I mentioned Unjust Enrichment earlier in the thread and I’ve been looking into this further. I’m convinced now that ebay may be falling foul of the law against Unjust Enrichment.
The main elements of Unjust Enrichment are:
1. that the defendant receives a benefit, so is enriched;
[yes, because even if they don’t earn interest on it, which would be illegal, they have the use of our money for 14 days to pay salaries etc]
2. that this enrichment is unfair or unjust;
[see below]
3. their enrichment causes a loss to the claimant.
[yes, obviously! we haven’t got the use of it and we haven't been able to gain interest on it]
One of the ways in which the enrichment may be deemed to be unjust is “duress, so the claimant is forced to enrich the defendant”. Seeing as private sellers are being forced to use Simple Delivery, it would seem that SD would indeed be deemed unjust.
The other thing I’ve discovered is that whilst companies which unwittingly enrich themselves are dealt with more leniently, we know that this isn’t the case with ebay. We know, and can prove, that Simple Delivery was trumpeted as “an income stream”.
Gosh, it’s getting really difficult to keep up with all ebay’s possible transgressions, talk about a can of worms! Difficult, but not impossible 😀
eBay Commerce UK Ltd is authorised as a payment institution and is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), reference number 925354.
