eBay Seller Cancels Transaction After Completed Sale. Thoughts?

Mefer · October 31, 2014 12:29PM

I bought a relatively low value card on eBay. After I won it, I immediately paid via PayPal. The next day, the seller sent my money back saying there was a "pricing error."

This rubs me wrong. I can understand catching the error prior to the auction ending and changing accordingly. But after the fact it does not sit well with me.

In any event, do you let these types of things go or leave negative feedback? I'm wavering back and forth. To this point I've simply sent a rather polite note to the seller asking for reconsideration.

ReggieCleveland · October 31, 2014 12:42PM

I leave a neg.

To be honest, I'm a little fed up with the whole concept of "don't leave a negative unless they rape your grandmother" idea. It's a neg on ebay, that's it. If you don't want one, don't make stupid errors. It's not the end of the world. I want to know ahead of time if I'm dealing with a complete moron and that's tough to do if everyone they've moroned refuses to leave negatives.

OAKESY25 · October 31, 2014 12:43PM

I don't believe you can leave a negative if he refunded you, but in any case I would just walk away

gregmo32 · October 31, 2014 12:49PM

This exact situation occurred to me a few months ago. Card that usually sells for about $30 gets listed for $9.99 Buyitnow and I buy it and pay for it. Seller cancels it and tells me it was a pricing error. I was very annoyed, but mostly at the entitled attitude of the "seller." I wanted to push the issue and explain that a normal person would just eat his own $30 mistake and chalk it up to a lesson learned, but I didn't have the energy to argue with him over it, and ended up just letting it go...

RyanAdmirer · October 31, 2014 12:53PM

Off with his head!!!

RyanAdmirer · October 31, 2014 12:54PM

<< Off with his head!!! >>

Or maybe not....I'd probably just let it go and never buy from him again.

MULLINS5 · October 31, 2014 12:56PM

100% positive feedback is overrated. In business, you're not going to make everyone happy. I prefer seeing a few negs and neutrals in a seller's feedback. Shows me they're human.

If you can leave him one, definitely neg him.

PMKAY · October 31, 2014 12:59PM

<< I bought a relatively low value card on eBay. After I won it, I immediately paid via PayPal. The next day, the seller sent my money back saying there was a "pricing error."

This rubs me wrong. I can understand catching the error prior to the auction ending and changing accordingly. But after the fact it does not sit well with me.

In any event, do you let these types of things go or leave negative feedback? I'm wavering back and forth. To this point I've simply sent a rather polite note to the seller asking for reconsideration. >>

I would personally leave it alone but that's because I have an eBay store with a lot of low priced cards and it would be easy for them or anyone they ask to buy a low dollar item and hit me with a negative as revenge.

MULLINS5 · October 31, 2014 1:02PM

<< 

<< I bought a relatively low value card on eBay. After I won it, I immediately paid via PayPal. The next day, the seller sent my money back saying there was a "pricing error."

This rubs me wrong. I can understand catching the error prior to the auction ending and changing accordingly. But after the fact it does not sit well with me.

In any event, do you let these types of things go or leave negative feedback? I'm wavering back and forth. To this point I've simply sent a rather polite note to the seller asking for reconsideration. >>

I would personally leave it alone but that's because I have an eBay store with a lot of low priced cards and it would be easy for them or anyone they ask to buy a low dollar item and hit me with a negative as revenge. >>

This is why I have a buy account and a selling account. Sad, but this happens A LOT. Especially in markets like fashion where competition will leave you a negative to hurt your name.

larryallen73 · October 31, 2014 1:04PM

Neg him.

Wolfgang427 · October 31, 2014 1:21PM

IMO, Let it be....people make mistakes all the time....no need for a negative if he refunded you promptly.

PMKAY · October 31, 2014 1:25PM

I've been on the other end of that before. I know of at least twice that I listed an item for $2 that was supposed to be $20. Both times I sent the item and took the loss.

dontippet · October 31, 2014 1:32PM

Yes, you can leave a negative, and I would do that. Also, if he sends you something through ebay to mutually agree to end the auction so that he can recoup his fees, I would not do that, since you did not agree to end the auction.

wrestlingcardking · October 31, 2014 1:37PM

You are certainly within your right to neg him for completely wasting your time. This pricing error should have been fixed long ago.

bishop · October 31, 2014 2:17PM

You certainly received opinions to do anything you want so recommend you do so

grote15 · October 31, 2014 2:20PM

I would certainly not agree to canceling the transaction.

longtimemetsfan · October 31, 2014 2:38PM

<< Yes, you can leave a negative, and I would do that. Also, if he sends you something through ebay to mutually agree to end the auction so that he can recoup his fees, I would not do that, since you did not agree to end the auction. >>

+1

Mefer · November 1, 2014 2:36AM

Thanks all. Quite a few varied opinions. Technically he's breached a contract at this point (offer made and accepted; undisclosed unilateral alleged mistake in offer not a defense) but upon further reflection, I don't think I'll waste my hate on this.

athleticsfan · November 1, 2014 7:15AM

BRAVO, You made the right decision!!!

coachnip13 · November 1, 2014 7:30AM

<< Thanks all. Quite a few varied opinions. Technically he's breached a contract at this point (offer made and accepted; undisclosed unilateral alleged mistake in offer not a defense) but upon further reflection, I don't think I'll waste my hate on this. >>

He hasn't breached a contract. You were made whole. His breach of contract would exist if he tried to give you an item that was of lesser value to match what you actually paid. That's when you could invoke his unilateral mistake. Instead, he gave you 100% of your money back. Case closed. No court in the world would require specific performance on such a common item.

Nathaniel1960 · November 1, 2014 7:33AM

A few years ago I won a lot of about 50 EXMT-NM 1965 Topps Football cards, including stars and SPs for $80. The auction ran for 5 days and had plenty of bids. I have no idea why no bid it up past that. I paid immediately and the next day I get an email from the seller saying he had sold the lot the day before and wasn't able to shut down the auction in time.

Horsesh%t for sure...but I let it go. Not worth the emotional distress of going after someone. Serenity now.

Mefer · November 1, 2014 8:30AM

<< 

<< Thanks all. Quite a few varied opinions. Technically he's breached a contract at this point (offer made and accepted; undisclosed unilateral alleged mistake in offer not a defense) but upon further reflection, I don't think I'll waste my hate on this. >>

He hasn't breached a contract. You were made whole. His breach of contract would exist if he tried to give you an item that was of lesser value to match what you actually paid. That's when you could invoke his unilateral mistake. Instead, he gave you 100% of your money back. Case closed. No court in the world would require specific performance on such a common item. >>

I disagree with your legal analysis.

BUT who would sue over $7.00? Not me!

grote15 · November 1, 2014 8:33AM

<< 

<< 

<< Thanks all. Quite a few varied opinions. Technically he's breached a contract at this point (offer made and accepted; undisclosed unilateral alleged mistake in offer not a defense) but upon further reflection, I don't think I'll waste my hate on this. >>

He hasn't breached a contract. You were made whole. His breach of contract would exist if he tried to give you an item that was of lesser value to match what you actually paid. That's when you could invoke his unilateral mistake. Instead, he gave you 100% of your money back. Case closed. No court in the world would require specific performance on such a common item. >>

I disagree with your legal analysis.

BUT who would sue over $7.00? Not me! >>

Exactly. If you're going to sell an item on ebay, be a man and honor the sale.

coachnip13 · November 1, 2014 8:37AM

<< I disagree with your legal analysis.

BUT who would sue over $7.00? Not me! >>

I know that you wouldn't sue over $7.00, but there isn't a legal question here. You have 100% of what you started with. You have no damages. The only way a court would ever order delivery of goods is if the item can't be found anywhere else. It's pretty black and white in the UCC.

coachnip13 · November 1, 2014 8:37AM

<< 

Exactly. If you're going to sell an item on ebay, be a man and honor the sale. >>

I think we all agree with that. But that's the moral, not legal, side of this.

grote15 · November 1, 2014 8:58AM

<< 

<< 

Exactly. If you're going to sell an item on ebay, be a man and honor the sale. >>

I think we all agree with that. But that's the moral, not legal, side of this. >>

The other side is we can always send one of the wrestling card guys over to pay him a friendly visit..LOL!!

bigdogparty · November 1, 2014 9:12AM

I had this happen to me recently. I hit the BIN on a Cardinal bobblehead that was priced about $10-15 lower than normal, paid immediately and then about an hour later got a refund notice. I was annoyed but noticed the seller was a local dealer that I frequent his store. I emailed him and asked what it should be then offered to split the difference and would pick up at the store. He agreed and everyone was happy. However, if I didn't know the seller, I would have at least left a nuetral or neg depending on what happened

larryallen73 · November 1, 2014 9:12AM

I love the "legal analysis."

bobbyw8469 · November 1, 2014 9:22AM

<< I had this happen to me recently. I hit the BIN on a Cardinal bobblehead that was priced about $10-15 lower than normal, paid immediately and then about an hour later got a refund notice. I was annoyed but noticed the seller was a local dealer that I frequent his store. I emailed him and asked what it should be then offered to split the difference and would pick up at the store. He agreed and everyone was happy. However, if I didn't know the seller, I would have at least left a nuetral or neg depending on what happened >>

I find it hard to believe someone wouldn't honor a sale over $10 lousy dollars when I have lost $300+ on a card and shipped the item without a second thought. Some sellers are just pure garbage. Local or not, I would have left a neg anyway.

Mefer · November 1, 2014 9:23AM

<< 

<< I disagree with your legal analysis.

BUT who would sue over $7.00? Not me! >>

I know that you wouldn't sue over $7.00, but there isn't a legal question here. You have 100% of what you started with. You have no damages. The only way a court would ever order delivery of goods is if the item can't be found anywhere else. It's pretty black and white in the UCC. >>

Without getting into choice of law issues, and using the UCC as our basis:

§ 2-716. Buyer's Right to Specific Performance or Replevin.
(1) Specific performance may be decreed where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances.

(2)The decree for specific performance may include such terms and conditions as to payment of the price, damages, or other relief as the court may deem just.

(3) The buyer has a right of replevin for goods identified to the contract if after reasonable effort he is unable to effect cover for such goods or the circumstances reasonably indicate that such effort will be unavailing or if the goods have been shipped under reservation and satisfaction of the security interest in them has been made or tendered.

Since the card I purchased is serial numbered, there is the argument under the UCC (assuming, again for sake of argument it controls) that I can get specific performance. Of course, I still have a duty to mitigate; which means most likely I would need to buy the card elsewhere (obviously different serial number). Assuming I can get it for $30.00, that would give me damages of $23.00. As such, I think I can get specific performance and/or some damage amount.

With damages now calculated at a whopping $23.00, this case is getting even more appealing!

In the end, we've created a hypothetical law school debate. At least I've had some with this travesty.

Matt

grote15 · November 1, 2014 9:32AM

<< 

<< 

<< I disagree with your legal analysis.

BUT who would sue over $7.00? Not me! >>

I know that you wouldn't sue over $7.00, but there isn't a legal question here. You have 100% of what you started with. You have no damages. The only way a court would ever order delivery of goods is if the item can't be found anywhere else. It's pretty black and white in the UCC. >>

Without getting into choice of law issues, and using the UCC as our basis:

§ 2-716. Buyer's Right to Specific Performance or Replevin.
(1) Specific performance may be decreed where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances.

(2)The decree for specific performance may include such terms and conditions as to payment of the price, damages, or other relief as the court may deem just.

(3) The buyer has a right of replevin for goods identified to the contract if after reasonable effort he is unable to effect cover for such goods or the circumstances reasonably indicate that such effort will be unavailing or if the goods have been shipped under reservation and satisfaction of the security interest in them has been made or tendered.

Since the card I purchased is serial numbered, there is the argument under the UCC (assuming, again for sake of argument it controls) that I can get specific performance. Of course, I still have a duty to mitigate; which means most likely I would need to buy the card elsewhere (obviously different serial number). Assuming I can get it for $30.00, that would give me damages of $23.00. As such, I think I can get specific performance and/or some damage amount.

With damages now calculated at a whopping $23.00, this case is getting even more appealing!

In the end, we've created a hypothetical law school debate. At least I've had some with this travesty.

Matt >>

And representing the defendant in case No. 23764, Peter Chris guy v Cheapo Ebay Seller, we will now hear from coachnip...counselor coachnip, you may proceed..

coachnip13 · November 1, 2014 10:05AM

<< 

With damages now calculated at a whopping $23.00, this case is getting even more appealing!

In the end, we've created a hypothetical law school debate. At least I've had some with this travesty.

Matt >>

Let's see if we can get Judge Judy to take it!!

Mefer · November 1, 2014 11:41AM

Ha! The hypothetical debate was fun. Let's go back to cards, shall we? m/

coachnip13 · November 1, 2014 11:47AM

<< Ha! The hypothetical debate was fun. Let's go back to cards, shall we? m/ >>

Well, I'm trying to give Grote 3x the sticker price for his 1970 rack pack but he's not budging.

WalterSobchak · November 2, 2014 12:16AM

At least the seller gave you a reason. I bought a $100 card a couple weeks ago. Two days later it was "marked as shipped". Two days after that, the money was refunded to my Paypal account. No explanation whatsoever.

And it wasn't even a case where the seller might not have been happy with the hammer price. It was a BIN/BO.

esquiresports · November 2, 2014 7:19AM

<< 

<< Thanks all. Quite a few varied opinions. Technically he's breached a contract at this point (offer made and accepted; undisclosed unilateral alleged mistake in offer not a defense) but upon further reflection, I don't think I'll waste my hate on this. >>

He hasn't breached a contract. You were made whole. His breach of contract would exist if he tried to give you an item that was of lesser value to match what you actually paid. That's when you could invoke his unilateral mistake. Instead, he gave you 100% of your money back. Case closed. No court in the world would require specific performance on such a common item. >>

This is incorrect. First, he did breach a contract. Even if someone is "made whole," it doesn't mean there was no breach. Second, getting one's money back does not necessarily make the buyer whole. To make the buyer whole, the buyer could purchase a similar card and seek the difference between the two prices. This is pretty basic contract law.

coachnip13 · November 2, 2014 7:52AM

<< To make the buyer whole, the buyer could purchase a similar card and seek the difference between the two prices. This is pretty basic contract law. >>

The only time covering is ever permitted is when the buyer can show that they were forced to buy from someone else in order to keep their business running. If a manufacturer needs widgets for production, and the seller doesn't deliver, then the buyer has to go find widgets from anyone who is selling, and they have to do it immediately. In that case, a court would force the original seller to pay the difference. And in that situation it makes sense.

It doesn't apply to commonly found, unnecessary items.

This, too, is basic contract law. But thanks for dragging this back up when we were done talking about it.

jwilson6204 · November 2, 2014 8:44AM

I the past few years I've twice accidentally listed a card for $11 or $12 when it should have been $110 or $120. I've honored both transactions. I don't know if that would be the case if I accidentally listed a thousand dollar card for one hundred. Luckily, I've never had that problem. Do you guys believe there is a threshold where it's obvious the seller made an error or is it always on the dealer to honor the transaction?

bobbyw8469 · November 2, 2014 9:23AM

<< I the past few years I've twice accidentally listed a card for $11 or $12 when it should have been $110 or $120. I've honored both transactions. I don't know if that would be the case if I accidentally listed a thousand dollar card for one hundred. Luckily, I've never had that problem. Do you guys believe there is a threshold where it's obvious the seller made an error or is it always on the dealer to honor the transaction? >>

When you did that, was the card purchased within minutes?

jwilson6204 · November 2, 2014 9:39AM

[q]When you did that, was the card purchased within minutes? >>

I don't remember how long it took for the first listing. The second incident happened within the last few months. It was an existing listing where I revised the price of about 10 listing in bulk. It was subsequently purchased quickly.

esquiresports · November 2, 2014 3:38PM

<< 

<< To make the buyer whole, the buyer could purchase a similar card and seek the difference between the two prices. This is pretty basic contract law. >>

The only time covering is ever permitted is when the buyer can show that they were forced to buy from someone else in order to keep their business running. If a manufacturer needs widgets for production, and the seller doesn't deliver, then the buyer has to go find widgets from anyone who is selling, and they have to do it immediately. In that case, a court would force the original seller to pay the difference. And in that situation it makes sense.

It doesn't apply to commonly found, unnecessary items.

This, too, is basic contract law. But thanks for dragging this back up when we were done talking about it.

>>

Not sure how responding to a Saturday post on a Sunday is "dragging" something back up. I just read the thread for the first time when I responded. I find it interesting that you take the position that (1) there was no breach of contract, (2) that someone is made whole by refunding their money, and (3) that obtaining the agreed-for item is only allowed in a "covering" circumstance. Do you agree with (1) and (2)? With respect to (3), let's take, for example, a situation where I agree to sell a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle PSA 7 for $5,000 by written agreement. Can I avoid breach by refunding the $5,000, or if money is not yet received, just refusing to perform?

coachnip13 · November 2, 2014 9:43PM

<< I find it interesting that you take the position that (1) there was no breach of contract, (2) that someone is made whole by refunding their money, and (3) that obtaining the agreed-for item is only allowed in a "covering" circumstance. >>

I think you are getting some concepts mixed up. Obtaining the agreed-upon item is "specific performance". "Covering" is what I defined in the last post: I buy from you, you don't deliver, but I need it today, so I buy it from someone else at a higher price. You are responsible for the original price plus the extra money that it cost me to buy it at a higher rate. Covering would never be applied in a case like this, so we will cover specific performance below.

<< Do you agree with (1) and (2)? With respect to (3), let's take, for example, a situation where I agree to sell a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle PSA 7 for $5,000 by written agreement. Can I avoid breach by refunding the $5,000, or if money is not yet received, just refusing to perform? >>

Of course, you're changing the scenario now, and it's something that I already covered. The buyer has an outside shot at invoking specific performance because it is a somewhat unique item. But they would probably lose, because it's not so unique that you could never find one. A landmark case handed down this opinion: "The inconvenience of not being able to obtain one because of supply and demand alone is not sufficient to warrant application of specific performance." Specific performance is most commonly applied in land cases, where the item is truly one of a kind.

In the case described in this thread, as I'm sure you realize by now, the case is over when the money is returned.

mtcards · November 3, 2014 5:43AM

I bought a small lot of proof sets about a year ago at about 10pm one night. The item had been listed for several days, kept seeing it, finally decided to buy it. Only about a $100 transaction listed as a BIN. Next morning, I get up, see where seller has asked me to cancel transaction because the item was no longer in stock....I reply "no big deal" and go ahead and cancel the transaction. Going through the listings the next night, same seller has same item listed with the same picture even, EXCEPT now listed at $115. I send him a message asking if he would honor his last sale, since apparently the item IS in stock. He said, "no, the current price is more in line with market value"

Now, reading between the lines, he had the item and wanted another $15 on it.

I LEFT THE NEGATIVE

I dont like to leave them, especially on honest mistakes, but this guy was a crook, plain and simple.

eBay Seller Cancels Transaction After Completed Sale. Thoughts?

Comments