Policy; a thought

[mobley120]

Now, I might be wrong about this, but,

It's my understanding that returns are to be returned in the same condition as shipped and by the same method as shipped.

Here's the thought, if any particular item was shipped with free shipping, shouldn't the item be returned with free shipping?

😁

[lacemaker3]

@mobley120,

That's almost true but not quite.

1. Returns are to be made in the same condition as the item was received (which might not be the same as when the seller shipped it if it got damaged during shipping).
    
2. Returns are to be shipped back using the eBay return shipping label (if available).
   • if the return is for a Not as Described reason, the seller pays for the return shipping.
   • If the return is for a Buyer Remorse reason, the seller's return policy determines who pays for the return shipping; buyer (usually) or seller (free returns).

[xadexane]

---

@mobley120 wrote:

Now, I might be wrong about this, but,

It's my understanding that returns are to be returned in the same condition as shipped and by the same method as shipped.

Here's the thought, if any particular item was shipped with free shipping, shouldn't the item be returned with free shipping?

😁

---

It is, those are the exact words, actually. 

Why do you ask?

[pjcdn2005]

An item does not automatically get free return shipping just because original shipping was free. If the seller had free returns then of course it’s free but the op didn’t mention free returns.

[mobley120]

"Why do you ask"

Just pondering with Pun.

As we all know, in a technical sense, there's "truly" no such thing as free shipping. 

And, no policies should be loosely conceived and create for entities to adhere to, or to be able to take advantage of any such policies.

It's like this, if I shipped something by priority, or otherwise and denotes it, as free, then, in a certain logical sense, I'd theorize it should be returned in the same manner: free, as in, also free for me: no back-charges allowed. 😁.

One of the reasons that I rarely sell items on ebay, is due to their return policy. But there are other reasons also.

It would seem, that, in the light of returns; due to that return policy: some of times its a better economical choice to abandon the item with the buyer rather than paying for the return shipping cost. Ugh!

And since certain non reputable buyers are aware of such, I'd surmise they take full advantage of it, thus, driving-up prices. And with that in mind, in a particular sense, eBay is abetting shadowed shoplifting. 

I'll note this: in the past, I sold an item, and the item was package in a 

certified packaging container. And due to the weight of the item, I shipped it by insured ground, it was the most economical way to ship it. The buyer left great feedback upon receiving the item. However, exactly 27 days after they received the item, they opened a return request: item defective. Now, let me note this: the item was fully functional and, in like new condition... I had to accept the return and pay for the return shipping. This is what I received back, the packaging container was twice the size of the original shipping certificated container, in which increase the shipping cost by almost 10%; and the padding within that returned container was like trash, yes, like trash from a trashcan. The item that was returned was a gutted mechanic, and the only thing original to the item, was the very bottom base of it.

I could go on and on about the looseness of that policy and how it is enforce, but that'd be like throwing words to the wind.

Anyway, thanks for responding.

[mobley120]

---

@pjcdn2005 wrote:

An item does not automatically get free return shipping just because original shipping was free. If the seller had free returns then of course it’s free but the op didn’t mention free returns.

---

Exactly 👍

[mobley120]

---

@lacemaker3 wrote:

@mobley120,

That's almost true but not quite.

1. Returns are to be made in the same condition as the item was received (which might not be the same as when the seller shipped it if it got damaged during shipping).
    
2. Returns are to be shipped back using the eBay return shipping label (if available).
   • if the return is for a Not as Described reason, the seller pays for the return shipping.
   • If the return is for a Buyer Remorse reason, the seller's return policy determines who pays for the return shipping; buyer (usually) or seller (free returns).

---

So with the above in mind, can it be assumed that the buyer can begrudgingly return an item in a container 3 times the size of the original container, and also by express mail, without any probs?

It's my reasoning that items should be returned by the same method in which they were shipped. And with that said, it is widely accepted that free shipping is exactly what it's called: free shipping. And, in the light of my reasoning and theorizing, for the seller to have to pay a back shipping cost, would fall into the realm of Double Standards.

Huh, call it manipulating, not so, I'd beg to call it an adherence to a standard that is wildly accepted; with a touch of offset against the opposite actors in the light of returns. 😄 Yeah!

[stainlessenginecovers]

Same Condition and Same Shipping Type are not the same as 'Same Shipping Cost'. 

[mobley120]

Good point, Stainlessenginecovers.

But I beg to differ a bit, as I do believe cost determines shipping type, thus the facets are intertwined with one another. 

I've noticed in many listings the shipping types are simply denoted as econo ship. And as far as my awareness, I don't think tracking shows ship type or cost nor size or weight; and cost of ship type doesn't have to be disclosed on the label. 

So here's the point: a seller can ship first-class in the most economical package, as possible, or even a product's denoted certified package for any particular item. But the buyer doesn't have to worry about such details, the buyer can trash the original package, certified package or not, it doesn't matter to them, them after a few days go by, the buyers can accidentally break the item or whatever, them submit a return request through eBay; them slap the item in whatever box they have, then throw some duck tape on it; then print or purchase a priority label, because that label is free, according to eBay. And the buyer has a pretty good motive to go the priority labeling route, or perhaps even express, as it will hasten their refund.

My argument is, the sellers shipping type and shipping cost is free, thus the item should be returned by the same shipping type and cost as denoted in the listing. If the item is shipped for free, the item should be returned, free, without the seller absorbing the cost.

If eBay wants to offer free returns without proper assessment and judgment of any such returns, then that's fine and dandy, but don't pass that cost onto the seller with systematic and haphazard judgements.

And besides, it truly isn't accurate to try and separate the facets of type and cost from a the method.

Good point though 🙂

[mobley120]

Gonna add this little bit to my previous comments:

Adherence to the policy: eBay's banister should read like this, Free Returns (then in tiny tiny print, really tiny print) excluding free shipping items.

Well, although that would seem to be confusing, but that's normal, plus it's in tiny tiny print.

What would that accomplished, more sellers offering items with free shipping, a plus for eBay, less disgruntled sellers; meaning less stress on sellers. And perhaps fewer bogus returns, and that would seem to be a plus for eBay and sellers.

And would that hurt the overall picture, doubtful. And why, well, the tiny tiny print, plus there are other sellers who offer their own return policies, which might include free returns in certain cases.

Okay, I'm done 😏

[richard1rst · Accepted solution]

---

@mobley120 wrote:

Now, I might be wrong about this, but,

It's my understanding that returns are to be returned in the same condition as shipped and by the same method as shipped.

Here's the thought, if any particular item was shipped with free shipping, shouldn't the item be returned with free shipping?

---

Abraham Lincoln once asked: If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have.

I’ll save you the trouble - the answer is 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

LIKEWISE

Calling it free shipping does not mean it was ACTUALLY free.

Yes, the buyer did not pay any extra for the shipping but you the seller DID pay for the postage. So it is perfectly understandable that YOU should pay for the return shipping. Which is to say that the buyer GOT it for no extra shipping charge and therefore the buyer does not have to pay to get it back to you. BUT regrettably the post office expects to be paid. Since YOU paid the outgoing postage you must also pay the return shipping.

Linguistic folderal is fun but completely irrelevant.

[mobley120]

Well argued, Sir Richard.

A Binding Document can easily find its way to a court, for a judge to hear arguments from both sides to how the wording in that document is to be adhered to.

It's like this: if the wording in a project contract states, "the borrow is to be obtained off site:" does that mean somewhere other than the project's site or does it mean the project's site?🤔

Now, why that is in litigation, is due to a cost factor. 

Your argumentative reasoning is good.

Ah, the Lincoln quote might be simplistic, but it "truly" is a very powerful analogy.

👍🙂

[mobley120]

I'd like to add the following:

In the contact scenario, yes, the contract's wording is loosely conceived. The complainant's premise is that they interpreted the statement, as previously mentioned, to mean off the project's site, thus pricing it accordingly to that interpretation.

The defendant argues, otherwise.

Both sides have strong; valid argumentums even though the complainant had but 1 attorney, whereas the defendant had 5.

Here's the catch, so to say: the defendant is a mega potato, whereas the complainant is a very small potato. But it can be said, most people are knowledgeable about the story of David and Goliath.

However, in that fictitious scenario as mentioned, there be another catch: the defendant be the Government: whom would triumph?

😏

[mobley120]

 

 free shipping -- shipping free

😂😂🤣😂😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣 

So, my conclusion is, free shipping is just a lie: a con job, so to speak, as the words "free shipping" doesn't offer any true semantic presence: it's just fantasy.

If a highly intellectual alien from a far away Galaxy beyond the thrones of wisdom visited me, and asked me to describe humans with 1 word, I'd quickly reply, _____ ?

Ok, I'm quite done, 😁