Options
Hypothetical: Scam
stealer
Posts: 4,039 ✭✭✭✭
How would one go about proving to PayPal/eBay or both that the coin was never sent by the seller?
0
Comments
The buyer doesn't have to prove anything.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
<< <i>It's up to the seller to prove that he sent it, via a delivery confirmation.
The buyer doesn't have to prove anything. >>
What if it's a transaction outside of eBay?
Just a face to face transaction say BST-esque style but no forum to back up the seller.
In other words open ended transaction. How would the buyer prove that the item was never sent?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>There's no proof of anything in a hypothetical. One doesn't need to prove anything. If it's outside of eBay and a handshake deal, you're on your own. eBay and PayPal are not there to deal with alleged scammers. They're protecting their own interests and their customers' Playing outside of those parameters comes the great "caveat": "know who you're dealing with" >>
Hmm, but I called PayPal and they said as long as I pay in one lump sum it won't matter whether or not the transaction is through eBay and that I would be protected by PayPal against frauds. Can anyone vouch for that?
<< <i>It's up to the seller to prove that he sent it, via a delivery confirmation.
The buyer doesn't have to prove anything. >>
What would delivery confirmation prove??? Only that a package was delivered... doesn't really prove that the buyer received the package (could have been stolen from doorstep or mailbox) and it doesn't prove the coin was in the box (could have been empty or filled with rocks).
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
by delivery confirmation, ends up in some other person's mail? The mail person scans it as delivered, and you, as a buyer,
will be hosed (after all, it shows it was delivered). You honestly did not receive the item, someone else did by mistake. This
scenario has happened to me twice in the last six months. Fortunately, both times I did end up receiving the items, but what
if I had not? The online tracking showed delivery was complete the day before... That is what got me thinking about it.
John
SFC, US Army (Ret.) 1974-1994
.
also add buyer receives item without confirmation but claims never received
i think i've had this happen to me on some low dollar items that I've since stopped selling, partly due to potential fraud and also high cost/fee to value ratio
it is too bad about the low dollar items because although it takes a lot of them to make any decent money if one could sell thousands it'd be worth paying someone and taking a slice
.
non machinable postage .64 (under 1 oz) .81 (under 2oz) and paypal minimum .30+.029% - nearly $1 in fees before we discuss any profit :-/
.
.
so risk vs reward for my experience just isn't worth the nuisance of the message, "where is my item" can't stand that one personally
depending on value of item I just issue a refund without question, keep my quality of life high not debating if they actually received it or not - quality of life seems to be highly underrated
good thing del/sig confirm is only a couple bucks or less.
.
.
<< <i>How do you prove to PayPal/eBay that the coin was never sent by the seller? >>
What kind of question is this? You can't prove anything if you're 1000 miles away, can you?
Time to use a little common sense.
<< <i>A rule of thumb to remember in all of these scenarios. Legally, title to the goods passes to the buyer upon "mailing", unless the parties have made an agreement otherwise. So in absence of any agreement, the risk of loss is borne by the "owner". The owner is the seller until he places the item in the mail. At that point, title passes and the risk of loss passes. It's the buyer's problem if it is lost in the mail - unless the parties agree otherwise. Ebay and Paypal can contractually change all that in their rules. But if you have no agreement or contractual protection from a source like EBay or Paypal, the risk of loss is the buyer's as soon as it is placed in the mail. The seller only has to prove that he placed it in the mail with proper postage and a proper address. >>
Wrong
<< <i>
<< <i>A rule of thumb to remember in all of these scenarios. Legally, title to the goods passes to the buyer upon "mailing", unless the parties have made an agreement otherwise. So in absence of any agreement, the risk of loss is borne by the "owner". The owner is the seller until he places the item in the mail. At that point, title passes and the risk of loss passes. It's the buyer's problem if it is lost in the mail - unless the parties agree otherwise. Ebay and Paypal can contractually change all that in their rules. But if you have no agreement or contractual protection from a source like EBay or Paypal, the risk of loss is the buyer's as soon as it is placed in the mail. The seller only has to prove that he placed it in the mail with proper postage and a proper address. >>
Wrong >>
Yes ... very wrong.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>A rule of thumb to remember in all of these scenarios. Legally, title to the goods passes to the buyer upon "mailing", unless the parties have made an agreement otherwise. So in absence of any agreement, the risk of loss is borne by the "owner". The owner is the seller until he places the item in the mail. At that point, title passes and the risk of loss passes. It's the buyer's problem if it is lost in the mail - unless the parties agree otherwise. Ebay and Paypal can contractually change all that in their rules. But if you have no agreement or contractual protection from a source like EBay or Paypal, the risk of loss is the buyer's as soon as it is placed in the mail. The seller only has to prove that he placed it in the mail with proper postage and a proper address. >>
Nope. This is completely incorrect.
<< <i>Everyone so far disagrees. Maybe I am wrong. But my understanding, fair or not, is that if there is no agreement, then the contract between the parties is interpreted as a "shipment" contract, requiring the seller to "ship". If there is an agreement that the seller will "deliver" then he must do so. However, absent any agreement, my understanding is that the law interprets the contract as a "shipment" contract. I'm no expert, so I'll certainly listen and retract my statements if I'm wrong. >>
You've had three people state that you were wrong... how many more people do you need to "listen" to?
A while back, I returned an item to an Ebay seller for a refund. That seller dragged his feet for a while and didn't return my emails. I sent the item signature confirmation, and was able to scan the signature of someone in their house who had signed for the package. After notifying the Ebay seller of this, I was promptly refunded my money.
.....just one real life example of how it played out.
......I collect old stuff......
<< <i>
<< <i>Everyone so far disagrees. Maybe I am wrong. But my understanding, fair or not, is that if there is no agreement, then the contract between the parties is interpreted as a "shipment" contract, requiring the seller to "ship". If there is an agreement that the seller will "deliver" then he must do so. However, absent any agreement, my understanding is that the law interprets the contract as a "shipment" contract. I'm no expert, so I'll certainly listen and retract my statements if I'm wrong. >>
You've had three people state that you were wrong... how many more people do you need to "listen" to?
Telling him he's wrong and providing reasonable evidence that he IS wrong, are two completely different things.
I'd like to hear an explanation for what dlmtorts is saying since ship and deliver can be interpreted differently from a legal standpoint.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Everyone so far disagrees. Maybe I am wrong. But my understanding, fair or not, is that if there is no agreement, then the contract between the parties is interpreted as a "shipment" contract, requiring the seller to "ship". If there is an agreement that the seller will "deliver" then he must do so. However, absent any agreement, my understanding is that the law interprets the contract as a "shipment" contract. I'm no expert, so I'll certainly listen and retract my statements if I'm wrong. >>
You are confusing at least two legal theories...
1) The "mailbox rule" only applies to contract law when the use of the mail is proffered as a form of acceptance to the terms of an offer.
For example, say you're shopping for car insurance. You find an insurance policy and agree to the terms and conditions written on the policy and do whatever is required by the insurance company to obtain the policy. You drop it in the mailbox, and the next day your car is stolen. The insurance company cannot claim that you didn't have a policy because they were not yet notified. This rule only applies to acceptance of an offer.
2) An agreement to buy and sell something does not magically morph into a "shipment contract" (whatever that is) when the commodity being sold requires delivery through the mail. The is property law, and title to the property, especially tangible property, does not transfer until possession.
Exactly. Please provide link to legal statute.
-Keith
UCC 2-509
(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier
(a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but
(b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.
The general interpretation of this statute by the case law is that if the contract is silent then it is a "shipment" contract under (a). If the contract specifically calls for delivery of the item, then (b) applies. But most contracts are silent on that term so that the contract is a "shipment" contract. That was simply my statement of the general rule of which we all should be aware so that we can ask people to "deliver" purchases to us rather than "ship" them to us.
If the UCC does not apply then my rationale is incorrect. My rationale was not based upon the "mailbox" rule. Under property law, dollars and cents logic makes sense. However, if the UCC applies, then we may have a different result than we would all normally believe.
Maybe someone who has more knowledge will chime in and clarify this for us. I did not intend to hijack this thread. Let's get back to the OP's original questions.
<< <i>I am not a consumer rights lawyer so my response is from general knowledge and could very well be wrong. But here is my rationale. The Uniform Commercial Code applies to the sale of consumer "goods". Goods is very broadly defined as "all things which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale..." Assuming coins are "goods", here is the language from the UCC -
UCC 2-509
(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier
(a) if it does not require him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (Section 2-505); but
(b) if it does require him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery. >>
A few things...
1) The UCC is itself, not law. It is a recommendation of laws designed to stream-line interstate commercial transactions and resolve contractual disputes. States either adopt these recommendations, or not.
2) I'm not sure that a private sales transaction between two individuals, interstate or not, qualifies as a "commercial transaction" thus falling under the domain of the UCC.
If we're talking about the sale of a single coin for the purpose of a collecting hobby, I would think that this is more closely categorized as a transfer of property. No?
"A car is a tool that takes you from one place to another. Everything beyond that is a payment for other people's perception of you."
<< <i>1) The UCC is itself, not law. It is a recommendation of laws designed to stream-line interstate commercial transactions and resolve contractual disputes. States either adopt these recommendations, or not.
<< <i>2) I'm not sure that a private sales transaction between two individuals, interstate or not, qualifies as a "commercial transaction" thus falling under the domain of the UCC. >>
Dollars&Cents - You may be correct. But, while the UCC itself is not law, it has been adopted as statutory law in almost all 50 states.
Also, a good many of our purchases as collectors come from dealers - or merchants. Wouldn't that be covered under the UCC as a commercial transaction? If I bought a coin from you through a private transaction, that may not be covered under UCC. But if I bought a coin from you as a coin dealer or merchant that would be no different than buying a good from any other merchant and may be covered by the UCC.
None of this matters for purchases through ebay or paypal as they have their own contractual rules that bind everyone and specifically address the situation. I was simply mentioning this in response to the OP so that we would all be aware that a contract that calls for a coin to be "shipped" to us, may mean exactly that and nothing more! Under the UCC, the seller's obligation would be met when he "shipped" the coin.
I believe this would legally be the case only if the sales contract specified FOB (Freight On Board).
"A car is a tool that takes you from one place to another. Everything beyond that is a payment for other people's perception of you."
<< <i>Back to the question at hand, paypal buyer protection covers paypal payments outside of ebay. Seller has to prove delivery same as he would with an ebay sale. If you haven't received item or refund in reasonable amount of time open paypal dispute to speed things up. >>
Thank you derryb.
That is exactly what I'm looking for!
Edit: when paying for the item should I mark it as goods or etc?