No more cash on collection.

[geosacha007]

Just saw the new seller rules.  I've got no issue with the reduction in free listings.  But no more cash on collection I do mind.  It means there is no way to make a buyer check on collection and once they accept it pay with no risk of them changing their mind later. 

And will buyers be happy being forced to pay up front before they see an item?

[kmaltman]

Most of the legislation is about distance sales which absolutely correctly protects a buyer who has not actually seen the things they are buying, so have to rely on the sellers descriptions, which may fall short of reality.

HOWEVER the legislation in place for face to face sales is entirely different. E-bays current changes basically are attempting to apply legislation to a situation it was never meant to apply to. BUT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DO THAT, within their rules and payment scheme. 

BUT.... In the same way if you are making a face to face sale at your premises where the buyer comes to buy something, where the buyer has inspected the goods and accepts them, even if that's verbal IT CREATES A LEGALLY BINDING and contract that has no cooling off period, cannot be cancelled (unless the sellers agrees to cancel it) and is legally enforceable. THAT IS ALREADY THE LEGAL SITUATION regardless of e-bays new rules.

SO the only problem is this situation is with verbal contracts is can be difficult to agree what was said. 

SO a written sales agreement simply puts into writing what has been agreed. Which is basically, they buyer has inspected and accepted the goods and has agreed to pay for them. 

IN THE SAME WAY, If they paid by check and then told the bank to cancel payment the bank (a third party not subject to the agreement) would cancel payment, the same with a credit card payment. HOWEVER, while these third parties who are not party to the sales agreement are doing nothing wrong taking the money back, in all cases the seller still has the right to take action against the buyer (who is clearly in breach of contract) to get  their money back.

This simply treats e-bay in the same way a bank or credit card company would be treated, they are a third party, not present at the sale, facilitating a payment (unnecessarily IMHO) in the same way banks and credit card companies do (but without the  regulation toe former are subjected to). They may have whatever arrangements they want with the buyer and can recall payment as per their rules if the buyer ask them to, and e-bay are doing nothing wrong.

BUT THE BUYER IS STILL IN BREACH OF CONTRACT.  It's only written to make it easy to prove what was agreed.

[papso22]

Sales via eBay are distance sales.

You cannot do what you are trying to do, for a sale via eBay, it's that simple.

I have said all I intend to say.

[kmaltman]

Oh and every single condition is in fact totally fair, in fact it has to be as courts can disregard unfair terms in a contract.  And every one is there for a reason, but not one will impact an honest buyer, they will only impact a dishonest buyer, who for example, inspects and accepts the goods AS IS, then tells e-bay they are not happy for some reason, and then gets a refund and expects the seller to pay to collect goods to have them returned.

NONE OF THESE TERMS WILL EFFECT AN HONEST BUYER, who sticks to the basic common law terms of a face to face sale.

But that's just what I'm going to do, I never said anyone else should do this, just thought I would give other sellers food for thought as to something that might help protect them from unscrupulous buyers, who will no doubt take advantage of e-bays latest poorly thought out and idea which has nothing to do with Buyer or Seller safety.

But it will improve the multiplier applied to e-bays current ratio, and will also result in them earning interest on a vast amount of other peoples money, temporarily on deposit (but constantly being replenished). Not that that could possibly be their actual motivation.

[kmaltman]

Without Prejudice

When a buyer turns up and buys something from a seller a contract of sale is created at that point, that always happens, it's the law (IMHO). However this contract just happens to be verbal, BUT EXISTS ANYWAY, contrary to popular opinion verbal contracts are in fact legally binding, but so it can be (and usually is) difficult to prove what was agreed.

BUT A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT ALWAYS EXIST!

Putting it in writing simply is how it should always be done, so there is no dispute over what was agreed.

My sales agreement is only intended for face to face sales. It only takes a few seconds to complete. It in no way interferes with e-bays payment scheme, and does not prevent a Buyer making up an excuse to cancel the sale, and asking the seller to pay to collect the goods, they can still do that. And like we-bays new payment arrangement it is completely voluntary, a buyer does not have to sign it, however then I would not have to complete the sale would I ?

HOWEVER. Once signed, then what was agreed is clear, and so does make it easier for a seller to then reclaim that money plus cost from the buyer for any Breach of Contract. Which is exactly what we are all concerned about. IF a buyer takes advantage of e-bays new payment system in a face to face sale in such a way that they Seller does not end up being paid, That is in fact a Breach of Contract on the buyers part, not on e-bays part, they have done nothing wrong, they have just allowed, or possibly even encouraged it, but they are allowed to do that.

So to address this situation, a sales agreement is required. So an unscrupulous buyer is far less likely to attempt to scam an honest seller, knowing there is a written contract, that if they take to a solicitor (which will cost them) will advise them that they are in fact in Breach of Contract and what they have done is actionable regardless of e-bays rules.

Someone said I cant change or override e-bays rules, I'm not trying to. But e-bay cannot change or override the law of the land.





[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<> Virus-free.www.avg.com<>

[kmaltman]

Only if sent unseen through the post is it distant selling.

IF the buyer turns up, inspects and accepts the goods, then it becomes a face to face sale.

At that point they have the opportunity to see, handle, play with and reject the goods, so it ceases to be a distance selling situation. The entire object of all that legislation that I wholeheartedly agree with, is to protect buyers from statements made by sellers that do not live up to expectations BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ACTUALLY REALLY SEE AND TOUCH THE GOODS.

[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<> Virus-free.www.avg.com<>

[kmaltman]

Everything in this post in factually incorrect, due to your misunderstanding of distant selling legislation, why it was created, and how it is applied. 

I have stated I am not a Lawyer, but I have been granted Right of Address, even in the High Court once,  LOOK THAT UP!

I'm a retired business man. I ran multiple businesses over a period of 60 years including one which was a multi million pound mail order business. I have entered into and signed literally thousands of contracts in my life, had solicitors draw up dozens of contracts for me. And been involved is far too many court cases where very expensive "Councils Opinion" was taken. These cases were not against some individual they were all against VERY large public companies, a few were for six figure sums. These include some against the Inland Revenue, a couple against the Customs and Excise and a couple against Local Councils.  Legal action can be difficult to avoid if you are in the right and basically being bullied by a bigger organisation, there is no sympathy in business I'm afraid. 

I won all those cases, well many were settled out of court in my favour, at the last moment (literally just as we were all about to walk into high court). The other side will come over and offer a very large settlement. The game of legal chicken is also not uncommon btw. 

Only after I retired did I go to university, got a couple of business degrees, then The Professional Certificate of Management (post grad), then I did an MBA at Liverpool and was later awarded a Doctorate for my work on Organizational Behaviour.

But perhaps you do know more than me

[kmaltman]

Just for info, The Sale of Goods Act has now been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act. However the only real difference between the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Rights Act is it now includes digital products and services as well as physical goods. But if citing legislation it's probably best to cite the current legislation in force. 

[kmaltman]

Without prejudice

Also my sales agreement does not attempt to remove any of the Buyers legal rights, it mealy attempts to clarify what those rights legally are, in a face to face sale, where a buyer had inspected and accepted the goods. Regardless of where the goods were originally advertised or offered for sale.

E-bay is entirely entitled to have whatever terms and conditions it chooses regarding its interpretation of sales on its site. But none of e-bays terms and conditions can override English Law, but e-bay can apply them in any way it chooses. However in the event of a court case between a Buyer and a Seller they would be ignored.  In pretty much the same way as if a buyer paid by check or credit card when making a sale then cancelled the payment. While Banks and credit card companies are obliged to do this should a buyer instruct them to, that is simply the mechanism used by the Buyer to be in Breach of Contract, in legal terms it does not give them to legal right to do it.