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]

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.

[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. 

[4_bathrooms]

---

@kmaltman wrote:

Just for info, The Sale of Goods Act has now been replaced by the Consumer Rights Act. 

---

The Sale of Goods Act was never repealed and remains in force. Where traders (not private sellers) are concerned the Consumer Rights Act has taken over much of what the SoGA was intended to do but the SoGA remains in force. If you check you will find the SoGA has many revisions stating "This section does not apply to a contract to which Chapter [x] of Part [y] of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies". Although private sales are not covered by consumer legislation such as the CRA they are still governed by the SoGA.

Most of what you have written about sales contracts has been incorrect. For example; every eBay sale is a distance sale because the buyer and seller were not simultaneously in each other's physical presence when the contract was entered into. That is the very definition of a distance sale. 

[jb_technical_service]

I have had an account on eBay for 19 years and recently reported to eBay that these new cashless rules are discriminatory against people who need to pay by cash only or prefer to pay by cash. In the long term, eBay will lose members if these ridiculous rules are not changed. It seems like eBay is trying to control every aspect of finance. Just as people have choices in what they believe, their sexuality, etc., they should also have the choice to pay by bank transfer or cash from their own envelope. At the moment, eBay has implemented discriminatory rules.

For example, I run my own business with deliveries, but I cannot deliver items using my professional van because there is no option for me to do so. This means it’s not only people who want to pay by cash who are being discriminated against, but also people like me who have designated transport and want to deliver products themselves. These new rules are simply unfair.

For instance, eBay suggested that I could highlight "collection only" as an option. I told eBay that this is a stupid idea because most people search for free delivery. If I select "collection only" on my listings, my product will be seen by fewer people, and my chances of selling it will decrease. Another issue is, what if a customer says they only want to pay by cash upon collection? If I say this is not possible, I will be guilty of discriminating against the customer by not allowing them to pay by cash.

We are seeing in modern times that banks, governments, and corporations are pushing an agenda for cashless societies so they can control where and how we spend our money. These rules are steps toward eliminating cash payments and creating a fully controlled digital society. This is deeply concerning because cash provides financial privacy, inclusivity for those without access to digital banking, and a safeguard against systemic failures like cyberattacks or power outages. Removing cash payments disproportionately affects vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, low-income individuals, and those who rely on cash for budgeting.

I asked eBay what would happen if I selected free delivery on the listing and delivered the product myself to the buyer. eBay responded that I would need to wait 14 days to receive the money. This is ridiculous. I cannot deliver the product myself to the buyer because, otherwise, I would need to wait 14 days to receive the money. For me, as a small business, this means I will have to start using other platforms to advertise my goods. If I decide to sell for cash anyway, my account will be deleted. This is another example of discriminatory rules because I should have the right to collect money in cash if that is my or the buyer's choice. Why are we being discriminated against simply because we want to pay by cash or collect cash?

During the discussion, eBay asked me, "If we add back cash payments and allow you to deliver your own products, how would you secure the transaction?" My answer was straightforward: the customer would sign a contract with me stating that they have inspected the product, are happy with it, and that the product was delivered on the agreed date and time. The contract would include signatures from both parties to prevent the buyer from changing their mind or attempting to lie about the product being malfunctioning upon delivery.

To protect cash payments, it is essential to recognise that cash is a fundamental part of a free and inclusive economy. It ensures financial autonomy, protects privacy, and provides a backup in case of technological failures. eBay and other platforms should not force users into a cashless system but instead offer flexibility to accommodate all payment preferences. By doing so, they can maintain trust, inclusivity, and fairness for all users, including small businesses and individuals who rely on cash transactions.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@jb_technical_service wrote:

I have had an account on eBay for 19 years and recently reported to eBay that these new cashless rules are discriminatory against people who need to pay by cash only or prefer to pay by cash. In the long term, eBay will lose members if these ridiculous rules are not changed. It seems like eBay is trying to control every aspect of finance. Just as people have choices in what they believe, their sexuality, etc., they should also have the choice to pay by bank transfer or cash from their own envelope. At the moment, eBay has implemented discriminatory rules.

---

Choice of payment method is not a "protected characteristic" where the Equality Act is concerned. 

---

@jb_technical_service wrote:

For example, I run my own business with deliveries, but I cannot deliver items using my professional van because there is no option for me to do so. This means it’s not only people who want to pay by cash who are being discriminated against, but also people like me who have designated transport and want to deliver products themselves.

---

There's nothing stopping you; you just need to select the "mark as dispatched" option in the sales record. Of course, this means you will be taking all the risk should one of your buyers claim they did not receive their item but that would be the case whether you were selling via eBay or not.

---

@jb_technical_service wrote:

I asked eBay what would happen if I selected free delivery on the listing and delivered the product myself to the buyer. eBay responded that I would need to wait 14 days to receive the money. This is ridiculous. I cannot deliver the product myself to the buyer because, otherwise, I would need to wait 14 days to receive the money.

---

eBay advised you incorrectly. Business sellers do not have such payout delays; only private sellers do.

Anyway; I was surprised when eBay originally announced cash on collection would be abolished for all sellers including private sellers. That was until eBay announced buyer protection which buyers pay for when purchasing from a private seller. If a buyer pays cash to a private seller eBay would have no way of charging the buyer the buyer protection fee. So the odds of cash on collection ever being a future permitted payment option for anything other than qualifying categories are pretty much zero. 

---

---

[kmaltman]

Hi.

Firstly this post is about a Private seller not a business seller there is a big legal difference.

Actually I don't necessarily think that replacing cash on collection with the bank of e-bay is such a bad thing in itself, that said I do think it is a really badly thought out and implemented idea that in a best case scenario will further greatly reduce e-bay's falling market share, but I fully accept that it's their right to do that.

However in the same way that e-bay claim that users cannot alter e-bay's terms of business, e-bay terms of business cannot alter the Law of the Land.  

When a buyer turn up and inspects the goods, accepts them as is, at precisely that point an irrevocable contract is formed in law (whether its written or not). THAT IS A FACT.

SO a problem arises IF e-bays rules allow the buyer to change their mind and get a refund in the above circumstances. I have been doing a lot more research on this, and it turns out that in principle making a payment through e-bay instead of cash is no different in legal terms to paying by credit card or paying by cheque and then recalling the card payment, or if paying by cheque countermanding it. Legally there is no difference.

In ALL of the above cases where something other than cash is used, a buyer can get there money back.....

BUT LEGALLY it is a very dangerous thing for a buyer to do. Firstly it makes them immediately liable for an action in Breach of Contract with the seller. (Regardless of the banks, card companies or e-bays rules). More seriously if the buyer does not have CLEAR CUT LEGAL  justification for their action, it's possible to face criminal proceedings for fraud, in exactly the same way as if you cancelled a cheque or recall a credit card payment. Yes you can physically do it.  But you must have CLEAR CUT Legal grounds for taking such action. OR you can end up in deep trouble. 

What are CLEAR CUT Legal grounds for countermanding payments and not being legally liable? Well for example, if the goods were stolen, so the seller did not have the right to sell them, that would cover you. Possibly if the goods were counterfeit, that would be OK had you not inspected and accepted them but legally speaking that is considerably weaker if you inspected and accepted the goods as is (for example if the seller then claimed he was selling them to you as scrap, you would have a real problem). 

As you can probably imagine an excuse like "I changed my mind"  or "They looked a different colour when I got them home" definitely would not cut it. It may be 100% true, but is no defence in either civil or criminal terms.

Now if and when a defaulting buyer ends up in civil court for breach of contract or criminal court for Fraud, using the defence "e-bay said I could do it!", that would have about the same legal weight as "the bank or credit card company said I could cancel payment".  Yes of course you can, and they are correct, but they are only speaking of what is possible and what they can do for you, if you instruct them to. 

BUT IT IS YOU AND YOU ALONE THAT IS LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS

Interestingly I got a warning about this recently from my bank when I was forced to cancel a payment to e-bay. Basically they charged me twice for the same thing. I wouldn't have noticed, but it was a leather 3 piece well over £1000, so took me into  unauthorised overdraft. So I went to the bank and got to the bottom of why I was unexpectedly overdrawn, discovered the problem and got the bank to cancel the second payment. The bank agreed to do this and cancel the payment, but I was warned how potentially serious this could be if I was wrong to request it.

So I'm pretty sure about this situation. You see the bank is legally obliged to obey my instructions, however just because they have to do what I tell them, does not mean I am legally to entitled to tell them to do it.  

The important point here being nothing in e-bays terms and condition can change the law, and any attempt to do so would invalidate that term and it would be ignored in any civil or criminal court, in any action bought against a buyer (or seller or even e-bay for that matter).

[kmaltman]

First no one appears to be disputing that the fact that the frequently quoted distance selling rules DO NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE SELLERS (real ones). These rules quite rightly give ANY buyer the right to reject anything sold by ANY form of distance selling if they are not happy with the actual result. Why because they have had to rely on the sellers description, and the good may fall short of the buyers reasonable expectations. Now in
addition e-bay has effectively extended them via their Money Back Guarantee to cover private sales, personally I DONT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. If any seller has mislead a potential buyer, even unintentionally it's morally right and fair to allow the buyer a refund.

ESPECIALLY IF AN ACTUAL LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT OF SALE IS ESTABLISHED BASED ON THAT DESCRIPTION. BUT IS IT?

The second thing to consider is are sales on e-bay final and legally binding or do they only become so when the buyer inspects and accepts the goods? Well I have had an unlucky run lately with sellers, literally deciding not to send goods and cancelling the sales. Since December (from a business sellers advertising inc. delivery) I have bought a leather 3 piece suite in for about £1000, paid asking price in full, about a month later the seller cancelled the sale didn't give a reason, AND THEN IMMEDIATELY RE-LISTED IT. So I bought another one inc. delivery from another seller, paid the asking price over well over £1000 this time, again the seller cancelled the sale claimed they did not actually have it. Finally bought another one for about £1600, (got charged twice for it), and didn't get everything offered. BUT AT LEAST IT ARRIVED. I bought a "Buy it now" IKEA Lamp inc. delivery, didn't get that either. I Bought another lamp (buy it now inc. delivery) from another seller they also cancelled the sale, said the postage was more than they had allowed for BUT RELISTED THE LAMP FOR MORE. Then bought a computer router, the seller cancelled the sale (said it didn't work). Bought another one that seller cancelled the sale, again used the excuse that they didn't actually have it. Only yesterday bought some tools on buy it now and again the seller cancelled the sale, at least this one appeared decent and honest, said he received a shipment from his supplier and UPON INSPECTION rejected them as he wasn't happy with the quality and asked if he could cancel the sale (so I agreed). But
cancelling sales is a very sore point with me at the moment!

IF any of these sales were legally binding ALL THESE SELLERS ARE "AT LEAST" IN BREACH OF CONTRACT. Which allows me to take action against a seller who breaks any term of a contract EVEN IF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE SELLER TO FULFILLTHAT CONDITION (That's the Law, regardless of e-bays rules)........Meaning I could sue them.... But only IF a legally binding contract had been established, to the best of my knowledge and belief in spite of the hundreds of millions of sales on e-bay this has never once happened, but perhaps IF IT EVER HAS HAPPENED a moderator could cite the cases where it has. ?

The reason I say "AT LEAST" Breach of Contract is going to be covered in a separate post about the new Fraud Act that the entire e-bay community appear oblivious to, so you should all AT LEAST read the post.

Another bit of legislation the entire e-bay community appear oblivious to is ANY contract that causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract. Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumers, but are against businesses. So if the seller can cancel the contract then so can the buyer. For a contract of sale to be a "balanced contract" all parties should have equal stakes and liabilities, through all stages of execution of the contract. An unbalanced contract, providing greater options to one party may be set aside in the court of law. In other words null and void, or not legally binding whatever "anyone" claims! So if a seller can cancel a sale without even bothering to state a reason (as they often now do! ) and as that appears completely acceptable (by "Established Custom and Practice") then from a legal standpoint, a buyer can do the same thing.

Now lets take a practical look at whether e-bay itself thinks its sales are legally binding, by examining what they do rather that what they say? Let's look at a hypothetical sale involving a 3 piece suite. AND THIS ALMOST HAPPENED TO MY WHICH IS WHY I'M USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE. Assume a seller gives a wonderfully accurate description of a fantastic leather 3 piece, in great condition, lots of nice photos, pretty good price. every single thing in the listing is 100% true and accurate. But this one is collection only. SO assume I buy it (almost did), hire a van drive across the country to pick it up. Get there but I'm not happy with what I find. IF THE SALE IS LEGALLY BINDING, I am obliged to collect that 3 piece if the seller insists,
take it all the way home, then complaining to e-bay that I'm not happy, then get a refund, and argue about whether the seller will collect it or that I have to return it. A TOTAL NIGHTMARE SCENARIO but that would be the situation IF THE SALE WERE LEGALLY BINDING WOULDNT IT?

Now if I am allowed to immediately reject the goods, then the original contract was not legally binding, but only becomes so ONCE I INSPECT AND ACCEPT THE GOODS. And if I do that is the point at which a legally binding sales Agreement is created.

SO WHEN DOES THE SALE ACTUALLY BECOME A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT?

Is anyone suggesting I should load and transport that unsatisfactory furniture all the way home the ask e-bay to cancel the sale and give me a refund so that we can then argue about who broke the contract and who should pay to return the furniture?

OR DO WE ALL FULLY ACCEPT THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REJECT THE GOODS ON THE SPOT IF I INSPECT THEM AND IM NOT HAPPY....... We all know the answer, of course I can reject the goods on inspection, (as my e-bay tool seller did..... THAT'S THE LAW). BUT there is another side to this coin that is, if I inspect and accept the goods, then at that moment the legally enforceable sale agreement is actually created, not
when I saw any advert or listing and placed an "OFFER" to buy it.

In case you are wondering what was wrong with this amazing set of furniture it was an exquisite leather set of furniture, custom made by wealthy parents for a child's bedroom, and adult could not actually sit in it. The point is I have the legal right to inspect the goods upon collection and to reject them spot and so not complete the sale in the first place. In other words the contract of sale only becomes that once I have inspected and accepted the goods, so if delivered that's within a reasonable time of delivery, IF COLLECTED IT'S however its clearly when I inspect and accept the goods.

Luckily I somehow I worked this was a smaller than expected furniture so didn't actually buy it. AND I know if it had included delivery and had bought it, then e-bays user agreement would have entitled me to cancel, the sale,  get a refund, and have the seller pay to return it. But if I can reject it on sight and not complete the sale then that's when the sales agreement is actually entered into.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Bearing in mind I am not a lawyer, and never claimed to be, can you imagine what a half decent council would do let loose on e-bays rules and regulations? MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am not trying to cause e-bay problems, on the contrary, I love e-bay, but they appear to be dropping the ball all over the place at the moment, imposing poorly thought out and implemented ideas, which at best, appear to be issued in sheer panic due to their falling market share and appear to be determined to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot (with a machine gun), the outcomes of which will probably constantly make their situation worse. So IMHO e-bay really do need to address all these issues and get their house in order.

[kmaltman]

Without Prejudice

The impact of the New revised Fraud act on online Platforms user agreements.

I have previously mentioned on more than one occasion the LEGAL situation about breach of contract. But in some circumstances making misleading statements and cancelling payments can cross the line to become a criminal offence. Apparently most of the e-bay community appear oblivious to The Fraud Act (2006), which has been slow to enforce for practical reasons but is now (and has been in force for considerable time) so is none the less the Law. This Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes - fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. Now I will repeat I'm not a lawyer but I SUGGEST YOU READ THIS THOROUGHLY........ I HAVE. I studied this Act doing my Masters Degree in Business, (My elective Major subject was e-commerce btw). But I will paraphrase a couple of really important changes to the previous Fraud Legislation that are relevant to sales on all online platforms, obviously including e-bay (regardless of any platforms  rules and user agreements)

First.... NOW, to make a misleading, inaccurate or incomplete statement, to attempt to sell something IS FRAUD. More importantly this has been changed to become an Ipso Facto offence, and to all us laymen, that means the offence is committed the moment the statement is made, regardless of any outcome, or later retraction or alteration, so no resulting sales or giving the money back does not mean that making the statement itself was a not criminal offence. (but might or probably would, mitigate any sentence handed down upon conviction).

Secondly..... The 2006 Act repeals and replaces the eight deception offences in the Theft Acts 1968 -1996 AND MORE IMPORTANTLY closes the main previously exploited defence loop holes in previous Legislation. Again to paraphrase the Act so you can see why you need to be aware of this, in addition to a massive general tightening up, simplification and clarification, IT SPECIFICALLY STATES that "Incompetence, Negligence and Misadventure" will not be allowed as a defence. This means claiming it was a mistake, or I didn't check carefully, or it was just unfortunate bad luck, cannot be heard by any Court of Law as a defence. So THE LAW is now pretty clear cut isn't it? (regardless of any online sales platform's rules and user agreement).

Parliaments legislation on related matters is ONGOING..... AS YOU READ THIS. I am sure e-bay (being such a business) are fully aware of the Bill before Parliament at the moment. Currently the Government is introducing Legislation granting itself the Power to seize the Assets of Large Businesses (many who have been "ALLOWED" to self police for practical reasons, but who are in the eyes of the Government, continually failing to prevent Fraud as defined in the 2006 Act. So rather than fire fight tens of thousands of small incidences of Fraud, they are simply giving themselves the right to seize the assets of the businesses or platforms that do not proactively prevent Fraud or in effect allow it (as defined by Act of Parliament) even if not prevented by their user agreements)  online (thus forcing said businesses to pull their finger out and do it) .........

Of course I could not possibly even guess who Parliament has in mind to apply this new legislation to. But perhaps you could?

Perhaps you should also consider whether any variant on "I was just following orders" has ever been accepted as a Legal Defence?

[technthread]

I am having flashbacks to the time I chose to drop Law at A2 level and walk away with an AS grade. 

[kmaltman]

Me thinks some of these readers and possibly e-bay should look up what the Law Lords repeatedly rule on the concept of Nelsonian Blindness, possibly including its impact on a potential charge of being an accessory. But then again I'm not their Council LOL



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

[papso22]

It's 'Counsel', I am surprised with all your legal knowledge you didn't know that.

Had the KC (King's Counsel) I was instructing the other week on a case heard in the Court of Appeal been referred to as a 'Council' he would have laughed his very expensive socks off.

[kmaltman]

LOL, I did know spent enough on them. Tried to reply 5 times its not letting me for some reason, perhaps I have been stuck of LOL anyway one las attempt from email again this time.

[leclar_1]

its an absolute ridiculose rule change.  and the fact you cant even give someone your details in the msg system anmore also makes it extremely difficult to arrange veiwings and cash on collection sales.   

prime example im talking to a private seller about a bike for my daughter i am not going to pay 500 quid through their platform without going and inspecting the bike first .  but we cant exchange any details to allow me to go and do that . whole new system is a joke . 

[leclar_1]

sorry but im not paying anything through their platform for certain items before inspecting it . ie bikes cars  ect those things need to be looked at inspected before paying anyone anything. whs to say the seller is honest and will refund the payment if you dont take the item after inspecting it.   

and some ppl dont have the luxery of waiting god knows how long before you can open a case if a seller did not do the refund . so removing the cash on collection option is just a stupid idea. 

[oibaldy123]

I had the same when I bought and, then a year later, sold a video laser disc player. Cannot be sent through courier, far too delicate and actually too valuable for someone who would need one! So like you say off to the tip. Some things can only be cash on collection. I guess its the tree of gum, although for collection items I have done as well on there as ebay. Just saying.

[papso22]

---

@oibaldy123 wrote:

I had the same when I bought and, then a year later, sold a video laser disc player. Cannot be sent through courier, far too delicate and actually too valuable for someone who would need one! So like you say off to the tip. Some things can only be cash on collection. I guess its the tree of gum, although for collection items I have done as well on there as ebay. Just saying.

---

Some things can only be collection   but why only cash?

[missdollydaydream]

Some things can only be collection   but why only cash?

Safer for the seller? I.e, seller sells a washing machine, buyer pays through eBay & collects. Then (falsely) claims SNAD. Cost of paying for the return label is more than the original sale price and so buyer gets the machine for nowt.