Advice needed RE: eBay Auction
wufdude
Posts: 356 ✭
Quick run-down. Sold 2 $100 cards at auction. Good buyer that paid quickly by check. I offered insurance but buyer did not want. I sent the cards with delivery confirmation on 9/6. Buyer has not received them. Checked usps.com and del. con. # still shows as logged in on 9/6 with nothing else. Buyer has asked that I refund the money. I filed the lost mail claim with usps.com. I don't really want to shell out $200 when, IMO, I did my part. It's a sucky situation all around. Any thoughts?
0
Comments
I feel your pain. This is a not good situation. You did your part and the buyer did his part, but you've got the money and he's got nothing. This is called, in some circles, thinking through the drink. I've had this happen to me, and if the buyer doesn't ask for insurance, I have to ask myself: am I willing to refund his purchase price if the material doesn't get to him? Everybody has their own level, but, for me, I pony up the 2 or 3 bucks on my own to insure a $200 package. Cheap enough cost to be able to sleep at night.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I use $100 value as a cut off for whether I send with or without insurance......always insure if item is worth over $100 or be prepared to eat it when these rare cases come up.
Using delivery confirmation, only assures that the seller cannot cheat you, by saying you did not send.
1955 Bowman Raw complete with 90% Ex-NR or better
Now seeking 1949 Eureka Sportstamps...NM condition
Working on '78 Autographed set now 99.9% complete -
Working on '89 Topps autoed set now complete
<< <i>You did your part and technically don't have to do anything else since you have a delivery number. >>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a delivery confirmation number confirms delivery to the recipient, not the post office. If a seller told me he had a delivery confirmation number for a package he sent a month and a half ago, I'd ask him if it shows delivery. If it doesn't, we're back at square one. A buyer who refuses to pay for insurance is not absolving the seller of all responsiblity to deliver the item.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>..If you are saying that you do not want to refund money at all......then i disagree.........it is your responsibility to get item to buyer......you cannot blame the USPS. >>
no, I'm not saying I don't want to refund the money at all. However, in the same way that he would be out $200 with no cards, I'd be out of 2 cards worth $200 should I simply send him a check for $200. As I said, it just sucks all the way around.
I did have a similar situation where I sent an item with del. con. and it took about a month to get from MD to TX. I have contacted the buyer and asked him to wait a bit longer to see if something similar happens.
Edited to say: Whoops. I was reading that as Oct. 6 instead of Sept. 6. Never mind.
<< <i>
<< <i>..If you are saying that you do not want to refund money at all......then i disagree.........it is your responsibility to get item to buyer......you cannot blame the USPS. >>
no, I'm not saying I don't want to refund the money at all. However, in the same way that he would be out $200 with no cards, I'd be out of 2 cards worth $200 should I simply send him a check for $200. As I said, it just sucks all the way around.
I did have a similar situation where I sent an item with del. con. and it took about a month to get from MD to TX. I have contacted the buyer and asked him to wait a bit longer to see if something similar happens. >>
The problem is that it has been MORE then a month since you sent items...................time to refund if buyer has lost patience with you.
1955 Bowman Raw complete with 90% Ex-NR or better
Now seeking 1949 Eureka Sportstamps...NM condition
Working on '78 Autographed set now 99.9% complete -
Working on '89 Topps autoed set now complete
<< <i>
<< <i>You did your part and technically don't have to do anything else since you have a delivery number. >>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a delivery confirmation number confirms delivery to the recipient, not the post office. If a seller told me he had a delivery confirmation number for a package he sent a month and a half ago, I'd ask him if it shows delivery. If it doesn't, we're back at square one. A buyer who refuses to pay for insurance is not absolving the seller of all responsiblity to deliver the item. >>
Unbelievably it confirms delivery to SOMEBODY. According to the charts we get at work we are 97% +/- effective in getting them delivered and scanned correctly. Lostdart uses a $100 cutoff and then pays for insurance himself, I cut if off at $50. I see how packages get treated, especially small ones, and it's worth the buck or two to make sure the buyer gets value for his money.
I've paid for a lot of insurance and gotten repeat buyers, most of them pay for insurance the next time.
My Auctions
In the end, at least you've learned from it. Whenever I sell something over $20 I always list the shipping charge as including delivery confirmation and insurance. No questions asked. As someone mentioned earlier it's just a couple of bucks to assure you sleep well at night.
I just can't believe someone would fork out $200 for two cards and not cough up an extra $4 for insurance. Ahh ... eBay.
Arthur
<< <i>
<< <i>..If you are saying that you do not want to refund money at all......then i disagree.........it is your responsibility to get item to buyer......you cannot blame the USPS. >>
no, I'm not saying I don't want to refund the money at all. However, in the same way that he would be out $200 with no cards, I'd be out of 2 cards worth $200 should I simply send him a check for $200. As I said, it just sucks all the way around.
>>
Maybe try to negotiate with the buyer? If you can give him half of his $ back he might be willing to move on, then you each lose a little bit and then if usps does find it you can finish your deal.
I don't think a lost mail claim will get you any money back, I think it gets people watching for it but without insurance I don't see a refund coming.
The buyer has been good to you. If I paid you 200 and it was a month and no cards I don't think I'd be happy.
was not the payment method used.
EBAY may or may not side with the buyer, but their
recourse against the seller is almost zero. PayPal
would have already granted the buyer a refund.
I have had First-Class items take about a month to
make it through. Sometimes Priority takes the scenic
route and can take almost as long. Maybe the item
will still make it trhough.
EBAY is the only place on the planet where we find
millions of sellers that do not understand that they
are responsible to assure delivery of purchased items.
It costs about $2.30 to buy $200 worth of USPS insurance.
If the buyer cannot be talked into paying for it, the seller
better do so (in a PayPal deal) or be prepared to take
the full hit for lost/damaged items. In a check deal, EBAY
has better than a 50/50 record of deciding in favor of sellers.
(Same company, two different policies.)
The cumulative damage that unsatisfactory deals have had
on the venue is now starting to reveal itself as free-spending
buyers flee EBAY - and other online venues. "Shipping problems"
that could almost all have been avoided by prudent sellers are the
cause of much of the irreversible discontent.
By late 2007, we will see EBAY shift to a "shipping costs included"
policy. This will stop much of the nonsense, but it will mean that
responsible sellers will be paying FVFs on shipping costs, just as
they do now with PayPal fees. Insurance will be manadtory in all
sales over a certain price point, and the FVFs will hit here, too.
EBAY is slowly experimenting with Free S+H. Soon we will see
listing specials for sellers that offer free shipping. EBAY will
declare the policy a success and enforce it site-wide. EBAY
will claim they had no other alternative, if they were to retain
the base of buyers that they offer to sellers.
storm
I'm hoping to give it a little more time and see if they turn up. The "no action" on the delivery confirmation just leads me to believe that they've gotten misplaced pretty drastically and hopefully are still out there.
<< <i>I'm not expecting to do this but what's the worse that could happen if I do not refund. Obviously, a negative feedback but any type of legal recourse on his part. >>
You have to give him something back. Negative feedback isn't a big deal but some people get real offended when they think they've been ripped off. Lots of goofy people out there who might think $200 is worth a 10 hour drive. You really never know who's on the other keyboard.
My Auctions
looks like I'll be banking on that Chicago/Arizona under tonight to get my $200 to send....
<< <i>looks like I'll be banking on that Chicago/Arizona under tonight to get my $200 to send.... >>
[Madden'95] Oh no ... there's a man down. [/Madden'95]
Arthur
Reverse the situation, had the buyers check been lost wouldn't you want him to resend the check before you send the cards??
Delivery Confirmation is not really proof of anything, it does however satisfy Paypal, but has little other value. I automatically add insurance to anything that sells for over 25.00 I make it optional, but if they do not pay for it I buy it anyway.
You can go to the PO and file a loss rifling form and they might can kick it out, I have had success doing that before. I have also had the bluff work before too, tell them that you will file this report and remind them that USPS takes fraud very seriously and this should get the items found. Many times I have said this and amazingly the card appears in the next 12 to 24 hours.
<< <i>You can go to the PO and file a loss rifling form and they might can kick it out, I have had success doing that before >>
This is what I have done. I'll see what happens.
I make it optional, but if they do not pay for it I buy it anyway."
/////////////////////////////////////////
Good policy.
I insure every item, and the S+H is included in the price. That means
never having to deal with these issues.
I cannot recall if I told you folks this last week, sorry if it is redundant..
Under EBAY's new search scheme, if you list "Insurance Optional $1.35,"
that amount will be added to the shipping amount that shoppers see
on the search results pages.
If your shipping is $3.00, and your insurance is $1.35, the amount
shown in search results pages will be $4.35; AND, it will say nothing
on that page about "insurance included." Thus, your shipping will
appear higher than you intended.
(This is all part of the plan to move EBAY sellers toward "free guaranteed
delivery.")
T&S says that there are now more INR complaints than there are SNADs.
INR is ripe for fraud so that makes sense. Under the new contemplated
S+H scheme, dishonest buyers will usually be dealing with the Postal
Inspectors when they pull their INR nonsense.
storm
<< <i>By late 2007, we will see EBAY shift to a "shipping costs included"
policy. This will stop much of the nonsense, but it will mean that
responsible sellers will be paying FVFs on shipping costs, just as
they do now with PayPal fees. Insurance will be manadtory in all
sales over a certain price point, and the FVFs will hit here, too.
>>
Storm, where did you hear this, or is this just your personal opinion? Very interesting comments...it would really change the way a lot of people do business on Ebay - and probably for the better.
<< <i>By late 2007, we will see EBAY shift to a "shipping costs included"
policy. This will stop much of the nonsense, but it will mean that
responsible sellers will be paying FVFs on shipping costs, just as
they do now with PayPal fees. Insurance will be manadtory in all
sales over a certain price point, and the FVFs will hit here, too.
>>
I don't know if the USPS will allow eBay to profit off of their sevices. That doesn't seem kosher.
My Auctions
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Bill Cobb has talked about the concept for a very
long time. The last town hall and brown bag lunch
both talked about "incenting" sellers to offer free
shipping.
EBAY has wanted to go free S+H for a long time, but
they have met resistance from "the voices." The
voices, as you know, are mostly Power Sellers that
are allowed to have direct input to management.
Most sellers do not want to pay FVFs on shipping;
but, since the buyer pays for those costs anyway,
there is really only a perceived problem... not a
real problem.
It is the only way that the excessive S+H can be
solved. It will level the playing field, and it will
eliminate arguments about fees and insurance.
EBAY will then work like stores in the real world;
you buy something and it is delivered; or, the
insurer handles the claim.
I have plenty of problems with buyers, but my "free
insured mailing" policy assures that I never have
problems about S&H and insurance for lost items.
Sellers simply need to disabuse themselves of the
notion that S+H is a rightfull profit center, price
their items to cover the fees, and look for new
problems to face.
storm
That doesn't seem kosher. "
//////////////////////////////////////////
EBAY already profits from S+H via PayPal fees on S+H fees,
and through PayPal selling some S+H services to sellers.
EBAY also collects FVFs on S+H from the many sellers
who already use "free s+h."
The USPS has no problem with this.
It does not hurt sellers at all unless they have convinced
themselves that they are in the "S+H biz." It will force
competitive pricing, truth-in-pricing, and be good for consumers.
Free S+H delivers qtys of repeat buyers. Even if the first sale
is not a profit maker, repeat sales will be. Also, some folks
buy more than one item at a time; though their incentive to do
so is obviously less with free S+H than it is with so called
"combined shipping."
Buyers like FREE, even though they are ALWAYS the ones
paying for it.
storm
<< <i>"I don't know if the USPS will allow eBay to profit off of their sevices.
That doesn't seem kosher. "
//////////////////////////////////////////
EBAY already profits from S+H via PayPal fees on S+H fees,
and through PayPal selling some S+H services to sellers.
EBAY also collects FVFs on S+H from the many sellers
who already use "free s+h."
The USPS has no problem with this.
It does not hurt sellers at all unless they have convinced
themselves that they are in the "S+H biz." It will force
competitive pricing, truth-in-pricing, and be good for consumers.
Free S+H delivers qtys of repeat buyers. Even if the first sale
is not a profit maker, repeat sales will be. Also, some folks
buy more than one item at a time; though their incentive to do
so is obviously less with free S+H than it is with so called
"combined shipping."
Buyers like FREE, even though they are ALWAYS the ones
paying for it.
storm >>
Hmmm .... very interesting points. Storm, if I may be so bold as to ask your opinion, do you foresee a difference in results depending on the amount a person sells? Meaning, would the free S + H be just as beneficial for someone who barely sells as it would for those who do it full-time?
Makes sense though. I may start doing that with the few auctions I put up since I only sell domestically.
Arthur
barely sells as it would for those who do it full-time?"
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
The word "free" in the shipping column of the search-results
page, reads the same whether one lists 1 item or 100 items.
It may or may not increase bids/buys, but it costs NOTHING
to try it on a BIN and is a small gamble in auction format.
I admit that I do "free" for self-convenience. I just do not
want to deal with people asking me to "combine shipping," "reduce
shipping," "use a cheaper shipping method," and all the other
nonsense that penny-wise buyers can throw out there.
I want as little interaction as possible twixt me and the buyer.
He pays, I ship what he bought. If its lost/damaged, he's
covered and there is no opportunity for him to waste my
mental energy on petty nonsense.
I want repeat buyers that buy from me outside of EBAY,
and "free" insured shipping has helped me get those
buyers.
"Free" Insured S+H just simplifies things so much.
As FG says, "One less thing to worry about."
And, remember, the BUYER IS paying for the 'free" shipping
on BIN items, which are 99% of my biz. I only run auctions
to get folks into the stores.
When I do list -- which is rare -- I always put up auctions but you're point is relevant. People love to think they're getting something for free and that may grab an extra bidder or two.
Thanks again,
Arthur
I also forsee this coming and in alot of ways I am in full suppourt to it. Not so much for sports cards, but another category I sell in is overrun by high shipping costs. I report all I can, but it gets redundant after a while.
I sell in is overrun by high shipping costs."
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ditto.
Cards are what we talk about here, but there are MUCH
worse abuses in most other categories.
<< <i>However, in the same way that he would be out $200 with no cards, I'd be out of 2 cards worth $200 should I simply send him a check for $200. As I said, it just sucks all the way around. >>
...you've left out one thing you have gained and that's a valuable lesson.
Imagine how much worse it would be if the lesson cost you $2000 instead of $200.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Sorry Wufdude, but you should have insured your package. The buyer really has no control over shipping and insurance is meant as protection for the seller. However, I have heard of packages arrive months later just because. Tell the buyer you will refund his money but at the same time should be on the look out for the package. If the package arrives safely, he should reimburse you then.
If a buyer pays via paypal and the seller does not insure the package because buyer is not paying for insurance, the seller is not out of trouble. If the package gets lost, the buyer just has to file under Paypal and he wins the case easy. Yet, I still read about seller's terms that they don't want to be responsible for lost packages. Well, they have one thing coming. [no need for buyer to pay for insurance if seller accepts paypal]
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Yes, I collect shiny modern crap
All your Shaq are belong to me
I can't understand how the seller could not cough up the 4.00. It is afterall his responcibility to get the item to the buyer.
regardless of the profit margin here the 4.00 would have been money well spent.
Steve
Because the sellers legal responsibility is getting the items purchased to him in the condition they were bought in. Insurance protects the seller. Had the buyer paid with Paypal, Paypal would be refunding the buyer because the DC does not show delivered.
If I had been the seller they would have been sent registered mail wit insurance.
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
If a seller states in his auction he accepts no responsibility I use the back button. If you take Paypal that statement means nothing to them at all. I am a regular on one of the Ebay boards and we see it everyday where Paypal refunds buyers when the seller stated that in their listing.
There is no rule that says the seller cannot attempt to get the buyer to pay for insurance, but if the seller cannot afford to refund or lose that money if something goes bad he better insure it for his protection.
I insure everything that I send out over 25.00 regardless of if the buyer pays for it or not.
If you choose to bid on one of those auctions use Paypal so you will be protected
can be abrogated by amateur disclaimers of risk will likely soon
result in EBAY becoming a "PayPal ONLY" venue.
Lots of EBAY sellers find it convenient to blame the venue for the
fact that buyers are vanishing in unprecedented numbers. The
real blame lies with the overly-egalitarian approach that EBAY
took to creating small-business opportunities for people who
would really be better off employed by large companies that
operate under long-accepted principles of commerce.
Bad sellers - those who think they have no duty to deliver goods
sold - may think that their exploits go down in a vacuum, but they
are wrong. Word-of-mouth is the most powerful business builder/
killer; everybody who has dealt with such sellers has told a friend,
who has told a friend, who has told a neighbor. EBAY faces rough
times ahead as a result of the conduct that it has permitted on the
part of its sellers; that conduct is now legend among consumers.
When the reforms finally come, most of the irresponsible sellers
will be gone and we can start the tough process of bringing
back the good buyers that we all once enjoyed.
In the meantime, it is important for buyers to understand that
they should only deal with sellers that they know and trust, and
that virtually ALL transactions should be done through PayPal,
using a credit card. PayPal and the credit card companies have
no patience for vendors who think the buyer is at fault "because
he didn't buy insurance."
storm
Doing so would force them to give up their venue
only status this would in turn make them liable for
any fraud committed on their site. Right now they
can use that as a shield to protect them."
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
The venue status would be preserved by simply charging
sellers a small annual-membership fee to use the venue.
Even that would really not be necessary.
The venue veil has actually already been pierced through
sundry VERO litigation. EBAY is simply arguing, at this time,
that decisions/settlements in VERO actions - either by
mere enforcement or litigation - do not apply "as a general
principle to other claims that may arise."
Properly framed, new attacks on the "venue only status"
would certainly prevail. EBAY's standard defense of "lack
of intent" and "absence of prior knowledge" will now fall
flat when their cummulative conduct is examined. They
know what kind of crimes are going down and they
fully intend to profit from them.
EBAY knows that their "venue only" nonsense is out the
window; they just hope few others know it, too.
Until recently, Amazon has used a proprietary payment
system with no concern for "venue only" issues. If
GOOGLE gets stupid and jumps in big, sellers will ALL
use GOOGLE Checkout, or they will not be sellers.
PayPal stores - almost 50K of them - are portaled from
the PP site and venue status remains intact. All but the
largest stores are PayPal only.
storm
It would still be feasible to run 99-centers, if the item
was high-value or high-demand. Otherwise, obviously,
it would not work. (I run lots of 1-cent and 99-cent
auctions - but they are just for advertising - and I offer
free s+h on those, too.)
No matter what action the venue takes on shipping, we
can all expect to pay more and receive less value for our
money. That is simply the nature of the publicly-traded
EBAY. They currently believe that they can price most of
us off the site and still make lots of money.
On these boards we have all heard MANY buyers say,
"I just calculate the cost of the shipping into what I
am willing to bid for the item."
If shipping is "free," will those same buyers use a
similar calculation? I dunno.
storm