Locked
Discussions in this board are limited to the original poster and Community Mentors
The UCC vs. eBay on the Issue of Fraudulent Sales
Summary: shanirvin-0 reported a dispute with a seller over a defective digital camera claimed to be "working and tested." Despite attempts to resolve the issue through eBay's return process, the case was closed as the seller declined the return request. shanirvin-0 argued the decision based on the timeline of discovery and expressed frustration with eBay's policies, suggesting they contradict legal standards. inceptions advised using eBay's Money Back Guarantee earlier and pursuing a chargeback. The discussion highlighted procedural misunderstandings and accusations of policy violations.
In my complaint about the seller selling me a defective digital camera, I'm told that the seller declined the return request, and that's the end of the matter. This wrongly closed case (Order number:27-14697-67069) involves fraud upon the inducement of the sale. To my detriment, I purchased a digital camera that the seller expressly said was "working and tested." In fact, the seller never tested the camera, and the camera does not work. That false express warranty involves fraud in the inducement, which is both a crime and a tort under California law. I haven’t seen a credit to eBay or a credit to my bank account either, so I’m guessing I lost. I want to appeal that loss.
Here's the timeline: I purchased the camera on June 3rd and received it on June 8th, and later ordered accessories for the camera on eBay. Upon arrival, the smart card (order number:22-14776-61909) on June 26th, I first discovered that there was already a card in the camera, which was displaying a "No Card" message. After removing the old card and putting in the new card, it still displayed the no-card message. This shows that the camera was not tested, as the seller would have had to know that the camera had a card already in it for it to have been tested. I was not able to discover the defect until I received a smart card on eBay on June 26th. On June 27th, I contacted the seller about the defect, and the seller replied, “For the duration of your possession of the camera from the day of purchase is a really long time to be coming back with this issue. If you had brought this up within 24-48 hours upon arrival i would understand. But it’s been about 3 weeks, and a lot could happen within that time frame.” The seller is relying solely on the defense of laches (waiting too long). Laches is not an appropriate defense in this case since the time of discovery and the time of reporting the issue to the seller was only a matter of hours.
I've been looking for answers to my specific case, but how do I get past being suggested various eBay articles as a resolution when I'm trying to appeal my personal case? Is there any way to get human intervention? This is what I got:
"Hi Shane,
The return request for the item has been closed.
You can always view the return details for more information."
To allow sellers to simply state "no returns accepted," after fraudulently and expressly claiming that a product is "working and tested (see seller's advertisement), and not require the seller to return the money when the buyer knowingly made a false claim about the product, is not a just resolution when a sale outside of eBay would render a remedy under under UCC Article 2, sales fraud allows a deceived party to cancel the contract and pursue monetary damages. That's the American standard when fraud is involved, as in this case. There are also criminal statutes that cover fraudulent sales (see Theft by False Pretenses (Penal Code § 532 PC)).
Keep in mind that this camera was not sold as "as is"; it was expressly warrantied as working by the seller, and the seller stated in writing that the camera had been tested. The purchases I made for accessories on eBay show that I detrimentally relied on the promise of a working and tested camera. The only thing I'm told by eBay as to my complaint was that the seller declined, and the case was being closed.
This case involves a fraud in the inducement being committed by the seller. Why have I not been issued a credit when circumstantial evidence clearly demonstrates that the seller knowingly sold the camera untested, and had the seller tested the camera, they would have known of the defect? This is clearly a falsehood in writing, and eBay simply says, "Seller declined." This is no longer about the money ($67.06); this is about how eBay has trained its AI to be out of sync with the Uniform Commercial Code, which, outside of eBay, is the law of the land. Without the conformity of laws between eBay AI and the UCC, what's to stop this seller from continuing to defraud people, knowing that eBay has their backside covered? Can I now sell all MY garbage on eBay without having to worry about giving people their money back?
eastlaneave
MentorJul 10, 2026 at 11:31 PM@shanirvin-0
If a digital camera is Not As Described, you have 14 days from receipt to file a Return Request.
You can read more here:
https://www.ebay.com/help/buying/returns-refunds/return-item-refund?id=4041
You can file a chargeback with your payment method if you missed the deadline.
inceptions
MentorJul 10, 2026 at 11:12 PMHI @shanirvin-0
Sorry this happened to you, but all you had to do was follow the Money Back Guarantee which was mentioned in the return details on the item listing if the seller had a no returns policy.
Had you opened a case for an item that did not match the description and the seller didn't voluntarily handle the return within three days, eBay would have forced him to refund once you asked eBay to step in.
At this point, you can contact your credit card company about a chargeback.
shanirvin-0
OPJul 10, 2026 at 11:54 PMThe seller advertised the camera as not having a card, and I should have had a reasonable time to order the card, which I did. The first card I ordered didn't fit, as the camera was older. After finding a new card, I immediately notified the seller of the defect. What you don't seem to understand is that the case was reported on June 27th, which was only hours after I had an opportunity to test the camera for the first time. In California, where I live and received the item, I can guarantee that this is not acceptable. The appeal process here in California starts when the defect is found. I have a question for you: are you a real person or are you eBay AI, cheerleader?
shanirvin-0
OPJul 11, 2026 at 12:01 AM7. Listing Conditions
When listing an item for sale on our Services, you agree to comply with eBay's Listing policies and Selling practices policy and also agree that:
You assume full responsibility for the item offered and the accuracy and content of the listing, including listing content created using tools offered by eBay or third parties [sic] such as translation, image editing, and generative artificial intelligence tools
shanirvin-0
OPJul 10, 2026 at 9:45 PMI would highly recommend that eBay purchase my book on Barnes & Noble, Executive Juris Doctor, and read it into their AI so their AI can be in sync with American legal standards. Just a suggestion.
inceptions
MentorJul 10, 2026 at 11:18 PM@shanirvin-0
I would highly recommend you reread the eBay user agreement you signed which describes the Money Back Guarantee. See Section 14, Additional Terms > eBay Money Back Guarantee.
https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/member-behaviour-policies/user-agreement?id=4259
shanirvin-0
OPJul 10, 2026 at 11:42 PM · EditedI don't know where you got your law degree, but let me make this as simple as possible. The camera was warranted as working and tested; it was not working or tested. That means the seller committed fraud in the inducement. You obviously don't understand what fraud is. Why don't you do me a favor and point out in the eBay agreement in sec. 14 where eBay allows false statements to induce a sale. I have pointed out the applicable UCC and California criminal statutes on fraud. Explain how eBay is above the law.
inceptions
Mentor3 weeks ago · Edited@shanirvin-0
I understand that the item was not as described. That's why you should have taken advantage of eBay's Money Back Guarantee and opened a return for an item that didn't match the description as I've already stated. That's how you make it simple.
It's not necessary to repeat the problem you had multiple times. The process to get your money back is simple when you follow it.
Also, be advised that using the community boards to attempt to sell your book off eBay is a policy violation. Again, refer to the user agreement.
Since you allowed the deadline to pass without taking advantage of eBay's guarantee, your next step is to contact your credit card company about a chargeback, again as already stated.
monroe67
Mentor3 weeks ago · Edited"I would highly recommend you read my book on business law, Executive Juris Doctor, by Shane Patrick Ir.vine. . . . ."
(Edited to remove OP's reference to a retail source for his book.)
Posting those two sentences here in the eBay Community's Ask A Mentor forum is a violation of eBay policy.
And it is the second time you've mentioned your own book within this thread.
I believe that's more than a little bit self-serving.
You'll be very lucky if the community moderators do not remove your blatant sales pitch.
Which would also mean you'd be lucky if nobody reported your post(s) to the moderators as "inappropriate content."