Pseudo Private Sellers. Is it fraud?

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

If I buy an item from a seller who is registered as "Private Seller" I now pay 10% additional fee to eBay and the seller pays no selling fee.

What if that seller is clearly a "Business" and not a "Private" seller?

I am paying an addition amount due to misrepresentation.  Have I been subjected to a fraudulent act?  

Would eBay be seen as jointly liable due to lack of, Due Diligence, if it was found to be a fraudulent act?

Your opinion is invited.

[carbtec]

---

@dch2112011 wrote:

A business cannot use ' we did not know' as a defence - the law expects businesses not only to comply with the law but also to be aware of the law, hence why reputable business owners can and do pass on this knowledge but always with the caveat that proper legal advice should be sought,

---

English law, which also forms the basis of law in many other countries, is based upon what a reasonable person thinks, the man on the Clapham omnibus so to speak. This is how ignorance of the law is not a defence.

The OP asks a question, that question is answered, the OP then claims that is not the question they asked. This is not the actions of a reasonable person.

One of my closest friends is a Barrister, he writes / collates the contracts that £billions of machinery is sold under worldwide. He is a very clever person. When the fancy takes him he is happy to discuss the law with a layman but he often starts by discussing why it might be a bad idea to attach a "Beware of the Dog" sign to your garden gate, if you are unable to grasp the concept of why it might be a bad idea then he can no longer talk about law !

Imagine you were the proprietor of a premises, say a Weatherspoons. Are you responsible for the actions of anyone on those premises? The answer is both yes & no. As a proprietor you have a responsibility to ensure your patrons are well behaved & not involved in any nefarious activity . . . i.e. If people were regularly dealing illegal substances on your premises then you can be seen as irresponsible, but if you could be seen to be acting in a responsible manner by taking measures in an attempt to prevent people regularly dealing illegal substances, then chances are you will not be held as responsible for your patrons activities.

If someone cannot 'grasp the concept' of how this all works, then you are not a responsible person.

Ebay has some very clever people that define it's T&C's, it has 1000's of employees that monitor its patrons activities & it has vast amounts of computing power to help ensure everything is running tickety boo, it could be reasonable to assume that it is acting responsibly.

[1956glyn]

Probate is not always required.......that depends on the value of the estate

Personally i find it frustrating when people give incorrect advice in relation to the Law on the boards.

That is what Solicitors are for and advice on these boards should never be relied on 100% in this regard.

[1956glyn]

I have friends who are Barristers or Solicitors with their own practices.  That means nothing.   Everything is never black and white .  

With reference to your Beware of the Dog sign..........then maybe your friend needs to make sure their explanation is put in a way that a client fully understands it......instead of refusing to talk futher about the Law.

My sons currently purchasing a house.   Last night he told me that he got confused when the bank were saying he needs to arrange his own buildings insurance.    They were telling him he has 6 different options.   I sat down with him and explained things in a way he can understand (although he is very bright).  Today he is arranging appropriate insurance 🙂 IF people have never purchased a house before or been in a legal situation before one has to have a lot of patience and put things in a way to make sure they fully understand them.     Not initially understanding something does not make someone an irresponsible person.   

[dch2112011]

---

@action_man wrote:

Ah, right. So they comment on legal requirements, but are not actually qualified. I think the manner in which they assert themselves so strongly makes it seem like they aren't simply aware of these things, but rather trying to enforce them. But as they aren't qualified in the first place..........

---

Indeed depending on the tone that a reader  imagines words to be written in can make interpretation of a post as assertion.

The problem is that when reading posts, the reality is that the reader by the power of the human brain immediately and instantly  responds with their first thought.

This is the nature of  unprepared debate, often when the brain has had time to engage  a clearer and more thought out response  without indignation or personal attack can be formulated.

It always amazes me how many knee jerk reactions  are written on forums. 

[papso22]

At work I never send a letter the same day that I draft it, and the same goes for all but the simplest of emails.

Unfortunately social media, including these forums,  don't lend themselves to the same level of discipline. 

[1956glyn]

I also find that people come to these boards with their "facts" and in real life when you dig further into those facts......crutial information is often not initially given.

I think giving ANY legal advice on these boards is just wrong.

One fact i am not that happy with.....£300 for a Will to be drawn up by a qualified Solicitor locally !!!!

[papso22]

It's free will writing month!

[1956glyn]

Not by our local solicitors or our family solicitor 😞      I rang some "Will writing services" and they turned out to be expensive with hidden costs.

I Will probably end up doing it myself for my son 🙂

[papso22]

I did mine, and my sons, it's not difficult.  I got a book on ebay!

[1956glyn]

I have drafted and typed up hundreds of Wills......worked in a Lawyers office for 20 years 🙂

I was just being lazy and have so much going on at the minute and was going to get a solicitor to do it lol   

My brain so needs a rest.

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

@dch2112011 

"My personal interpretation is that ebay leave the policing of businesses misrepresenting themselves to the appropriate authorities and make it clear that they have no responsibility."

I understand every thing you say but would choose to comment on the particular part above.

Prior to the changes, ( introduction of Buyer Protection Fee), buyers were treated the same by ebay whether they bought from a Private Seller or a Business seller.

Now eBay differentiate between the two types of seller by charging the buyer an additional fee, (10%) if purchase is made through a Private seller.

A)     eBay get to keep this 10% for themselves so does this not directly involve them in the transaction rather than just providing a Platform? Remember, this is an additional fee not a commission on the sale.

B)     That eBay differentiate the sellers by way of an addition fee on the buyer, is it/should it be, eBay responsibility to ensure they are correctly applying the additional fee from which they are making financial gain? 

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

@carbtec

"The OP asks a question, that question is answered, the OP then claims that is not the question they asked ......"

Where was, "That Question", answered, as opposed to my question being reinterpreted by the poster?

[carbtec]

---

@1956glyn wrote:

I have friends who are Barristers or Solicitors with their own practices.  That means nothing.   Everything is never black and white .  

With reference to your Beware of the Dog sign..........then maybe your friend needs to make sure their explanation is put in a way that a client fully understands it......instead of refusing to talk futher about the Law.

Concept not grasped I see. He will discuss the law with a layman if they have the intelligence to be able to grasp the concept, he will explain why it may be a bad idea to put a beware of the dog sign up on your garden gate. Amazingly quite a lot of people cannot grasp the concept, they cannot see beyond their belief that putting up such a warning sign is anything other than a good thing. Consequently he feels unable to discuss more complex matters . . . .

If anyone still ponders on whether ebay can be held liable for it's patrons frauds then the only correct answer is yes & no. If you want to hold ebay liable for a particular fraud that has happened to you, then you need to consult with proper legal advice . . . . And you're going to need £hundreds of £thousands of your £pounds to take it further from there. Good luck with that.

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

@1956glyn

I wrote, "Agreed. Though of course "deceased relatives" stuff, would have needed to be declared as part of the  probate process."

Part of the Probate process would be to ascertain as to if Probate is required and therefore to value the Estate, any antiques value would be required to be taken in to account.

Where is it you read that I wrote, Probate would be required?

[dch2112011]

Yes it is thought provoking but I feel that ebay will stand by they publish the criteria, policy and legal agreement that members should adhere to and that they have checking facilities and procedures to take action against a member who does not follow what they have agreed, ebay  facilitate the relevant authorities to have members listings removed and accounts closed

essentially ebay state that incorrect registration falls on the shoulders of the member.

The buyers fees are charged for ebay's protection / service to the buyer  when buying from a non professional seller , this is defined as a unilateral insurance type service not connected to a member misrepresenting their status and this payment provides consumers with enhanced rights when buying via the ebay platform

Amazingly ebay do not seem to deny claims when a seller misreprents themselves on the basis that it is a buyer based protection and that it does not involve the seller or item  only ultimately the financial transaction.

Reality is that selling online via platforms has grown quicker than legislation needed to police it has grown.

A lot of legislation was written when online selling was non existant - You know it is wrong, the legislators know it is not fit for purpose, the enforcement agencies have their hands tied, ebay only do what they are required to do or choose to do and therefore some sellers take advantage of this situation, much to the frustration of the majority of genuine honest members who can only apply common sense to the situation.

Is it morally right - absolutely not in my opinion !

[theelench]

Someone earlier mentioned "Reasonable Expectation" which, from the point of view of someone with absolutely no legal training, is something that IMO is always worth considering before thinking about the legal specifics.

I ask myself, how much responsibility would I expect my local school to take for what is sold at a boot fair held on their grounds?

Moving up a little, the same question about a street market run by my local council.

Is it reasonable to expect either, or ebay, to take responsibility for the actions of those they hire out pitches to?

[ackers-fine-antiques-jewellery]

@1958glyn

"One fact i am not that happy with.....£300 for a Will to be drawn up by a qualified Solicitor locally !!!!"

Sounds reasonable to me. I was quoted £350 PLUS VAT!

(Note I did not say, "Sounds cheap to me")

[dch2112011]

it depends on whether the local trading standards inspector was a parent at the school and whether they were selling unwanted untested electrical equipment seized from the local strret market as to whether the school was deemed responsible or not.

Then you need to look at indemnity insurance, whether the sales were deemed as being made by the school, whether the car park/ playing field was rented out, whether the education authority had authorised the use, the correct liability insurance was in place, whether the stall holders were traders or private individuals, and after all that the school declare it's profits in it's accounts 

Makes you wonder why they do it for a few quid extra !

[magpiecorner1]

Goods from deceased relatives may indeed form part of the probate process, but would form part of the private process of the estate of the decreased, and any taxes due would have been paid by the estate.

The only tax liability for those selling on inherited items would be Capital Gains Tax.  Whilst there might be investment income from the sales of inherited items, there is no business element and therefore monies raised would not have to be declared as business income.

[magpiecorner1]

If probate is required, the value of the estate would be ascertained and would come under the rules of Inheritance Tax, payable from the Estate of the decreased, if the estate exceeds the allowances for inheritance tax.    An executor may organise the sales of antiques and property in order to settle an inheritance tax bill,  or to distribute the monies raised for said antiques.  It would not be deemed a business activity and therefore not subject to business taxes.