EbAY said return ALL the items for a full refund, at my expense.  This is eBay mind you, not the seller, they quit communicating with me.

Now, two things here....

I can't send them ALL back because 3 of them never arrived.
Second, there was an eBay money back guarantee, which, again, means if the item was NOT as described, I get my money back and return shipping is responsibility of the seller.  Well, I just looked it up, without the custom charges, to send these 3 items back would be over $50 just for the shipping.  The lights were 12.99 each.  Do the math, not worth it, and on top of it, eBay wont refund the money because I wont be sending all 6 back.  *shrug*

I called eBay today, the lady said that since it was escalated, and eBay ruled, in my favor, that the case will be closed and that I should return the items, upon which, I get the refund, IF all 6 items are returned.. When I explained I only received 3/6, and they were wrong, how can I send all 6 back?  She said she couldn't help me, and that the decision was made already.  I told her, asked her, where is the tracking info for the 2nd box, as stated in the communication with the seller, that the ere was a second shipment.  The eBay customer rep said she couldn't find the tracking info for the second box and that the seller confirmed it was sent.  She still said she couldn't do anything about the decision.  I was to return all 6 items to get any refund.

Now what do I do?  Looks like I'm out $78 for the cost of the Lights. If I send them back, that's another $50+ and I still wont get my refund, because I cant possibly send all 6 of them back.

Any idea or help would be appreciated.  To me, $78 is alot of money.  I ordered these for my mom's deck, and I'm responsible for making it right with her. It wasn't her fault, it was mine for ordering them from this seller.

[grumpydoc]

Some people would argue that this is morally wrong, [.........] Paypal ruled in my favour because the seller could not prove that the item arrived at my door, even though they could prove that they sent it.

So, two wrongs make a right and it's OK to engage in fraudulent activity (misrepresenting the problem to paypal) if it means you get what you want.

You paid a low price and got a poor quality product - big surprise. Perhaps you should have checked the feedback more carefully before purchase.

[Falcon69]

I always check the feedback before ordering, but no more.  If they don't have 100% exactly, I aint ordering.  The ones with 100% and high feedback, tells me they help their customers.  I thought having a 95% was good enough, I am wrong.

I am with TMM on this, They stated it was OEM, it surely was not, and is impossible to know for the average consumer until they install it and turn their phone on.  Then it is too late, because 9 times out of 10, trying to remove it after it's been stuck on with that sticky crap, you're gonna crack it.

I am betting that the seller knows this, and he's getting away with selling the NON-OEM stuff, because once it has cracked, there's no way of telling really if it was or was not OEM....for the average consumer. And if TMM paid near-OEM price as he claims for it, it surely was NOT the cheapest on eBay then. He probably bought from the seller, because the seller DID state it was OEM, while the other cheaper ones did not.  At least that's what I would have done.

Is it dishonest to wait 30 days, then say never got it?  Well, yes and no.  He ordered an OEM item. Was it? No, so technically, he never got it.  I say its a fine line, but if he had told them, and it broke trying to remove from his phone, he wouldn't have gotten the refund anyway, IF he would have gotten it to begin with if he returned it having never installed it.  He would have to prove it was non-OEM, and my experience with eBay, they would have probably sided with the seller on that one. I'm sure it matched the sellers picture in the ad.

[grumpydoc]

Well, I just looked it up, without the custom charges, to send these 3 items back would be over $50 just for the shipping.  The lights were 12.99 each.  [....]

Now what do I do?  Looks like I'm out $78 for the cost of the Lights. If I send them back, that's another $50+ and I still wont get my refund, because I cant possibly send all 6 of them back.

Any idea or help would be appreciated.  To me, $78 is alot of money.  I ordered these for my mom's deck, and I'm responsible for making it right with her. It wasn't her fault, it was mine for ordering them from this seller.

Not sure what you mean "without the custom charges" - if you're sending back internationally the recipient pays any customs charges, not the sender.

Not sure what to advise - in this sort of situation you can see why some people bend the truth or just send a nicely wrapped brick back - I don't think that's what you should do (see my last post) but I can understand the frustration.

If you paid with a credit card you could claim that way (there's a time limit, usually three months to do so).

You could walk away poorer but wiser as to the risks of buying from overseas (esp China) vendors on ebay.

You could send the three back and hope the seller gives you a refund. But if you originally paid $78 and if it is going to cost $50 to send them back (research the cheapest option) then your net refund is only $28 - are the ones you have worth that - maybe reselling locally would get you just as much.

[grumpydoc]

I always check the feedback before ordering, but no more.  If they don't have 100% exactly, I aint ordering.  The ones with 100% and high feedback, tells me they help their customers.  I thought having a 95% was good enough, I am wrong

95% is actually pretty poor but even with 100% feedback you need to read through, make sure the feedback was actually for the type of product you are buying - one popular scam on ebay was to build up good feedback selling cheap items, then switch to more expensive items and either deliver crud or not deliver at all then disappear with the money.

Another scam is/was to hack an account with good feedback, load it up with items and, again, disappear with the money.

Even without scams some vendors sell a wide range of goods, just shifting boxes without much specialist knowledge. Such vendors might not care too much about quality.

They stated it was OEM, it surely was not, and is impossible to know for the average

You always have to ask, if something is cheap why is that? Even if just 10 or 20% cheaper than elsewhere. Sometimes that's just canny purchasing but more often than not it isn't.

They might have genuinely been OEM displays but ones which had failed quality control. Quite often it seems that such parts are not destroyed but sold off cheaply and ebay is then a very common channel to offload them to end users.

ebay is slowly cleaning up its act but you still have to be careful, especially when buying from the Far East.

[grumpydoc]

Point out to eBay that under EU rules the seller has to pay return postage when the mistake is theirs. Also mention that the next step is Small Claims Court against them for failing to offer the claimed protection.

For items over £100 credit card Section 75 claims are a nice way to bypass PayPal and eBay. For bank transfers you can ask for a reversal. For anything expensive it's best to open a "faulty goods" case just before the 60 day limit, even if there is no fault. That extends the "warranty" to 90 days and you can always close it.

Amazon had the same problem for things not sold by them. Fortunately they are better at enforcing the free returns for faulty items rule.

Good advice if you are in the UK or EU but Falcon69 is in the US where, consumer protection does not seem to be quite as reliable.

I left "take them to court" out of the equation because I think the seller is non-US which would make legal action expensive and difficult.

If the seller is US based I suspect that he would be able to pursue a claim through the courts but the cost of doing so would probably still not be small. I have no idea whether there is anything akin to the Small Claims procedure in the US - for non-UK members this is a fast-tracked, cheap, minimal administration/legalese (most claimants represent themselves) service offered by the county courts for claims of up to £10,000

Although the fees are not all that much - £25 for lodging a claim up to £300 on-line (with a sliding scale for larger claims) you still have to a) be able to afford it up front and b) risk not getting it back.

If the item was bought using a credit card then the most effective would be to dispute the charge with the card issuer and get a charge-back initiated.

[Kjelt]

dispute with paypal.

This is no longer possible since a case is already opened with ebay. Paypal and ebay disputes are mutually exclusive.

How can a company A that uses a company B for payment stop a consumer from disputing with both? That might even be illegal even if the owner of the two companies is the same these are two independent companies. One for the auction and one for the payment. If you would buy an item with Christies and pay for it with Mastercard you think Christies could stop you from going to Mastercard? I would just call Paypal and explain them the situation and go public (blog) with this BS.

[VK3DRB]

For all I care the mining boom can go bust. Hopefully our housing bubble will crash as well, and the greedy housing scalpers will lose their money. For the first time in decades young Australians might finally be able to afford their first home. Bring it on. Forcing greedy multinationals like Apple and Google to pay their fair share of taxes will help improve the income of the government and benefit the people.

An economic jolt might just make our politician goons wake up that technology (eg: electronics and IT) and manufacturing is where real economic and social benefits are, not digging up dirt and selling it to third world countries.

Our housing bubble went bust and it did affect the greedy housing scalpers but to their benefit. It did hurt your average citizen that got caught in the middle...

And by growing my business I have to employ people so I'm creating jobs and all of the surplus income keeps on feeding the machine.

Somehow I don't see a problem with that at all.

Too much wealth in the hands of few people stifles economic activity. Sharing the wealth to some extent creates economic activity.

As an illustration, let's assume a billionaire only buys four pair of jeans per year because he only needs four pairs per year. Let's assume the tax rate on that billionaire is lifted to a fair level that moves 1,000 struggling people out of poverty into the middle class (financially). They each buy four pairs of jeans per year. The difference is four pairs manufactured compare to 4,000 pairs manufactured.

[grumpydoc]

As an illustration, let's assume a billionaire only buys four pair of jeans per year because he only needs four pairs per year. Let's assume the tax rate on that billionaire is lifted to a fair level that moves 1,000 struggling people out of poverty into the middle class (financially). They each buy four pairs of jeans per year. The difference is four pairs manufactured compare to 4,000 pairs manufactured.

That is only true if you assume that unless the billionaire's wealth is redistributed it is stuffed into his matress or in some other way removed from the economy.

In practice most billionaires are rather more active, economically, than that.

[Marco]

Yes, but once you hit peak consumption (due to natural resource limits) there is nothing left for the billionaires to invest in except for more efficient production and rent generating assets ... the former eliminates jobs the latter accelerates wealth inequality. Trickle down only works in growing economies, without growth it all comes tumbling up the pyramid (without increasing redistribution).

Even if you put blame on government for the current economic growth having come to a stand still you'll have to admit, consumption growth can not continue indefinitely ... yet per worker productivity can.

[miguelvp]

Point out to eBay that under EU rules the seller has to pay return postage when the mistake is theirs. Also mention that the next step is Small Claims Court against them for failing to offer the claimed protection.

For items over £100 credit card Section 75 claims are a nice way to bypass PayPal and eBay. For bank transfers you can ask for a reversal. For anything expensive it's best to open a "faulty goods" case just before the 60 day limit, even if there is no fault. That extends the "warranty" to 90 days and you can always close it.

Amazon had the same problem for things not sold by them. Fortunately they are better at enforcing the free returns for faulty items rule.

I thought those rules only apply for EU sellers to EU buyers. So if the seller is outside of the EU they don't have to follow those rules.

[Kjelt]

That is only true if you assume that unless the billionaire's wealth is redistributed it is stuffed into his matress or in some other way removed from the economy.
In practice most billionaires are rather more active, economically, than that.

I doubt it, most of them are basically money collectors, wanting to earn more and more to do a "who has the largest" comparison game against other billionaires.
If there was a law that one person could only have max. 250 million $ in their name and the rest would be taxed 100% unless the person spent it self on charity or other causes, then there would be some interesting new developments in this world. Only a few have grasped the meaning of "what is the point of making more money than you can ever spent because you can not take it with you after you die", for instance Bill Gates, now that is IMO a fine example of someone who has done a lot of good with his wealth and life.

[grumpydoc]

I doubt it, most of them are basically money collectors, wanting to earn more and more to do a "who has the largest" comparison game against other billionaires.

Indeed, but in order to collect even more squillions they have to do something with the money - even just leaving it in the bank means the bank will use it to finance other stuff.

Not that I disagree with the notion that past a few 10's of millions I can't really see the point in accumulating personal wealth.

[miguelvp]

Not that I disagree with the notion that past a few 10's of millions I can't really see the point in accumulating personal wealth.

Then send me your test gear for free

[grumpydoc]

Not that I disagree with the notion that past a few 10's of millions I can't really see the point in accumulating personal wealth.

Then send me your test gear for free

I'm some way off a personal wealth of 10's of millions - in fact by at least three orders of magnitude so I'm firmly in the "accumulation" phase.

[dannyf]

Let's assume the tax rate on that billionaire is lifted to a fair level that moves 1,000 struggling people out of poverty into the middle class (financially).

Assuming that you are not in the bottom 10% in EU or North America, you are the richest top 10% in the world, and the richest 0.01% of all humanity who has ever walked the surface of this planet.

What truly disgusts me about today's redistributionsts is that they are all immensely interested in redistributing the wealth from the super rich (=people richer than those redistributionists) to themselves. There is never any thoughts whatsoever on redistributing the wealth from those redistributionists to the less fortunate in their own neighborhood, or in Africa, Asia, or any other poorer countries / regions, in spite of that fact that those redistributionists themselves are beyond filthy rich by the standards of those poor countries.

Never!

Piketty made millions selling his book advocating income inequality. You never hear him talking about how he would redistribute his wealth;
Warren made almost a million per 9 months preaching how evil it is to be unfairly rich. You never hear her talking about redistributing her wealth;
Buffet made a name for attacking other companies legally minimizing their tax liabilities. Yet, he staunchly defended his own companies minimizing their tax liabilities, calling it otherwise stupid and failure to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders.

And those redistributionists still wonder why anyone is looking at them with apathy?

[cimmo]

What truly disgusts me about today's redistributionsts is that they are all immensely interested in redistributing the wealth from the super rich (=people richer than those redistributionists) to themselves. There is never any thoughts whatsoever on redistributing the wealth from those redistributionists to the less fortunate in their own neighborhood, or in Africa, Asia, or any other poorer countries / regions, in spite of that fact that those redistributionists themselves are beyond filthy rich by the standards of those poor countries.

Nice strawman fallacy you've constructed there.

Capitalism certainly benefits society in certain fields. With appropriate regulation.
But we don't live in that world anymore. We now have Corporatism.
If you aren't the fictional (but legal) person known as a 'corporation' then you're nothing.

[VK3DRB]

Let's assume the tax rate on that billionaire is lifted to a fair level that moves 1,000 struggling people out of poverty into the middle class (financially).

Assuming that you are not in the bottom 10% in EU or North America, you are the richest top 10% in the world, and the richest 0.01% of all humanity who has ever walked the surface of this planet.

What truly disgusts me about today's redistributionsts is that they are all immensely interested in redistributing the wealth from the super rich (=people richer than those redistributionists) to themselves. There is never any thoughts whatsoever on redistributing the wealth from those redistributionists to the less fortunate in their own neighborhood, or in Africa, Asia, or any other poorer countries / regions, in spite of that fact that those redistributionists themselves are beyond filthy rich by the standards of those poor countries.

Never!

Wrong. A number of people I know believe in fairness and social justice. Nothing about getting money from the greedy rich to line their own pockets. They earn every cent get and pay more than their fair share in taxes, unlike the many legal housing investment tax dodgers. They also send a portion of their income to charities here and in poorer countries. Not all redistributionists are greedy hypocrites as you seem to point out.

However...

The average politician here owns 2.66 houses. It is one reason why these politicians are addicted to policies that keep housing prices excessively high and why they have done nothing about housing affordability for young Australian first home buyers. http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/08/aussie-politicians-300m-property-portfolio/. The honest young worker is forced to pay rent - all to the benefit of the politicians' own pockets.

[Falcon69]

How'd this get turned into a political economic thread?

eBay's decision on the other seller was to return said items.  I only received 3/6 Shipping to China is just over $50. the items were 12.99 each. do the math.  This is so wrong. I'm really upset with eBay. They failed to live up to their money back guarantee.

I called Paypal this morning, they said this is an eBay problem, and nothing they can do about it. They suggested I file a dispute with my credit card company.

It seems, if you have a HIGH sell number, high volume you sell on eBay, the more chance that ebay will not honor a buyers request for money back guarantee.  I guess eBay is afraid of losing the business from the high volume seller. The other seller, that eBay finally did honor in my favor and refunded my money, has a very low volume in sales. But this other seller, eBay did not honor the money back guarantee, in fact, they fail to notice that I repeatedly said I only received 3 of the 6 SAME items I ordered from the same seller. I selected 6 as quantity when I pressed BUY IT NOW.

[jucole]

Some useful info for anyone in the UK...

From 13 June 2014 the Consumer Contracts Regulations, which implement the Consumer Rights Directive in UK law, come into effect.
The regulations apply to items bought online, at a distance, or away from a trader's premises (for example, at home or at work).
They replace the Distance Selling Regulations and Doorstep Selling Regulations. They also make it an obligation for traders to give consumers certain information.

A summary about who pays for the delivery cost.

Refunding the cost of delivery  The trader has to refund the basic delivery cost of getting the goods to you in the first place, so if you opted for enhanced service eg guaranteed next day, it only has to refund the basic cost.

[grumpydoc]

A summary about who pays for the delivery cost....

That covers refund of the original delivery - not who pays for the goods to be returned to the vendor.

AFAIK the rules under CCR are the same as DSR, i.e for a "change of mind" return you can require the customer to pay the return cost but only if you told them that at the time of purchase.

We aren't talking about a change of mind return though.

[jucole]

A summary about who pays for the delivery cost....

That covers refund of the original delivery - not who pays for the goods to be returned to the vendor.

AFAIK the rules under CCR are the same as DSR, i.e for a "change of mind" return you can require the customer to pay the return cost but only if you told them that at the time of purchase.

We aren't talking about a change of mind return though.

The original poster stated that...  "It was suppose to be RAINPROOF.  They sent me the non-rainproof model."  so in the UK,  the seller failed to take "reasonable care"; so - in which case they are responsible for any additional delivery fees (next day delivery or not)   BUT unfortunately I've no idea what the regulations are in the states, might be worth looking for a similar clause.

[grumpydoc]

The original poster stated that...  "It was suppose to be RAINPROOF.  They sent me the non-rainproof model."  so in the UK,  the seller failed to take "reasonable care"; so - in which case they are responsible for any additional delivery fees (next day delivery or not)   BUT unfortunately I've no idea what the regulations are in the states, might be worth looking for a similar clause.

Exactly.

You quoted a bit of the regs to do with "change of mind" returns and we're talking about return due to faults/not as described.

We're also (as it happens) now talking, or also talking, about a 2nd order of 6 LED flood lights only half of which turned up and they were the wrong ones anyway.

Finally the discussion is also around who pays the shipping back to the vendor in this case and what ebay's policy is on the matter.

It looks as though Falcon69 has been caught in the fine print between circumstances when ebay make the vendor pay the return postage and when they do not. He also seems to have been hit with a demand by ebay that he return all 6 when only three are in his posession. I think he's struggling even more than usual because he's in the US and the vendor isn't (China, I presume, but confess not to have read every word in the thread).

I don't recall whether you paid by credit card - if you did your best recourse is now to dispute the charge with the CC company.

If not then you might be stuck unless anyone else has any ideas as to how to make ebay see sense.