OT - Am I wrong in this eBay transaction?

ajaan

I have been 'fighting' with someone in the UK over a figurine I sold for my mom to settle my late aunt's estate. I sent the item and he wasn't pleased with it. I offered a refund plus $20 to ship the item back to me. He took 3 weeks to reply to my email and now he is throwin out international trade law at me. Am I right not to back down? I value the opinions of many of the members here. Here are the emails we exchanged today:

The first email is from me to the buyer:

"Don Rupp" <xxx> schrieb am 06.07.05 14:26:14:



Hi,
On 13 June 2005 I sent you my email offering you the option of shipping the Woodpecker back to me. It took you until 5 July 2005 to reply to me. This is a full 3 weeks!!! Let's review this whole transaction:

Payment received via PayPal: 25 May 2005
Item shipped via insured Express Mail: 26 May 2005
Item arrived in UK and tried to be delivered: 31 May 2005
You picked up the item: 10 June 2005
Your email to me stating item is not acceptable: 13 June 2005
My offer for refund: 13 June 2005
Your reply: 5 July 2005

As stated in the eBay listing:

7 day return privilege. Postage non-refundable

I am sorry, the refund period for this item has long expired. You seem to be disappointed in the amount of UK taxes you had to pay for this item. You requested I send the item with full insurance, it was your responsibility to check into the taxes BEFORE you bid on the item. I have no control over the UK customs/tax agencies.

I even offered to pay for some of the return shipping, you declined. BTW, it cost me US$32 (£18) to ship the item to you. I have no idea where you came up with £25 (which by the way is only US$45 not US$50) for the shipping cost.

Your other contention that you would have to pay 4% to PayPal is incorrect. On a refund there is no charge, at least that is the way in the US.

As I stated in an earlier email, this item was being sold to settle my late aunt's estate. The money was going to the estate, not to me. It is now over a month from when the item was shipped. The estate is settled so I cannot even get the money back for a refund.

As for the certificate. As previously stated, it was inadvertantly left out of the original package. I will ship it out today to the address you have with PayPal. I did not mail it out earlier because I was expecting you to return the item. Again, I apologize for not including it with the woodpecker.


Here is his reply:


Hi there



I think we have to clear up some details. You reviewed the whole transaction in the correct way referring to he times and dates.

If you are talking of a return privilege - that means that an item can be returned if the item does not fit what the buyer expected. I know the SWAROVSKI figurines very well. I am a collector. So I do no use the return privilege due to the fact that I am not in favour of the figurine in general. As a collector I am interested to get figurines in flawless condition. Swarovski figurines do not change their condition over years although they are declared as "used". They are like new after more than 20 years except of breakages, chips, rough crazings et cetera. The figurine you sent me is not in "used" condition, it is slightly damaged - not very much - but it is. I can send photos to you showing clearly that there is something incorrect.

The listing did not include any information about this fact. So I did not want to return the item because I do not like it. I wanted to return the item because of the flaws. The item sent to me did not fit the text of the listing. Basic international commercial trade regulations rule that a trading contract is completed if there are the following requirements done in steps: offer-acceptance of offer-payment of agreed amount and shipping costs-delivery of described and agreed item. The first three steps are done. The last one - the delivery - was incorrect because the condition of the item did not fit the description in the listing.

In this case international trade law says that the seller has to provide a reserve item taking back the wrong one on his costs or to dissolve the trade contract by taking back the item and refunding the price including all costs of the buyer or to agree to an adjusted price.



Referring to the UK tax. I am aware of the British tax system. I knew before purchase what amount of taxes I had to pay. So I do not complain paying the taxes. The whole situation - buying an item abroad - paying the item you think it is Ok - receiving item by paying the local taxes - getting an item being damaged. My complaint was about the trouble of getting a refund from UK customs taking months. But this is how the system works and I would accept the tax refund problems anyway. I will get the tax back in full - in 6, 8 or 10 weeks. But I cannot accept that for a mistake I am not responsible for (sending an item in an incorrect condition) I have to pay lots of costs.



But finally you made your decision by telling me to send the certificate. So you are telling me that the case is closed with this action. I expected a constructive solution. But you felt attacked - maybe thinking I want to make profit out of this purchase. Sorry. I am an honest buyer and I always look for fair conditions. But I am quite disappointed because I thoungt buying from a recommended seller with 100 % feedback will be safe. I failed. But don't worry about spoiling your excellent feedback - I am no blackmailer. I would only give negative feedbacks to people who are cheating other people. I am convinced you are not one of these - but in future I know that I cannot always rely on excellent feedbacks.



I am tired of scrapping about ebay transactions. So send me the cert and forget it. I will do no feedback.



Regards

'name withheld'

1960NYGiants

Don - I see nothing wrong in your defense. IMHO.

Gene

elverno

Looks to me like he is, and should be, out of luck. Even if you accept his entire premise; that he received a damaged item, it still doesn't relieve him of his responsibility to follow up in a timely manner. 13 June to 5 July isn't 7 days by my calendar, a prompt response and a willingness to ship back as promptly seems more meaningful than his "international trade law" nonsense. Makes it sound like you're shipping him 100 tons of steel... Ship the certificate and call it quits, and neg the heck out of him if he ruins your rating after all.

AuldFartte

Looks like you handled it nicely. Sounds like the buyer is tossing around "trade law" terminology in an attempt to shake you up a bit. The balance of his e-mail doesn't indicate that he's smart enough to know what the he's talking about. I'd send him the certificate and tell him to roll it in a cone ... but you're probably a nicer guy than me

spinaker2000

Shoulda stuck to coins Don!!

wybrit

I don't think you are wrong. He has had time to look over his purchase. His dawdling is his problem, not yours. The implied concept of no time limit for a return is one subject to abuse, since it gives the buyer a free hand to do whatever he/she wants, including fraud (I am not suggesting that is what this person would do, however).

It looks like you may have an agreeable ending, with no negative feedback exchanged. It's probably good to leave well enough alone.

Good luck on this one.

charley

Just curious- was there obvious damage? If not, and the shipment was insured, his complaint is more properly to be made to the Postal Service of record. Regardless of the days that passed, he could have, and should have made such a claim, rather than assume the damage, if any, was there to begin with. Did he damage it? Did he take pictures of another item of lesser quality? It almost sounds like he is implying a forgery, or, he was attempting to switch, and if you gave in without a strong stand, he could accomplish such a goal. As to international law, let him take it to the proper forum, if he has a mind to, and the money to pay a Barrister if the Barrister would even take the case. It would cost him in the thousands. All things considered, I read scam . Where is Rumple of the Bailey? ( Or Sherlock Holmes).

Preussen

Seems to me that the buyer failed in his responsibility to respond in a timely manner. Your offer seems more than fair to me. - Preussen

Steve27

"Am I wrong in this eBay transaction?"

No, just send him his certificate and forget about it. (He's really trying to get you to volunteer to cut the price, so he can keep the item and pay less; don't do it.)

ajaan

Thanks for the replies. Yesterday I sent him the certificate via Global Priority Mail. I think Steve27 hit the nail on the head. He wanted me to cut the price. I wouldn't do it. He kept saying he wanted to solve this, but he never put forth an option.





<< <i>Just curious- was there obvious damage? >>


No, not to me. If there was obvious damage, I would have stated so. Both my wife and I looked at the piece and didn't see anything. He even said the 'damage' was minor. The 'book' value of the piece is $2450 and he bought it for $693 so I don't think he got such a bad deal. I'm glad to be done with this guy.

danglen

<< <i> I am tired of scrapping about ebay transactions. So send me the cert and forget it. I will do no feedback. >>



I think his final paragraph says it all. He obviously has had several problems of a similar nature in the past. It is probably agood thing for the eBay community that he no longer wishes to deal on eBay.

ccrdragon

I think Steve27 hit it square on the head - he wanted to keep the piece and get some of his money back - be glad you didn't give in!

MacCrimmon

<< <i><< I am tired of scrapping about ebay transactions. So send me the cert and forget it. I will do no feedback. >> >>


DONE DEAL!!

You have been more than accomodating. You've sent the cert....it's over......finis!

These type of collectors of this type material are absolutely the most n!ggardly I've ever come across. They make coin collectors Saints by comparison.

My only NEG. from a legit sale was from one of these kooks...my advice, stick with coins, and REQUIRE CASH on these unsavory items in the future.

1jester

"But don't worry about spoiling your excellent feedback - I am no blackmailer. I would only give negative feedbacks to people who are cheating other people. I am convinced you are not one of these - but in future I know that I cannot always rely on excellent feedbacks." --Scammer

Never believe a rumor until it's officially denied. It sounds like he's trying to blackmail you.

WhiteTornado

This guy sounds pretty overblown with his supposed quotations of "international commerial trade". Seems to imply you'd have to be a commercial enterprise for it even to be in effect (do you sell as Joe Blow private individual, or do you sell as an incorporated entity?). Also, charley's post about the prohibitive cost of a Barrister is a good point.

Sounds like a real bozo to me, and I agree with the others who said he probably just wanted to scam you on the price. He waited too long on the refund, so "snooze you lose" as far as I'm concerned.

satootoko

They say free legal advice is worth what you pay for it, so I'll look forward to seeing your check in the mail.

I've never practiced international trade law, but I can say with some authority that there is no body of law applicable to individuals known as "International Trade Law." What do exist are the specific sales laws of various nations. I can't speak about UK law, but the Uniform Commerical Code in effect in virtually every U.S. jurisdiction (including New York and California) has no provision remotely comparable to his version of trade law.

Besides, since the contract was entered into either in New York (where you accepted his bid) or California (where it could be argued the auction hammer fell) the so-called "conflict of laws" principles followed in the U.S. and the U.K. as part of the traditional English Common Law, make its enforcement subject to the law of the place of contracting. That means that if he were to somehow discover that you were in England on a trip, and served you with a suit in the English courts, it would be decided by New York (or possibly) California Law. Suing you in a New York small claims court, requiring him to personally appear for the trial, would be absurdly expensive for him.

One more complication - if I understand correctly, you specified in your auction that you were selling it for the estate. That makes you the agent of a disclosed principal, and under both U.S. and U.K. law that would require him to sue the estate, not you, for his refund.

Bottom line - sleep soundly my friend.